R v Adeniji

This case concerned an appeal by Faradays Solicitors against the decision of the determining officer to classify a hearing as a cracked trial rather than a Newton hearing, impacting the remuneration under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

• Faradays Solicitors appealed a decision on the classification of a hearing for remuneration purposes.
• The hearing involved a dispute over the basis of plea regarding drug supply charges.
• The court upheld the decision to classify the hearing as a cracked trial.

The appellant, Faradays Solicitors, represented Michael Adeniji, who faced a three-count indictment for the supply of Class A and B drugs. Adeniji initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty for the Class B drug charge. The prosecution did not proceed with the Class A charges following this plea.

The case was adjourned for consideration of the basis of plea and sentencing. The defense argued that the defendant was supplying cannabis within his social circle, while the prosecution contended he was a commercial dealer. This factual dispute was central to determining the appropriate sentence.

During the hearing, the judge, Recorder Campbell KC, noted the need to resolve the factual dispute. However, the defendant did not wish to give evidence, and the judge concluded that the hearing did not require a Newton hearing but could proceed with submissions from counsel.

The Legal Aid Agency, represented by Mr. Orde, argued that the hearing did not meet the criteria for a Newton hearing as there was no substantial conflict requiring the judge to determine factual issues through live evidence.

The court referred to the case of R v Hoda, which outlined the nature and purpose of a Newton hearing. It emphasized that Newton hearings typically involve live evidence to resolve factual disputes material to sentencing. In this case, the judge's determination was based on submissions rather than live evidence.

The court also considered the case of R v Shehu, where a similar issue was addressed. It concluded that where facts are essentially agreed upon, the hearing does not qualify as a Newton hearing but rather as a sentencing hearing with mitigation submissions.

Ultimately, the court found that the hearing in question did not meet the threshold for a Newton hearing. The judge's comments indicated that the hearing involved submissions on undisputed facts, and the determining officer's classification of the hearing as a cracked trial was upheld.

For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.