R v Steven Parle

For Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme claims, electronic prosecution material may count as prosecution evidence where it was served, or where the circumstances show that it was in substance served, subject to the statutory discretion for electronic exhibits that never existed in paper form.

The assessment is fact-sensitive. Material may be included where it was reasonable and necessary for the defence to review it when disclosed, even if a later exhibit substantially duplicates it. Relevance, the material’s importance to the issues at trial and the circumstances of disclosure are central considerations. Duplication does not automatically defeat a claim where the earlier review was necessary and contributed to identifying deficiencies in the prosecution’s disclosure.

IMS Law Limited represented Steven Parle in criminal proceedings concerning possession of a prohibited firearm. Mr Parle pleaded guilty but disputed the circumstances of possession, and the issue was determined at a Newton hearing.

The Appellants claimed 6,213 pages of prosecution evidence under the Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme. The Legal Aid Agency initially allowed 250 pages and, on redetermination, 1,358 pages. The appeal concerned 3,379 further pages from two electronic mobile-phone extraction exhibits, one of which was served before the other and was later substantially duplicated.

The central issues were whether the disputed material formed part of the prosecution evidence and whether the earlier duplicated extraction should be included in the page count.

The appeal was allowed in part. The Appellants’ LGFS claim was directed to be assessed by reference to a prosecution-evidence count of 4,275 pages. The Appellants were awarded £750 in assessed costs, plus VAT if payable, together with the £100 paid on lodging the appeal.

1. Statutory framework. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 includes witness statements, documentary and pictorial exhibits, interview records and other specified prosecution material. Electronic documents are included, subject to the discretion concerning documentary or pictorial exhibits which were served electronically and never existed in paper form.

2. Guidance. The court treated Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB) as authoritative guidance. Material disclosed only as unused material cannot ordinarily count. Formal service is preferable, but informality does not necessarily exclude material where the circumstances establish that it was served in substance. The assessment remains case-specific, and the material’s importance to the trial is relevant.

3. Full Extraction report. The court included the disputed images and videos from exhibit SH1.15092022. The images were a central and potentially determinative category of evidence, making it reasonable and necessary for the defence to review the whole category despite the presence of irrelevant material. The CCTV-related video material was also relevant. An additional 1,500 pages was allowed from that exhibit.

4. Partial Extraction report. Exhibit SH1.17082022 was served first and was reviewed before the later Full Extraction report was served. Its review exposed deficiencies in the prosecution’s disclosure and led to the later exhibit. Although the material was ultimately duplicated, that hindsight did not make the original review unnecessary. The court preferred the approach in R v King [2019} to that in R v Baptiste [2019] SCCO Ref: 189/18, and allowed all 1,473 pages from the earlier exhibit.

1. Senior Courts Costs Office: An earlier determination was promulgated under reference R v Steven Parle [2024] EWHC 776 (SCCO), but was set aside because the Respondent had not been given notice of the hearing.

2. High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): Following a rehearing, the appeal under regulation 29 was allowed in part and the claim was directed to be assessed by reference to 4,275 pages.