R v Kola

This case involved an appeal by GSG Law Ltd against the determination of the number of prosecution evidence pages (PPE) allowed for calculating the litigators' graduated fee under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

TLDR:

• GSG Law Ltd appealed the determination of 3,141 pages of prosecution evidence.
• The appeal focused on whether electronic evidence should be counted as PPE.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the determining officer's decision.

The appellant, GSG Law Ltd, represented Lorenc Kola, who faced charges of conspiring to supply cocaine. During his arrest, Kola was found with a pink iPhone, described by the prosecution as the controlling phone for the drug operation. The phone's download, totaling 5,116 pages, was considered crucial evidence by the defense.

The determining officer allowed 3,141 pages of prosecution evidence for calculating the graduated fee. GSG Law Ltd argued that all 5,116 pages of the phone download should be included as PPE, citing the importance of the evidence in the case.

The court noted that under the 2013 Regulations, electronic evidence is only counted as PPE if it is sufficiently important to the case. The determining officer concluded that only the communications aspects of the phone download were sufficiently important, thus allowing 3,141 pages as PPE.

GSG Law Ltd failed to provide a detailed explanation of why all the phone's contents needed to be considered as PPE. The court emphasized that the solicitors needed to demonstrate the importance of the electronic evidence to justify its inclusion as PPE.

The court referenced the leading case of Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors, which outlines the two-stage test for including electronic evidence as PPE. The determining officer's decision was found to be consistent with this precedent.

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that GSG Law Ltd did not adequately address the issues raised by the determining officer. The court reiterated that while all evidence must be reviewed, not all electronic evidence qualifies for remuneration as PPE.

The court concluded that the determining officer correctly applied the regulations and made a reasonable allowance for the PPE. The appeal was dismissed without a hearing, as the solicitors' arguments were insufficient to warrant further consideration.

Legal representatives: GSG Law Ltd (Solicitors), Will Paynter (Counsel for the defendant).

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Rowley

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1323 (SCCO)