R v Berry

Under paragraph 29 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, circuit boundaries are not irrelevant when assessing expenses for a non-local appearance. The phrase allowing consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the case is deliberately wide. Where leading counsel regularly practises on the circuit containing the court, that fact, together with the location of the case and representation, may justify payment of reasonable travelling and accommodation expenses. The court applied the approach in R v Thomas, Davidson & Hutton and allowed the appeal.

The appellant, leading counsel in a murder case at Mold Crown Court, claimed travelling and accommodation expenses for attending the court. The determining officer accepted that the court was more than 40 kilometres from the appellant’s chambers but refused payment because Liverpool was regarded as the nearest local Bar and no prior approval or case-specific justification had been established.

The appellant argued that Mold was on the Wales and Chester Circuit, on which he regularly practised, and that circuit practice formed part of the relevant circumstances under paragraph 29 of Schedule 1. The issue was whether circuit boundaries and circuit practice could be relevant notwithstanding the reference to the nearest local Bar.

1. Appeal allowed. The determining officer’s interpretation of paragraph 29 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 was inconsistent with R v Thomas, Davidson & Hutton [1997] Costs L.R. (Core Vol.) 469.

2. Paragraph 29 does not expressly mention circuit boundaries. That does not make them irrelevant. The earlier provisions considered in R v Thomas, Davidson & Hutton were materially similar and circuit boundaries were treated as relevant under them.

3. The phrase all the relevant circumstances of the case should not receive a narrow interpretation. The court’s location on the Wales and Chester Circuit and the appellant’s regular practice on that circuit were relevant circumstances capable of justifying his attendance for the purpose of paying expenses.

4. The court therefore allowed the appeal. Any dispute about the amount of expenses could be referred back to the costs judge.

• Senior Courts Costs Office: The determining officer disallowed the claimed travelling and accommodation expenses.
• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): On appeal under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the appeal was allowed.