Sanjari, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Birmingham

A representation order does not confer an unrestricted right to change criminal legal representatives. Under regulation 14 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Determinations by a Court and Choice of Representative) Regulations 2013, transfer requires a breakdown making effective representation impossible, another compelling reason, or specified circumstances concerning the original provider. Applications require objective and independent assessment by solicitors, particularly because public funds and the efficient conduct of criminal proceedings are involved. A defendant’s dissatisfaction with realistic advice, or conduct which causes the original solicitor to withdraw after warning, ordinarily does not justify transfer and may justify revocation of the representation order.

The claimant sought judicial review of four rulings by the Recorder of Birmingham concerning his representation in confiscation proceedings following his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to import and supply cannabis. The Recorder refused successive applications to transfer the representation order from Rahman Ravelli to other solicitors, revoked the order when Rahman Ravelli could no longer act, and refused a later request for case documents.

Permission was refused on paper by McGowan J. The Divisional Court renewed the application. It considered both whether judicial review was excluded by section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and, assuming jurisdiction, whether the Recorder had lawfully applied regulations 9 and 14 of the 2013 Regulations.

1. Jurisdiction. The court considered that decisions by a Crown Court judge concerning representation and legal aid are matters relating to trial on indictment within section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The authorities provided no basis for distinguishing that conclusion, and confiscation proceedings remained connected with sentence. However, because the court had not heard full adversarial argument on jurisdiction, it decided the renewed application on the merits, assuming that jurisdiction existed.
2. Transfer under regulation 14. The statutory right to select a representative is subject to the restriction that a defendant has no right to replace the original provider at will. The court must determine whether the relationship has broken down so that effective representation can no longer be provided, whether another compelling reason exists, or whether the specified provider-related circumstances apply. The Recorder was entitled to scrutinise the applications rigorously.
3. Solicitors seeking transfer must give the court objective, independent and properly supported assistance. Complaints based merely on the client’s disappointment, disagreement with advice, or proposed expert work advanced without access to the full papers do not establish the statutory grounds. The application to transfer was properly refused.
4. Revocation under regulation 9. The Recorder was entitled to revoke the representation order when the claimant, despite a clear warning, failed to co-operate with the original solicitors and brought about the circumstances in which they could no longer act. The renewed judicial review application was totally without merit.

• High Court (Administrative Court): McGowan J refused permission on paper on 31 March 2015. The Divisional Court dismissed the renewed application and upheld the Recorder’s rulings on the merits.