R v Hakim

Where prior authority has been obtained for a criminal legal aid disbursement, the determining officer must apply the protections in regulation 17 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The officer cannot assess the claim merely by asking what expenditure appears reasonably incurred. A disbursement incurred within the authorised limit and for the authorised purpose should ordinarily be paid. Any challenge requires specific and compelling reasons showing that the expenditure was not incurred in accordance with the authority or that a statutory limitation applies. Prior authority must be read in light of the application and supporting quotation, including the substance of the work authorised. A translation and transcription task involving the checking and correction of inaccurate translations may fall within both regulation 13(b) and regulation 13(c), rather than being treated as a simple per-minute transcription exercise.

Stewart Begum Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s allowance of only £30.50 for a disbursement claimed under the Litigators Graduated Fee Scheme.

The solicitors had obtained prior authority for translation and transcription work concerning Sylheti recordings in a criminal trial. The authority approved £610 for 1,220 minutes. The determining officer treated the work as ordinary transcription based solely on the 61 minutes of recordings and refused most of the invoice. The central issue was whether the subsequent determination could reduce a disbursement incurred in accordance with the prior authority.

1. Appeal allowed. The solicitors were entitled to payment of the £610 disbursement in full, together with the costs of the appeal.
2. Because the solicitors had followed the regulation 13 procedure for obtaining prior authority, the determining officer was required to have regard to regulation 17(2)–(5), rather than simply allowing such amount as appeared reasonably incurred under regulation 17(1). There was no suggestion that the authorised purpose had failed or become irrelevant, so regulation 17(3) did not permit the propriety of the step to be challenged. There was also no suggestion that the authorised fee had been exceeded, so regulation 17(5) was not engaged.
3. The authority expressly covered “Translation and Transcription”. It had been supported by a quotation identifying both the recording lengths and the substantially greater time required for correction. The application explained that the prosecution transcripts contained critical mistranslations and required checking for accuracy. The work therefore involved more than producing a new transcription. It included expert-like analysis and correction of the existing translation, falling within regulation 13(b) as well as regulation 13(c).
4. The determining officer wrongly treated the claim as an ordinary transcription invoice calculated only by reference to the length of the recordings. The written reasons did not adequately address the wording of the authority, the supporting quotation, or the translation element.
5. Where a disbursement is incurred in line with prior authority, the authority system depends on litigators being able to rely on subsequent payment. One part of the Legal Aid Agency should not second guess an authority granted by another part without specific and compelling reasons, subject to the limitations in regulation 17. A brief record of a conversation with the Criminal Finance Team was insufficient.

• High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): the appeal under regulation 29 was allowed. The determining officer’s reduction of the authorised disbursement was set aside in substance, and payment of the full disbursement and appeal costs was directed.