Regina v Barzey

Under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, a cracked-trial fee is payable only where the statutory definition is satisfied. The provision covering a case listed for trial without a hearing at which the assisted person enters a plea requires that no such plea hearing takes place. It does not cover a case listed for trial before a later plea hearing at which the defendant pleads guilty. The fee rules are to be applied mechanistically. A Determining Officer has no general discretion to award a cracked-trial fee where the definition is not met. The administrative character of the trial listing is therefore immaterial.

Lloyds PR represented the defendant in Crown Court proceedings. Several plea and trial preparation hearings were adjourned without a plea being entered, and a trial date was fixed. The defendant later attended an arraignment hearing and pleaded guilty. The solicitors claimed a cracked-trial graduated fee, but the Determining Officer awarded a guilty-plea fee.

The solicitors appealed under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, arguing that the earlier trial listing satisfied Schedule 2 paragraph 1(1)(b), and that the Determining Officer had a discretion to assess the circumstances fairly. The central issue was whether a case listed for trial before a later plea hearing fell within the statutory definition of a cracked trial.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appropriate fee was the guilty-plea fee.
2. Schedule 2 paragraph 1(1) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 creates two relevant situations. The first requires a not-guilty plea at the first hearing at which a plea is entered, followed by the case not proceeding to trial. The second applies where the case is listed for trial without a hearing at which the assisted person enters a plea.
3. The word “without” in paragraph 1(1)(b) means that no hearing at which the assisted person enters a plea takes place. The provision does not extend to a case listed for trial before a subsequent plea hearing. The court adopted the reasoning previously given by Costs Judge Leonard in R v Malik (SCCO SC-2019-CRI-000136, 5 June 2020), and treated it as consistent with R v Rahman (SCCO 198/13, 17 December 2013) and R v Lamin (SCCO ref: 175/19).
4. The regulations are to be interpreted mechanistically. They confer no discretion on the Determining Officer to award a cracked-trial fee when the statutory definition is not met. Whether the prior trial listing was merely administrative was therefore beside the point.
5. Because the defendant entered his guilty pleas at the first hearing at which a plea was taken, and the case did not satisfy paragraph 1(1)(b), it was a guilty-plea case.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): Appeal under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 dismissed. The Determining Officer’s award of a guilty-plea fee was upheld.
• Determining Officer: Determined that the applicable fee was for a guilty plea rather than a cracked trial.