R v Tyrone Rowe – High Court of Justice Senior Courts Costs Office – [2024] EWHC 1080 (SCCO) – Case Summary

This case concerned an appeal by Miss Victoria Rose, the appellant advocate, against the redetermination of fees for representing the defendant, Tyrone Rowe, in a criminal matter. The appeal was against the decision to remunerate on the basis of a guilty plea rather than a cracked trial fee. Costs Judge Nagalingam presided over the matter, which involved complex procedural history due to the defendant's initial lack of representation and subsequent plea changes.

TLDR:

• The Defendant, Tyrone Rowe, was charged with attempted murder and other counts, but the trial did not proceed on these counts as the prosecution offered no evidence.
• Miss Victoria Rose, the appellant advocate, claimed a cracked trial fee but was remunerated on the basis of a guilty plea, prompting this appeal.
• The appeal was allowed, with Costs Judge Nagalingam concluding that the circumstances warranted a cracked trial fee.

The factual background of the case involved a series of events leading to the defendant, Tyrone Rowe, being charged with attempted murder, possession of a bladed article, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The proceedings against Rowe started later than his co-defendants due to late arrest. During the initial Crown Court appearance, Rowe was unrepresented because of a barristers' strike, which led to complications in the plea process.

Subsequent hearings involved plea discussions and case management, with Rowe's counsel indicating a willingness to plead guilty to a count of actual bodily harm, which was not on the file at the time. This plea was later accepted, and the prosecution offered no evidence on the counts of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article.

Miss Rose argued that the case was managed as if Rowe had pleaded not guilty to the original counts, and the trial had been listed accordingly. The Respondent's position was that without a formal arraignment, the case must be treated as a guilty plea for remuneration purposes. However, the court found that the unique circumstances, including the impact of the barristers' strike, warranted the application of a cracked trial fee.

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)