R v Adeyanju

When assessing an additional fee for reviewing unused material, the determining officer must assess the reasonableness of the hours claimed in the context of the case as a whole and must engage with the advocate’s work log and supporting justification.

The time-per-page figures in the Crown Court Fee Guidance are guides only. The statutory word “consideration” is not confined to reading material. It may include reasonable note-taking and cross-referencing necessary to assess the material, although separate scheduling and other ancillary work remains excluded. The Regulations prevail over the guidance, which has no legal force.

The appellant solicitors represented the defendant in a lengthy multi-defendant Crown Court trial involving murder, manslaughter, robbery and theft-related conspiracy charges. They claimed 89.8 hours for considering 3,255 pages of unused material under paragraph 17A of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The determining officer allowed 38 hours, applying broad categories and the guidance rates of 30 seconds or two minutes per page.

The appeal concerned whether the determining officer had properly assessed the detailed work log and the wider meaning of “consideration” under the Regulations.

1. The appeal was allowed. The time claimed for considering unused material was to be allowed in full, together with £600 exclusive of VAT for the appeal costs and the £100 appeal fee.
2. Paragraph 17A of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 requires the determining officer to consider whether the hours claimed are reasonable both in the case as a whole and in relation to the consideration of unused material.
3. The Crown Court Fee Guidance requires supporting justification, including a work log for larger claims. Its 30-second and two-minute rates are expressly guidance only. They do not authorise a broad-brush assessment which disregards the actual work undertaken and the justification supplied.
4. The determining officer had relied almost entirely on a broad categorisation of documents and had given little or no consideration to the detailed work log. That approach resulted in the arbitrary disallowance of substantial working time and did not comply with the Regulations or the guidance.
5. The statutory term “consideration” is not limited to reading or viewing documents. Reasonable note-taking and cross-referencing to other documents may form part of the consideration of unused material. Separate scheduling and other ancillary work remains outside the recoverable work.
6. The work log was cogent and convincing. In the context of the factual complexity, extensive CCTV evidence and volume of material, the claim was reasonable overall and averaged less than two minutes per page.

The determining officer allowed 38 hours of the 89.8 hours claimed. The High Court (Senior Court Costs Office), on an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, allowed the claim in full.