R vs Tyrone Rowe and Miss Victoria Rose vs The Lord Chancellor

This case involved an appeal by Miss Victoria Rose against the decision on remuneration for her legal representation in a criminal case where her client, Tyrone Rowe, faced charges including attempted murder and assault.

TLDR:

• Miss Victoria Rose appealed against the decision on her remuneration.
• The appeal focused on whether she should be paid for a guilty plea or a cracked trial.
• The High Court ruled in favor of Miss Rose, allowing her appeal.

The background of the case involved Tyrone Rowe, who was charged with attempted murder, possession of a knife, and later, assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The incident occurred on 22 June 2022, involving a violent altercation captured on CCTV. Rowe was arrested and initially answered 'no comment' to all questions.

Proceedings against Rowe started later than his co-defendants due to the timing of his arrest. He appeared in the Magistrates' Court on 14 September 2022 and in the Crown Court on 26 September 2022, where he was unrepresented due to strike action by the Criminal Bar Association. The trial date was set for 5 December 2022.

On 22 November 2022, Rowe indicated a willingness to plead guilty to a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which was later added to the charges. He formally entered this plea on 24 January 2023. The prosecution offered no evidence on the attempted murder charge, and Rowe was found not guilty of this and the possession of a knife charge.

Miss Rose, representing herself in the appeal, argued that she should be remunerated on the basis of a cracked trial rather than a guilty plea. She highlighted the procedural history, including the impact of the CBA strike and the timing of the trial listing.

The High Court considered the relevant regulations and case law, including decisions in similar cases. Costs Judge Nagalingam concluded that the unique circumstances, including the absence of formal arraignment due to the CBA strike, justified treating the case as a cracked trial for remuneration purposes.

The appeal was allowed, and Miss Rose was awarded the cracked trial fee. The decision emphasized the importance of context and procedural fairness in applying remuneration regulations.

Legal representatives: Miss Victoria Rose (Appellant, self-represented), Ms. Weisman (Senior Legal Advisor, Legal Aid Agency for the Respondent).

Judicial Panel: Costs Judge Nagalingam

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1080 (SCCO)