R v David Wilson

When assessing criminal legal aid remuneration for Court of Appeal work, the appropriate officer must allow a reasonable amount for work actually and reasonably done, having regard to the case’s importance, complexity, difficulty and the time involved. Previous involvement in the Crown Court may reduce the necessary preparation, but does not justify an arbitrary or disproportionate reduction where the appeal raises materially new issues. Experience may support efficient working, but does not remove the advocate’s professional duty to prepare properly. The hourly rate must be assessed factually, by reference to the demands and exceptional features of the work. A rate above the ordinary scale may be justified where the case involves unusually complex, important or developing sentencing issues.

An advocate appealed against a Determining Officer’s assessment of remuneration for representing a defendant in the Court of Appeal following an Attorney General’s reference of an allegedly unduly lenient sentence. The advocate claimed 28.5 hours at £240 per hour. The Determining Officer allowed 15 hours at £100 per hour.

The appeal concerned the reasonable preparation time and hourly rate for work addressing three sentencing arguments, including whether a life sentence was justified, whether the overall sentence was too short, and whether full credit for guilty pleas was appropriate.

1. The appeal was allowed. The appropriate payment was assessed on the basis of 28.5 hours at £175 per hour, together with the £100 already paid on appeal and £280 costs.
2. Under Schedule 3 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the assessment had to take account of all relevant circumstances, including the nature, importance, complexity and difficulty of the work and the time involved. It also had to allow a reasonable amount for work actually and reasonably done.
3. The Determining Officer had not adequately distinguished the sentencing issues arising in the Court of Appeal from those addressed in the Crown Court. The Attorney General advanced matters which had not previously required consideration, including arguments concerning a life sentence and recent changes in sentencing tariffs.
4. The advocate’s prior involvement assisted efficiency, but did not reduce the reasonable preparation time to the level allowed. The volume of authorities, the complexity of the sentencing issues, the underlying offending, dangerousness issues and the absence of supporting junior or solicitor assistance justified a substantial allowance. Experience did not excuse proper professional preparation.
5. The hourly rate was fact-sensitive. Evans v The Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 1525 (QB) was not directly analogous because it concerned private rates under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Nevertheless, its discussion of top-end criminal rates provided a useful reference point. In the exceptional circumstances, £175 per hour was reasonable.

The judgment records an appeal against a Determining Officer’s written reasons dated 20 September 2022. The Costs Judge allowed the appeal and reassessed both the hours and hourly rate.