Regina v Zarif

Special preparation under paragraph 17(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 is assessed by identifying work caused by very unusual or novel features which is substantially beyond the preparation normally undertaken for cases of the same type.

The relevant comparison is with reasonable preparation for comparable cases. It is not limited to work exceeding what the graduated fee is intended to cover. Ordinary trial preparation, including work on closing speeches and post-verdict matters, does not qualify merely because the case is substantial. The court may make a broad assessment where the evidence does not permit precise allocation.

The appellant represented a defendant in a Crown Court fact-finding hearing after the defendant was found unfit to plead. Shortly before and during the hearing, the prosecution disclosed substantially new evidence, including evidence from a former co-accused who had entered into an agreement with the prosecution.

The appellant claimed 176 hours of special preparation. The determining officer accepted that special preparation was payable but allowed 120 hours. The appeal under regulation 29 concerned the proper basis for assessing the additional work and the amount payable.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claim fell under paragraph 17(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The question was how much work had been undertaken because of the very unusual facts and in excess of the amount reasonably undertaken for cases of the same type.

2. The determining officer’s focus on the PPE count and work covered by the graduated fee was not the correct approach. The statutory comparison was with reasonable preparation for comparable cases, rather than with preparation already remunerated by the graduated fee.

3. The appellant’s work schedule was accepted as accurate and showed substantial work outside court hours to meet a new prosecution case during a hearing which would ordinarily have been adjourned. Nevertheless, not all work during evenings, weekends or after court could be treated as special preparation. Major trials ordinarily require work outside court hours.

4. Work on matters such as the closing speech and preparation between verdict and sentencing was not shown to exceed the work reasonably undertaken in an ordinary case of the same type. The court therefore made a broad assessment of the excess work on the available information and reached the same figure as the determining officer: 120 hours.

• Senior Courts Costs Office: the determining officer allowed 120 hours of special preparation. Costs Judge Leonard dismissed the appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.