R v Lastowski

For payment under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, electronic prosecution evidence is included in the PPE count only where the determining officer considers that inclusion appropriate. The relevant criterion is whether the evidence was of central importance to the trial, rather than merely helpful or important, and a general duty to consider all evidence does not determine inclusion. Evidence excluded from the PPE count may still support a special preparation claim. Such work must be reasonable and undertaken efficiently. Straightforward data cross-checks may be delegated to a junior fee earner, and manual page-by-page review is unreasonable where common search and filtering tools could materially reduce the time required.

The appellant solicitor represented a defendant in a large Crown Court conspiracy prosecution. Approximately 28,000 pages of electronic data, principally telephone evidence, had been served. The appellant claimed 613.45 hours of special preparation at Grade A for reviewing the material and asserted that 25,000 pages qualified as PPE above the 10,000-page limit.

The Legal Aid Agency’s Determining Officer allowed 320 hours at Grade B. The appellant appealed under regulation 29, arguing that every page had to be considered and that the electronic evidence qualified as PPE. The issues were the correct PPE count, the recoverability and reasonableness of special preparation, and the appropriate fee-earner grade.

1. Appeal dismissed. The electronic material included in the Crown Court’s nominal PPE count did not automatically qualify for payment purposes. Under Schedule 2, electronic evidence is included only if the determining officer considers that inclusion appropriate.
2. The governing criterion was whether the evidence was of central importance to the trial. Evidence merely helpful or important to the defence did not necessarily qualify. A solicitor’s duty to consider the totality of the evidence applied in every case and was not itself a criterion for PPE inclusion. The court relied on the guidance in Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors [2017] EWHC 1045 (QB) and The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB).
3. The appellant had not established 25,000 pages of electronic PPE above the 10,000-page limit. The evidence indicated approximately 28,000 pages in total, and not all electronic material qualified as PPE.
4. Electronic evidence excluded from the PPE count could nevertheless be considered for special preparation. The claim remained subject to reasonableness and the requirement to take all relevant circumstances into account.
5. The claimed Grade A work was not justified. Straightforward data cross-checks were suitable for delegation to a more junior fee earner. The manual page-by-page review was highly inefficient because the PDF material and spreadsheets could be searched electronically. The necessary work could reasonably have been completed within the 320 hours allowed at Grade B.

1. Legal Aid Agency: The Determining Officer ultimately allowed 320 hours of special preparation at Grade B, following redetermination.
2. High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): The appeal under regulation 29 was dismissed.