R v Rafiq & Others

This case concerned a dispute over the payment of trial fees under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, involving the interpretation of whether there were one or two indictments against the defendant.

TLDR:

• The appellant argued for two trial fees under the 2013 Regulations.
• The Legal Aid Agency contended only one trial fee and two retrial fees were payable.
• The court found in favor of the appellant, ruling that two full trial fees were payable.

Yates Ardern Solicitors ('the Appellant') represented Mohammed Rafiq ('the Defendant') in proceedings before the Crown Court at Wolverhampton. The defence was funded by Criminal Legal Aid under a Representation Order dated 5 March 2021. The Appellant argued that under the 2013 Regulations, two trial fees and one retrial fee were payable. The Legal Aid Agency ('LAA')'s Determining Officer concluded that one trial fee and two retrial fees were payable.

The appeal turned on whether, for the purposes of the 2013 Regulations, there was only one indictment, or whether there were two indictments against the Defendant. The relevant provisions were found in the Litigators' Graduated Fee Scheme at Schedule 2, as in effect at the date of the Representation Order. Schedule 2 defines a 'case' as proceedings in the Crown Court against any one assisted person on one or more counts of a single indictment.

The Defendant appeared before the Crown Court at Wolverhampton on 19th March 2021, pleading not guilty to one count of conspiracy to murder. The trial commenced on 18th October 2021 but was adjourned due to significant delays and the jury being discharged. A new trial was listed for October 2022 before Mr Justice Bennathan, with an additional charge and two new defendants.

On 23rd June 2022, the Crown uploaded a new indictment, referred to as the 'June 2022 indictment', adding two new defendants and a new offence of perverting the course of justice. The trial commenced on 4th October 2022, and the Defendant was found not guilty of murder but faced a retrial for perverting the course of justice in September 2023, where he was found guilty.

The Appellant argued that the October 2022 trial fee should have been paid in full as a separate new trial fee, not a retrial fee. The new indictment significantly changed the case's complexion, leading to additional evidence and a separate trial on the new charge.

The court concluded that the June 2022 indictment could not be described as a mere amendment to the original indictment. It represented a substantive change, leading to two separate cases. Therefore, two full trial fees were payable for the October 2021 and October 2022 trials. The appeal succeeded.

Legal representatives: Yates Ardern Solicitors for the appellant.

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Leonard

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1319 (SCCO)