R v Nicola Bevan

Under the graduated fee scheme, where several cases are dealt with at one hearing, remuneration depends on whether the hearing is a main hearing for each case. If it is a main hearing for only one case, the additional-case provisions do not generate a further fee for another case. Subject to provisions concerning multiple assisted persons, the advocate receives the fixed fee for the hearing in respect of one case, without an increase for the others. The scheme must be applied mechanistically, even where its operation produces a harsh or anomalous result. There is no general equitable jurisdiction to award additional remuneration for work undertaken at the hearing.

Lucy Crowther, an advocate, appealed against a Determining Officer’s refusal to pay a second fee for a sentencing hearing. She had represented the defendant in proceedings involving a guilty-plea case and separate proceedings committed to the Crown Court for sentence. Both matters were dealt with on 3 October 2019.

The advocate had already been paid the graduated fee for the guilty-plea case’s main hearing on 13 September 2019. She sought a further fee for sentencing in that case, in addition to the committal-for-sentence fee paid for the other case. The central issue was whether both matters could attract separate payment under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Determining Officer had applied the remuneration scheme correctly.
2. The guilty-plea case had its main hearing on 13 September 2019, when pleas were taken. The committal-for-sentence case had its main hearing on 3 October 2019, being the sentencing hearing arising from the committal. The sentencing hearing on 3 October was therefore not a further main hearing for the guilty-plea case.
3. The additional-payment provisions in Schedule 1, paragraph 27(2), operate in relation to cases whose main hearings are heard concurrently. The hearing on 3 October was a main hearing for the committal-for-sentence case but not for the guilty-plea case. Paragraph 27(2) consequently did not apply.
4. The provisions concerning hearings involving more than one assisted person were irrelevant because only one assisted person was involved. Schedule 1, paragraph 27(5), therefore applied. The advocate was entitled to the fixed fee for the hearing in respect of one case, without any increase for the other case.
5. The court acknowledged that the result might appear unfair because work had been undertaken in both matters. However, the graduated fee scheme involves compensating advantages and disadvantages and must be applied mechanistically. As explained in R v Fury, relying on Meeke and Taylor v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the scheme contains no general equity. The appeal therefore failed.

• Determining Officer: on 22 October 2019 refused a second fee for the sentencing hearing in the guilty-plea case.
• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): dismissed the advocate’s appeal and upheld the Determining Officer’s decision.