R v Rimon Ali

For electronic prosecution evidence, the determining officer must assess whether the material is of central importance to the trial, rather than merely helpful. Where the prosecution relies on extracts from a category of electronic data, the underlying data in that category will generally be included. The page count must be a sensible approximation of the material requiring consideration. For spreadsheet evidence, blank columns may be removed before generating a print preview, but artificial compression or manipulation of data is impermissible. A purpose-made PDF report should generally be counted as presented, subject to the particular circumstances.

Hussain Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s assessment of the Pages of Prosecution Evidence forming the basis of the litigators’ graduated fee.

The claim concerned electronic data extracted from the Defendant’s mobile phone, including messages, web history, locations and other records. The determining officer allowed some categories but excluded others and reduced the non-electronic page count. The appeal concerned both which categories qualified and the proper methodology for counting spreadsheet-based electronic evidence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The appropriate PPE count was 2,023 pages: 145 non-electronic pages and 1,878 pages of electronic evidence. The Appellant was awarded half of the claimed appeal costs, namely £750 exclusive of VAT, together with the £100 appeal fee.
2. Under paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the relevant question is whether material never existing in paper form should be included, having regard to its nature and the other circumstances. The central criterion identified in Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB) is whether the evidence is of central importance to the trial, rather than merely helpful or important to the defence.
3. Where the prosecution relies on extracts from a category of electronic data, the underlying data in that category should generally be included. Applying Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP & Anor [2017] EWHC 138 (QB), the web history, web log entries, instant messages and notes were included because the prosecution had relied on selected extracts.
4. The page count must reflect a sensible approximation of the material requiring consideration. The approach approved in The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB) permits the exclusion of blank pages and pages containing only unusable or minimal data. For spreadsheet evidence, removing wholly blank columns before producing a print preview may produce a workable count. The exercise must not artificially compress the data or move material between worksheets. That would be equivalent to cutting up paper pages and was inconsistent with the caution in R v Campbell (SC-2020-CRI-000254, SC-2021-CRI-000001, 22 October 2021).
5. The reasoning in R v Wadsworth & Hooper (SC-2021-CRI-000024, 11 February 2022), concerning blank columns in a purpose-made PDF report, did not govern spreadsheet evidence. The formats required different approaches. The determining officer’s spreadsheet methodology was therefore upheld, subject to the additional qualifying categories and corrected figures.
6. In the absence of an explanation for reducing the non-electronic count below the figure recorded on the Digital Case System, the recorded figure of 145 pages was retained.

• High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 allowed in part. The determining officer’s assessment was varied and the PPE count fixed at 2,023 pages.