Hussain Solicitors vs Determining Officer

This case involved an appeal by Hussain Solicitors against a decision regarding the calculation of a litigator's graduated fee under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

TLDR:

• Hussain Solicitors appealed a decision on fee calculation.
• The issue revolved around whether the trial had commenced in a meaningful sense.
• The High Court ruled in favor of Hussain Solicitors, allowing for a recalculated fee.

Hussain Solicitors represented Stephen Thomas, who faced charges of possessing a prohibited weapon and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs. The case experienced delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with the pre-trial review taking place in February 2022 and the trial listed for October 2022.

On the first day of the trial, issues with jury selection arose, leading to the release of the entire jury panel. The following day, Thomas changed his plea to guilty on two counts, and the remaining charges were left on file. The determining officer classified this as a cracked trial and calculated the fee accordingly.

Hussain Solicitors argued that substantial matters of case management had occurred, thus the trial had commenced in a meaningful sense. They contended that the determining officer's classification was incorrect and sought a recalculated fee.

The High Court considered the guidance from Spencer J in Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors Limited [2011] and analyzed whether the trial had begun in a meaningful sense. The court noted discrepancies between the court log and counsel's recollection of events, particularly regarding the jury selection and the submissions made by the advocates.

The court concluded that substantial matters of case management had indeed taken place, including discussions on procedural issues and the suitability of the jury. These factors justified the conclusion that the trial had commenced in a meaningful sense, even though the jury had not been sworn in.

As a result, the High Court ruled in favor of Hussain Solicitors, allowing for a recalculated fee and awarding the costs of the appeal.

Legal representatives: Martin McCarthy KC for the appellant.

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Rowley

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1325 (SCCO)