A firm which submitted a claim to the Legal Aid Agency for 10,000 pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) but was told it could claim only for 882 pages has succeeded in its High Court appeal.

Tyler Hoffman Solicitors, whose head office is in Wakefield, West Yorks, represented an individual charged with three co-defendants at Bradford Crown Court, with producing cannabis. The firm also represented one of the co-defendants. The defendant entered a not guilty plea. The trial was listed for February 2024 and then adjourned until August ‘after a “large quantity of new potentially disclosable material” became available’, the judgment in R v Tan Cong Nguyen said.

Data from a mobile phone seized by police at the time of the defendant’s arrest contained 28,872 pages of evidence. The firm argued that this material should be included in the PPE count, subject to the 10,000 page cap. The LAA conceded a PPE count of 882.

The firm argued the prosecution relied on the phone material ‘as a whole’ to disprove the defendant’s modern slavery defence.

The Government Legal Department had asked for the hearing to be adjourned as ‘there was no hearing reminder in the diary’ and submissions by the respondent had not been filed. Cost judge Whalan, after hearing from the firm in oral submission, reserved his judgment and allowed written submissions to be submitted by the LAA.

Read more

Finding in favour of the firm, the judge said: ‘I am satisfied that the determining officer’s assessment was too conservative and that a greater proportion of the electronic datum should be allowed in the PPE count. I am also satisfied that it would not be reasonable to allow all the electronic datum into the PPE count.’

The judge said: ‘Given the 10,000 page cap in the regulations, of course, a quite significant proportion of the material is excluded anyway. Doing the best I can and on the material before me, I find and direct that 10,000 pages of electronic datum should be included in the PPE count, making a total calculation of 10131PPE (41 + 83 + 7 + 10000). To this extent, the appeal is allowed.’

The judge ordered the appropriate additional payment, the £100 paid on appeal, plus costs of £750 and any VAT payable to be made to the firm.