R v Chukwuka

When assessing criminal legal aid remuneration, enhancement and reasonable time must be determined by the nature and importance of the work, not by the grade of fee earner who performed it. Proper delegation to a trainee solicitor does not justify reducing payment where the work involved important, complex or difficult analysis. A substantial documentary review may warrant enhanced rates where it materially affects the confiscation proceedings and the defendant’s position. Time reasonably required to examine relevant evidence should be allowed, even where the material was generated during an earlier prosecution.

The appellant solicitors represented the defendant in confiscation proceedings following convictions for conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to launder money. The documentary material approached 20,000 pages. Analysis of the original trial evidence enabled the defendant to challenge the alleged benefit and avoid a joint-benefit finding exceeding £7.5 million.

The Determining Officer accepted that the case was exceptionally complex and allowed maximum enhancements for some work, but refused enhancement for the trainee solicitor’s review of approximately 15,000 pages and allowed 120 of the 292 hours claimed. The appeal concerned both the applicable enhancement and the reasonable time required for the review.

1. Appeal allowed. The appellant was entitled to the appropriate additional payment, together with £500 exclusive of VAT for costs and the £100 appeal fee.
2. Under paragraph 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the assessment must consider the relevant circumstances, including exceptional competence, despatch, complexity and other exceptional circumstances. The percentage enhancement must also reflect responsibility, care, speed, economy, novelty, weight and complexity.
3. The work was not merely routine scheduling. It involved analysing organised evidence from the original fraud trial to identify material showing the division of proceeds and the defendant’s actual benefit. That analysis was central to the confiscation case and provided the foundation for the substantially reduced agreed order.
4. The criteria for enhancement do not vary according to the fee earner’s grade. Where delegation to a trainee solicitor is appropriate, the solicitor should not be penalised because the work was performed by a junior fee earner. The review shared the scale, complexity and responsibility that justified a 100 per cent enhancement for other work.
5. The court distinguished R v Onwu, [2022] EWHC 1778 (SCCO), because that case concerned material having little or no bearing on the confiscation proceedings. Here, the prosecution material was of central importance and required proper examination. The full 292 hours claimed were therefore reasonable and allowable at the enhanced rate.

• Senior Courts Costs Office: The Determining Officer allowed 120 of the 292 hours claimed for reviewing the original trial documentation and refused an enhancement for that work.
• High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): The appeal under Regulation 29 was allowed in full. The additional payment, appeal costs and appeal fee were ordered as stated in the judgment.