R v Ramzan Hanif

When assessing special preparation under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, an awkward or imperfect format does not justify refusing to assess the claim. The determining officer must undertake a substantive assessment of the time reasonably required to read the excess pages. The assessment cannot be based solely on a fixed minutes-per-page formula, because disclosed material may vary greatly in detail, relevance and readability. The court must make the best evaluative assessment available on the evidence. A claim may therefore be reduced as unreasonable while still allowing an amount that reflects difficult formatting and the volume of material.

The appellant represented a defendant charged at Preston Crown Court with wounding with intent after the complainant sustained multiple stab wounds. The prosecution offered no evidence in November 2021, and the defendant was discharged.

The appellant claimed 104 hours of special preparation under the Litigator’s Graduated Fee Scheme for 3,722 pages of prosecution evidence, exceeding the applicable 700-page limit. The Legal Aid Agency’s determining officer rejected the claim because the electronic material was difficult to assess and the appellant had not provided it in an alternative format. The appeal under Regulation 29 concerned whether the claim could properly be assessed and, if so, what amount was reasonable.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The determining officer’s refusal to assess the claim was set aside. The appellant’s claim for special preparation was assessed at 75 hours. The £100 appeal fee was ordered to be returned, with an additional £125 for costs, plus any relevant VAT.
2. The material’s format did not prevent a reasonable assessment. The appellant had disclosed the evidence in the form in which it had been served by the Crown. He had no realistic power to reformat it or require a different form of service. The determining officer was required to assess the claim substantively despite the difficulty of considering the data (paras [6]-[9]).
3. The relevant question was whether the time claimed was reasonable for reading the excess pages. That question could not be answered by applying a strictly empirical one, two or three minutes per page methodology. Pages might contain detailed and relevant data, brief or irrelevant material, or be blank. The assessment therefore required an evaluative judgment based on the character of the material and the practical difficulty of reading it (para [10]).
4. Although the formatting made the work more difficult and time-consuming, 104 hours was unreasonably high for reading just over 3,000 pages. On the evidence and doing the best possible assessment, 75 hours was allowed (para [10]).

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): Costs Judge Whalan allowed the appeal in part and directed that the special-preparation claim be assessed at 75 hours.
• Legal Aid Agency determining officer: The claim for 104 hours was rejected because the format of the material was considered too difficult to assess.