Case Law Article Examines Calculation of Pages of Prosecution Evidence and Special Preparation Fees in Criminal Legal Aid Remuneration

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3033 (SCCO)
Judgment on


The case of Lloyds PR Solicitors v The Lord Chancellor deals with an appeal within the context of criminal legal aid remuneration, raising issues around the calculation of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) and the applicability of special preparation fees. The case engages with principles related to remuneration under The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and raises questions about the consideration of evidence presented in different formats.

Key Facts

The defendant, Khaleel Siddiquee, was charged with drug-related offenses and possession of fraudulent articles, leading to a criminal trial with a significant volume of documentary evidence. The litigator made a claim for remuneration based on a class K, 6-day trial with 10,000 PPE, which was subsequently reassessed to a lower page count and reclassified as a class B trial. The disputed issue on appeal concerns the litigator’s claim that an additional 1,943 pages of reorganized evidence prepared by an investigating officer should count towards PPE rather than as special preparation.

In resolving the dispute, several key legal principles emerge:

  1. Definition and Counting of PPE: The case turned on the interpretation of the regulations outlining what constitutes PPE and how it is counted. According to paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2013 Regulations, PPE includes witness statements, exhibits, and records of interviews, provided in paper or electronic form.

  2. Duplication of Evidence: The case addresses the important issue of duplication in evidence. If documents are presented in different formats but contain the same information as material already remunerated as PPE, the question arises whether those documents can be counted again within the PPE or if they should be subject to special preparation claims.

  3. Fairness and Remuneration: Linked closely with duplication, the case discusses fairness in remuneration for legal work performed in criminal cases. It specifically considers the extent to which counsel need to engage with evidence that may be duplicative but is nonetheless critical for the defense’s case management.

  4. Analogous Jurisprudence: The judgment refers to other cases, such as R v Napper and R v Everett, to draw parallels and distinctions. Each case assists by providing guidance on when duplicated material can be accounted for within PPE claims or when it should fall within special preparation.


After considering the arguments presented by both parties, Costs Judge Nagalingam held that:

  • A close scrutiny of evidence is necessary when considering its presentation format and its importance to the case.
  • The additional pages of evidence presented in the format chosen by the investigating officer (PC Semple) were significant, but significantly overlapping with PPE already allowed.
  • A fair resolution involved remunerating 20% of the additional pages claimed as PPE, while the remaining could be claimed under special preparation.
  • The Appellant was awarded additional costs and the court fee.


In the Lloyds PR Solicitors appeal, the SCCO had to balance the legal aid cost remuneration provisions against the practical need for lawyers to analyze and engage with evidence that was prepared in a different format by the prosecution. The principles elucidated highlight the ongoing tension between economic concerns and the demands of proper legal representation. The judgment provides a roadmap for legal professionals on how to approach PPE claims and what considerations will be important when claiming for evidence that has been reorganized or presented in a novel manner. The decision underlines the imperative for detailed attention to regulation and case law precedent when making claims for remuneration in legal aid work.