R vs Cobb

This case involved an appeal by Carson Kaye solicitors against a decision to calculate the litigators' graduated fee by reference to a cracked trial rather than as a trial under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

TLDR:

• Carson Kaye solicitors appealed against the determination of costs.
• The appeal concerned the classification of the case as a cracked trial instead of a trial.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision.

The appellant, Carson Kaye solicitors, represented Ian Cobb, who faced charges of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Cobb pleaded guilty to two counts but not guilty to a third. The Crown decided not to pursue the third count, leading to a dispute over whether the case should be classified as a cracked trial or a trial for the purposes of calculating legal fees.

The determining officer concluded that the case was a cracked trial, as there was no evidence of a 'Newton' hearing. A Newton hearing involves a substantial dispute over facts that are material to sentencing, requiring the court to make specific factual findings.

The appellant argued that the basis of plea indicated Cobb's lesser role in the conspiracy, which should qualify the case as a trial. However, the judge found that the submissions made during sentencing did not amount to a Newton hearing.

The High Court reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing. The judge's remarks suggested that Cobb played a significant but not leading role in the conspiracy. The judge balanced the factors of significant and lesser roles in his sentencing remarks.

The High Court noted that the judge did not need to make specific factual findings to sentence Cobb, indicating that the hearing did not meet the threshold for a Newton hearing. The court emphasized that the substance of the hearing, rather than its label, determines its classification.

The High Court concluded that the determining officer correctly assessed the fee based on a cracked trial followed by a sentencing hearing with pleas in mitigation. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original decision.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the distinctions between different types of hearings and their implications for legal costs.

Legal representatives: Mr. Kaye for the appellant, Ms. Weisman for the Legal Aid Agency.

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Rowley

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1322 (SCCO)