Two firms have succeeded in High Court appeals against legal aid payments under the Crown court fee scheme. 

London and Manchester-based firm Stokoe Partnership Solicitors submitted a claim for a two-day trial fee in R v Jonathan Badibanga. The firm argued the hearing at Isleworth Crown Court constituted a trial of facts. A determining officer at the Legal Aid Agency assessed the claim as a guilty plea.

The firm submitted the sentencing hearing could be ‘properly classified’ as a Newton hearing - when a defendant pleads guilty but there is a disagreement with the prosecution as to the facts on which sentencing should apply - while the LAA said ‘while the sentencing judge had some factual issues to determine, the hearing could not be classified as a Newton hearing’.

However Costs Judge Whalan found the hearing did constitute a Newton hearing ‘with the result that the appellants’ Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme (LGFS) claim should be paid as a trial and not a guilty plea’.

The appropriate additional payment was ordered to be made to Stokoe, which was also repaid the £100 appeal fee. No other claim for costs was made.

Read more

Midland-based firm Vienna Kang Advocates Ltd also succeeded in its appeal after it claimed under the LGFS for a trial at Warwick Crown Court. The fee for a cracked trial was instead allowed. The jury had been sworn in but the prosecution had not opened the case before the defendant, in a drug-related criminal case, was re-arraigned.

Costs Judge Whalan said: ‘The issue, therefore, was whether or not the court had engaged "with substantial matters of case management" to the extent "that the trial had been begun in a meaningful sense".’

Allowing the appeal in R v Arsen Sejdia, the judge said it was ‘generally undesirable for advocates or litigators to be paid a cracked fee trial when they have been properly (and fairly fully) engaged for two or more sitting days’.

‘Although each case must necessarily turn on its own facts, I consider it generally undesirable for advocates or litigators to be paid a cracked trial fee when they have been properly (and fairly fully) engaged for two or more sitting days. The issues concerning the application and, ultimately the basis of the defendant’s guilty plea, were debated repeatedly before the judge, who evidently gave some direction as to progress and procedure, notwithstanding that no substantive judgement as required.'

The appropriate additional payment was ordered to be paid to Vienna Kang Advocates as well as the £100 appeal fee.