R v Muse

For a Newton hearing to qualify for the applicable graduated fee, there must be a factual dispute requiring judicial resolution. Live evidence is not essential. The judge may determine disputed facts from submissions alone, consistently with the principles in R v Newton. However, findings or observations concerning undisputed facts do not turn an ordinary sentencing hearing into a Newton hearing. A hearing’s listing or the fee received by counsel is not determinative. The court must assess what occurred on the facts.

Wells Burcombe LLP appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The appeal concerned whether the solicitor was entitled to a trial fee rather than a cracked trial fee under Schedule 2.

The defendant had initially advanced a basis of plea involving disputed allegations of threats and violence. He withdrew that basis at the beginning of the listed Newton hearing. The sentencing judge considered the material as mitigation but made no finding resolving disputed facts. The central issue was whether the hearing nevertheless constituted a Newton hearing for remuneration purposes.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court made its own assessment of whether a Newton hearing had taken place.

2. Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 refers to a Newton hearing as a hearing at which evidence is heard for sentencing purposes according to the principles of R v Newton. Despite that wording, it was accepted that live evidence is not essential. That conclusion follows because the recognised forms of Newton hearing include determination by a jury, determination by a judge after hearing evidence, and determination by a judge after hearing submissions without live evidence.

3. The essential requirement is a factual dispute for the judge to resolve. A Crown concession does not constitute a judicial finding; it makes a finding unnecessary. Where the sentencing judge merely refers to undisputed factual matters, the hearing remains a sentencing hearing rather than a Newton hearing.

4. The defendant’s proposed basis of plea had been withdrawn. The evidence of his mother and sister was not challenged and they were not called. The sentencing judge accepted that the defendant may have experienced pressure and assault, but treated those matters as mitigation and found that they did not significantly affect culpability. No disputed factual issue was resolved.

5. The hearing’s listing as a Newton hearing and the possibility that counsel received a Newton-hearing fee were not determinative. On the facts, no Newton hearing took place, so the appeal against the remuneration outcome failed.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office) — Appeal under regulation 29 of the [2024] EWHC 1969 (SCCO) dismissed.
• Crown Court at Reading — The defendant was sentenced after withdrawing his basis of plea at a hearing listed as a Newton hearing. No separate lower-court citation is stated in the judgment.