R v Lock

This case concerned an appeal by Shaw Graham Kersh solicitors against the decision of the determining officer regarding the calculation of the litigators graduated fee under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

TLDR:

• Shaw Graham Kersh solicitors appealed the fee calculation for a trial and retrial.
• The determining officer considered it a single continuous trial.
• The High Court ruled in favor of the solicitors, recognizing it as a trial followed by a retrial.

The appellant, Shaw Graham Kersh solicitors, represented Terence Lock in a case involving conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Lock, an employee of a law firm, used his position to access information on the court's Digital Case System. The initial trial was set for 10 July 2023 but ended on 13 July 2023 and was relisted for 9 October 2023, concluding on 25 October 2023.

The solicitors claimed fees for a 4-day trial and a 12-day retrial. The determining officer treated it as one continuous trial, referencing the Crown Court Fee Guidance, which states that a new trial must be ordered explicitly by the judge. The guidance also refers to the case of R v Nettleton, which emphasizes the procedural and temporal matrix of the case.

Several factors were considered: the nearly 3-month gap between the two legs, the stage at which the first leg concluded, the comparative length of the legs, changes in advocates and judges, changes in the case, and any comments made by the trial judge. The determining officer found no specific order for a new trial and considered the trial to have been continuous.

However, Mr. Martin McCarthy KC, representing the solicitors, argued that the first leg concluded with the jury being discharged, and significant new evidence was introduced before the retrial. Additionally, there was a change in representation between the two legs. The High Court agreed with McCarthy, noting the substantial gap and the need for further preparation as indicators of a retrial.

The High Court concluded that the determining officer's decision was incorrect. The gap between the hearings, the introduction of new evidence, and the change in representation pointed to a retrial rather than a continuation of the original trial. The appeal was successful, and the solicitors were entitled to the recalculated fee and costs of the appeal.

This case underscores the importance of detailed case management and the implications of procedural decisions on legal aid remuneration.

Legal representatives: Mr. Martin McCarthy KC for Shaw Graham Kersh solicitors.

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Rowley

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1324 (SCCO)