Legal Fees Classification in R v Gordon Lamonby: Trial or 'Cracked Trial'?

Citation: [2024] EWHC 22 (SCCO)
Judgment on

Introduction

This article provides an analysis of the case R v Gordon Lamonby, as documented in the judgment [2024] EWHC 22 (SCCO). The central issue pertains to the classification of legal fees under the Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme (LGFS) and hinges on whether the legal proceedings constituted a trial or a ‘cracked trial’. The case law offers an examination of applied legal principles corresponding to the commencement of a trial and appropriate remuneration under the LGFS within the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

Key Facts

The defendant, Gordon Lamonby, faced charges of creating indecent photographs of children. The initial plea was not guilty, and the trial was scheduled for 28th July 2022. Due to the absence of a pre-trial meeting between experts, the trial was adjourned for the preparation of a joint expert report. The unexpected outcome of the experts’ report exonerated Lamonby, leading to the prosecution offering no evidence and Lamonby’s formal acquittal.

The legal question was whether the hearing on 28th July should be paid under LGFS as a trial or a ‘cracked trial’. The Appellants, Altaf Solicitors, contended that it was a trial, while the Respondent, the Legal Aid Agency, classified it as a ‘cracked trial’.

The essential legal principle involved is the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘trial’ versus a ‘cracked trial’ under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The judgment by Costs Judge Whalan establishes that a ‘cracked trial’ occurs when a case does not proceed as anticipated due to various reasons, including a guilty plea or the prosecution offering no evidence.

The case cites crucial decisions, including Lord Chancellor v. Ian Henery Solicitors Limited [2011] EWHC 3246 (QB) and R v. Barnes [2022] EWHC 1539 (SCCO), which contribute to understanding the principles regarding the commencement of a trial. Key points are:

  • The swearing of the jury is not the sole determinant of a trial’s start.
  • A trial may be considered commenced when substantial case management has occurred, even if the jury has not been sworn.
  • Practical adjustments to modern practice, accelerated by the pandemic, allow for certain pre-trial activities to be conducted during what may still be considered the trial.

Outcomes

Upon analysis, the appeal by Altaf Solicitors was allowed. Costs Judge Whalan determined that, although the meeting of experts was held later than prescribed, it involved substantial case management, especially since counsel had the chance to informally question the experts. This process played a pivotal role in the prosecution’s eventual decision not to offer evidence.

This led to the conclusion that the proceedings on 28th July 2022 qualified as a trial in a ‘meaningful sense’, and therefore, the Appellants’ claim was to be assessed within the provisions for a trial under LGFS, rather than a ‘cracked trial’. The decision included the awarding of costs to the Appellants, amounting to £1000 plus VAT and the £100 paid on appeal.

Conclusion

The judgment in R v Gordon Lamonby underscores the nuances in discerning the start of a trial and its implications for legal remuneration. The application of the principles from relevant case law indicates the fluidity in the modern legal practices and acknowledges the evolution in the handling of pre-trial procedures extending into the trial itself. Consequently, the decision exemplifies courts’ willingness to adapt traditional definitions and guidelines to contemporary legal processes, particularly in light of the expert evidence leading to case conclusion without formal trial proceedings.