R v Brownsill

Modern amendments and variations to an indictment during case management do not ordinarily create separate proceedings or justify multiple defence fees. A single fee is payable where the defendant remains engaged in one continuing case, even if indictments are replaced, consolidated or stayed. A second fee requires a significant procedural change, such as severance resulting in two separate trials.

Ashcott Solicitors appealed under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s refusal to allow cracked trial fees for two indictments, B6 and B7, which were stayed at the conclusion of Jack Brownsill’s trial.

Brownsill ultimately stood trial alone on indictment B9. Its first four counts corresponded to the counts in B6, while a fifth count was added at the start of trial and admitted by guilty plea. The issue was whether the stayed indictments represented separate proceedings attracting additional fees.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The determining officer correctly concluded that only one indictment attracted a fee, and that the fee for indictment B9 had already been paid.
2. Modern digital case management involves indictments being uploaded, amended and varied during the progress of a case, including at the beginning of trial. Such changes do not, without more, mean that the defendant has ceased facing one case and has begun defending another.
3. The relevant question is whether there has been a significant change in the case requiring separate remuneration. A change in the personnel involved, the consolidation of indictments, or amendments made during case management will not necessarily satisfy that requirement.
4. Where an indictment is severed so that two separate trials take place, two fees are payable. No such severance or equivalent significant change occurred here. The four counts tried were the same as those originally faced, and the additional count was admitted by guilty plea.
5. The conclusion was consistent with the judge’s earlier decision in R v Wharton and other Costs Judge decisions referred to in the submissions.

• Senior Courts Costs Office: The determining officer refused the claimed cracked trial fees for indictments B6 and B7.
• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): The appeal under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 was dismissed, and the determining officer’s conclusion was upheld.