R v Abada

Under the graduated fee scheme, the relevant question is whether there was one case under the governing definition. Where separate indictments are formally joined, they become one indictment and one case for remuneration purposes. The court should assess what happened in the proceedings as a whole and should not unpick the joined case by comparing the earlier indictments, evidence or charges.

Administrative case numbers do not determine remuneration. Nor does the fact that the indictments contained different allegations, defendants or evidence create separate cases after joinder. The mechanical nature of the scheme prevents an evaluative approach that could generate multiple fees for proceedings which, in substance, became one case.

The three appellants, a solicitor and two advocates, appealed against decisions of Determining Officers under the Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The appeals concerned remuneration for criminal proceedings in which two indictments against the defendant were formally joined.

The appellants contended that the indictments represented separate cases because they involved different charges, co-defendants, periods and evidence. They sought additional graduated fees. The Determining Officers treated the joined proceedings as one case and allowed only one fee. The central issue was whether the position before joinder could be used to establish entitlement to separate fees after joinder.

1. Appeals dismissed. The third appeal was admitted out of time by consent, but all three appeals failed on their merits.
2. Schedules 1 and 2 of the Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 define a case as proceedings in the Crown Court against one assisted person on one or more counts of a single indictment. A graduated fee is payable for each case.
3. When the two indictments were formally joined, the result was one indictment and one case. The earlier indictments were part of an inchoate position liable to change. They did not remain effective as separate cases after joinder.
4. The remuneration scheme is mechanical. Determining Officers must examine what happened in the proceedings to determine the fee due. They are not required to divide or unpick the joined proceedings by assessing whether the original indictments involved substantially different allegations or evidence.
5. Different Crown Court case numbers are administrative and have no bearing on the proper interpretation of the scheme. The approach in R v Eddowes, Perry, and Osbourne supported treating proceedings on one indictment as one case, notwithstanding different case numbers or multiple defendants.
6. The alternative line of decisions concerning stayed or substituted indictments did not assist because the relevant indictments in this case had been formally joined. The court also preserved the distinct position where an indictment is quashed and the prosecution must effectively start again, as in R v Sharif.
7. The appellants had already received a trial fee for the joined indictment. A further fee based on treating one of the earlier indictments as a separate cracked or trial case could not be reconciled with the scheme. Any resulting overpayment was recoverable under regulation 25 of Schedule 1.

1. Determining Officers: treated the proceedings as one case and refused claims for additional fees.
2. High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): dismissed all three appeals under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and Regulation 10 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.