R v O'Sullivan
[2024] EWHC 1318 (SCCO)
R v Horsfall
5 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3128 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer appealed because they weren't paid for two separate cases involving their client. Although the prosecution initially wanted to combine the charges, they ended up being separate. The judge agreed that two different fees should be paid, highlighting that the facts of the case are key in determining this.
Key Facts
- •IMS Law Limited appealed a determining officer's decision not to allow a cracked trial fee in addition to a graduated fee under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
- •The appellant represented Vincent Horsfall in two indictments: a possession indictment (Colt Revolver and ammunition) and a conspiracy indictment (conspiracy to possess prohibited weapons for sale).
- •The possession indictment was stayed shortly before the trial of the conspiracy indictment.
- •The appellant argued that the two indictments constituted two separate 'cases' under the 2013 Regulations, entitling them to two fees.
- •The determining officer argued that there was only one case.
Legal Principles
The mere existence of more than one indictment is not sufficient to justify more than one fee if the indictments are essentially administrative or reflect minor amendments.
Numerous costs judge decisions
If indictments are joined, only a single fee is payable.
Implicit in the judge's reasoning
The 'swings and roundabouts' nature of graduated schemes means that joinder of indictments may result in a single fee, but separate indictments may justify separate fees.
Numerous costs judges’ decisions
The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 define what constitutes a 'case'.
Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Outcomes
The appeal was successful.
The two indictments were considered separate and freestanding, despite the prosecution's intention to join them. The work done on the possession indictment was separate and independent from the conspiracy indictment for several months. Even if the conspiracy case had failed, the possession indictment could have proceeded independently.
IMS Law Limited was entitled to the appropriate fee for both indictments, plus costs and the appeal fee.
The judge found the two indictments to be distinct despite the prosecution's ultimately unfulfilled plan to join them. The fact the joinder did not occur allowed two fees to be paid.