R v Taj

Special preparation fees under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 are assessed by reference to the reasonable time required to review qualifying prosecution evidence above the page limit. A claim must reflect the nature and content of the evidence and the efficient method reasonably available for analysing it. Where electronic data can be searched electronically to produce the necessary results, a substantial claim based on manual review may be reduced. The court must consider all relevant circumstances, but the duty to consider served evidence does not justify an excessive or uniform time allowance per page.

Yates Ardern represented a defendant prosecuted in the Crown Court for conspiracy to handle stolen goods and possession of an article for use in fraud. The prosecution served 18,520 pages of evidence, including extensive electronic call-data material. The Appellant claimed 399.9 hours of special preparation for evidence exceeding the 10,000-page limit. The Determining Officer allowed 150 hours at Grade B level. The appeal under regulation 29 concerned whether the full claim was reasonably payable, particularly in light of the Appellant’s duty to consider all served evidence and the electronic nature of the data.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claim was assessed under paragraph 20 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The special preparation fee was confined to reasonable time spent reading or viewing qualifying evidence beyond the 10,000-page limit, subject to consideration of all relevant circumstances.
2. The Appellant’s claim amounted to approximately three minutes per page, without regard to the content or relative importance of the data. Time spent reviewing witness statements would ordinarily fall within the first 10,000 pages, leaving the special preparation claim principally concerned with electronic data above the limit.
3. Following the approach in R v Lastowski [2024] EWHC 1854 (SCCO), a manual review was not a reasonable basis for claiming the full amount where the electronic evidence was suitable for electronic search methods capable of producing the same results in a fraction of the time.
4. The court concluded that an appropriately efficient electronic review of the excess evidence could not reasonably have required more than the 150 hours already allowed, whether or not time spent on witness statements was included. The Determining Officer’s allowance therefore stood.

The appeal was brought under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Determining Officer’s assessment allowing 150 hours of special preparation. The High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) dismissed the appeal.