R v Chloe Dempster

Under the Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme, a tentative trial listing after a plea and case management hearing does not automatically make a case a cracked trial. The court must assess whether, after the hearing, the parties demonstrated a collective intention to proceed to trial which later changed. Where mixed pleas were entered, the prosecution required a short period to decide whether to accept them, and there was no practical intention to prepare for trial, the appropriate fee may remain the guilty plea fee.

Ross Solicitors Ltd appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s assessment of a claim under the Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme.

The defendant had entered mixed pleas at a plea and case management hearing. The court listed a possible sentencing hearing and recorded a tentative trial fixture while the prosecution considered whether the pleas were acceptable. The prosecution subsequently accepted the pleas and the defendant was sentenced. The central issue was whether the claim attracted a cracked trial fee or a guilty plea fee.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The fee payable was a guilty plea fee.

2. The definitions in Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 draw a practical distinction between cases in which, after the plea and case management hearing, the parties collectively intend to proceed to trial but later change course, and cases in which there is no such practical intention.

3. A case does not become a cracked trial merely because mixed pleas are entered, the prosecution needs time to decide whether to accept them, and a tentative trial date is recorded. The court must consider all the circumstances. A cracked trial fee requires more than the circumstances presented here.

4. Relevant considerations included that the pleas were accepted at least a month before the tentative trial fixture, the chronology was relatively tight, and the defence had a reasonably clear expectation from the plea and case management hearing. The parties were not realistically anticipating or actively preparing for a trial.

5. The court rejected the adjournment application made shortly before the hearing. The case had been listed for six months, refusal avoided unnecessary expenditure and wasted court time, and the Respondent’s position was not unduly prejudiced.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 dismissed; the guilty plea fee assessment was upheld.