R v Chapel

For criminal legal aid remuneration, the fee regime for an alleged breach of a Crown Court order is confined to proceedings in the Crown Court concerning a single alleged breach dealt with in that court. Where alleged breaches are tried in the magistrates’ court and the matter is later sent to the Crown Court for sentencing because the sentence sought exceeds the magistrates’ jurisdiction, the applicable category is a sentencing hearing following a committal for sentence under paragraph 15(c) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

Forrester Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against a determining officer’s categorisation of the litigators’ fee. The officer treated the work as proceedings concerning a breach of a Crown Court order under paragraph 18 of Schedule 2.

The underlying defendant had been convicted in the magistrates’ court of failing to comply with community requirements of a suspended sentence order. Because the original suspended sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment and the probation service sought its imposition in full, the magistrates sent the case to the Crown Court for sentencing. The central issue was whether paragraph 15(c) or paragraph 18 governed the remuneration.

1. Appeal allowed. The determining officer had applied the wrong fixed-fee category. The appropriate additional payment, together with £250 exclusive of VAT for the appeal costs and the £100 paid on appeal, was to be made to the applicant.
2. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 applies to proceedings in the Crown Court against one assisted person arising from a single alleged breach of a Crown Court order. The present case involved three alleged breaches, which independently prevented paragraph 18(a) from applying.
3. Paragraph 18 is reserved for cases dealt with purely in the Crown Court, such as a single hearing determining an alleged breach of a Crown Court order. It does not govern proceedings involving a magistrates’ court trial followed by committal to the Crown Court for sentencing.
4. The proceedings were a paradigm example of a sentencing hearing following a committal for sentence within paragraph 15(c). The committal resulted from the length of sentence sought by the probation service being outside the magistrates’ jurisdiction.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 allowed against the determining officer’s categorisation. The appropriate fixed fee and appeal costs were ordered to be paid.