Regina v Charlton Glover

For the purpose of calculating a confiscation-hearing fee, a draft confiscation order is not ordinarily evidence. The relevant definition is confined to the documents specified in paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

A draft order served with a prosecution statement does not qualify merely because it assists the court, records the relief sought, or was considered before the hearing. It must be actually annexed or exhibited to the section 16 statement, or satisfy another express limb of the definition, such as being specifically referred to in that statement and intended to be relied upon by the prosecution.

The appellant challenged the redetermination of his legal aid fee following confiscation proceedings. The fee depended on whether the evidence comprised at least 51 pages. The determining officer counted 49 pages and rejected the inclusion of a draft confiscation order served by the prosecution.

The appellant argued that the draft order formed part of the prosecution documents accompanying the statement of information under section 16 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, either expressly or by implication. The central issue was whether that draft order fell within the definition of evidence in paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 1 to the 2013 Regulations.

The appeal was unsuccessful. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal.

1. Paragraph 14(3)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 includes the statement of information served under section 16 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, together with attached annexes and exhibits. The wording requires actual attachment or exhibition.

2. A draft confiscation order served with a section 16 statement is not evidence merely because it accompanies the statement. The court rejected the argument that the draft was implicitly annexed or exhibited. The draft stated the order sought by the prosecution; it was not evidence or information which the statement was intended to provide.

3. The draft order did not qualify under paragraph 14(3)(b), since it was not said to have been specifically referred to in the section 16 statement. The court therefore did not need to determine any further issue under that limb.

4. The fact that the draft order had been considered and agreed in advance, and assisted the efficient conduct of the confiscation hearing, did not convert it into evidence. Nor did careful checking of its contents alter its character.

5. The determining officer’s conclusion was therefore correct in substance, although the court reached that conclusion for reasons which were not precisely the same. The evidence remained below the 51-page threshold.

The appeal was brought against a redetermination by the determining officer of the appellant’s legal aid fee claim. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment. The High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) dismissed the appeal.