R v Christopher Brooks

For the purposes of the Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme, electronically served prosecution evidence must be counted in a way that produces an accurate equivalent A4 page count. A rigid scaling factor may be inadequate where the material uses exceptionally small fonts. The court may prefer a carefully constructed methodology which adjusts font size, column dimensions and blank-page treatment, provided it gives the most accurate count reasonably achievable. The assessment remains fact-sensitive and must reflect the nature and presentation of the evidence.

Faradays Solicitors represented the defendant in a Crown Court prosecution involving electronic data downloaded from mobile phones. The Legal Aid Agency’s Determining Officer allowed 3,407 pages of prosecution evidence after applying a broad doubling formula. The solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, contending that the correct count was 7,584 pages. The central issue was the appropriate method of counting electronic evidence served in A4 format but displayed using very small fonts.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme claim was directed to be re-assessed by reference to a prosecution evidence count of 7,584 pages.
2. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as amended in 2018, includes relevant electronically served prosecution documents within the page count. Documentary or pictorial exhibits which never existed in paper form may be included where the appropriate officer considers that inclusion appropriate, having regard to the nature of the document and other relevant circumstances.
3. Where electronic evidence is presented in an atypically small font, the served page count may require upscaling to produce an accurate equivalent A4 count. The appropriate multiplier is not necessarily fixed. A factor of two was insufficient for material containing font sizes ranging from 1.5 to 6.
4. Earlier PPE guidance included an eightfold formula for A1 material in R v Francis [2020] SC-2020-CRI-000004 and a fourfold formula for A3 material in R v Zigaras [2018], SCCO Ref: 155/18. The present material required a different assessment because it was served in A4 format but effectively displayed as larger-format material.
5. The solicitors’ methodology was preferable. It used a notional font size of 11, adjusted column width and height, and excluded pages which appeared blank. Although neither methodology was perfect, it produced the most accurate account reasonably achievable in the circumstances.
6. The solicitors were entitled to recover the £100 paid on lodging the appeal. No other costs claim was made.

The appeal was brought under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s assessment. The High Court (Senior Court Costs Office) allowed the appeal and directed reassessment using a count of 7,584 pages.