Harris Solicitors v The Lord Chancellor

For criminal legal aid remuneration, successive electronic versions of an indictment do not constitute separate indictments where they record amendments or consolidation of the same proceedings. The relevant question is whether the assisted person faced more than one indictment, not how many versions were uploaded to the digital case system.

The prosecution’s decision to offer no evidence on one count does not create a cracked trial where that count formed part of the same indictment and the prosecution proceeded on another count. A further case fee is therefore unavailable where the later document reflects substantially the same work under the original indictment.

Harris Solicitors represented John Doyle and Dean Doyle in Crown Court proceedings involving firearm and threat-to-kill charges. It claimed both a trial fee and a cracked trial fee. The Determining Officer allowed remuneration for a five-day trial but disallowed the cracked trial fee.

The firm appealed, arguing that a new indictment preferred against Dean Doyle on 17 March 2021 was additional to, and replaced, an earlier indictment. The central issue was whether the successive versions recorded as B1 to B4 in the digital case system represented more than one indictment for remuneration purposes.

1. The appeal was dismissed. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal.
2. Under paragraph 1(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the question was whether the proceedings against the assisted persons arose on one or more counts of a single indictment. The Crown Fee Court Guidance likewise treated proceedings on a single indictment as one case, regardless of the number of counts.
3. The court log showed one set of proceedings against both defendants and one indictment. The addition of count 4 on 6 October 2020 was expressly recorded as an addition to the original indictment. The later B2 and B3 documents were amended or consolidated versions. The B numbering reflected uploads to the relevant section of the digital case system and did not create new indictments.
4. The fact that Dean Doyle proceeded only on count 4, after the prosecution elected not to pursue count 1, did not alter the position. Both counts remained on indictment 1. Offering no evidence on count 1 was not a cracked trial because the prosecution proceeded to verdict on count 4, and count 1 was not on a separate indictment.
5. The approach was consistent with R v Wharton (SCCO ref: SC-2020-CRI-000195), where separate uploaded documents were treated as reflecting modern case-management practice rather than additional work warranting further fees. The court declined the invitation to treat the indictment’s successive iterations as separate cases.

The judgment records an appeal against the Determining Officer’s redetermination. The appeal was heard in the Senior Courts Costs Office and dismissed.