R v Lastowski
[2024] EWHC 1854 (SCCO)
R v Victoria Amas
29 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 447 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed a too-low payment for working on a huge amount of evidence in a long, complicated fraud case. The judge agreed the lawyer should be paid more because the initial decision was made with errors in classifying and counting the evidence.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning payment to defence counsel under the Advocates' Graduated Fee Scheme for special preparation.
- •Claim for payment for reviewing prosecution evidence (PPE) exceeding the 10,000-page cap.
- •Case involved a protracted prosecution (over 5.5 years) with numerous delays and a complex fraud case.
- •Key prosecution witness, Mr. Lawlor, provided substantial evidence initially classified as unused material.
- •The defence's strategy involved a 'cut-throat' defence requiring assimilation of extensive evidence.
- •Determining Officer allowed only 54 hours of special preparation, while the appellant claimed 348 hours.
- •Confusion arose due to unclear claim submission and incorrect reference to Schedule 2 instead of Schedule 1 in the Determining Officer's reasons.
Legal Principles
Calculation of PPE page count under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraphs 1(2)-(5).
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Criteria for awarding special preparation fee under Schedule 1, paragraph 17(b) – exceeding 10,000 pages of PPE and the appropriateness of additional payment.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1, paragraph 17(b)
Treatment of electronically served evidence that never existed in paper form. Formal service is not a prerequisite if the evidence is central to the trial (Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB); Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)).
Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB); Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in full.
The appellant is entitled to a special preparation claim for reviewing an additional 20,400 pages of evidence exceeding the PPE cap. The Determining Officer's decision was based on a misunderstanding of the evidence classification and an incorrect page count. The time claimed was deemed reasonable.