R v Bowen

When electronically served prosecution evidence has never existed in paper form, its inclusion in prosecution evidence pages is discretionary. The assessor must consider the nature of the document and all relevant circumstances. PDF pagination and conversion to an A4 equivalent are useful tools, but do not establish the page count automatically.

The assessment should reflect the work reasonably required, the importance of the evidence, the nature and amount of that work, and the extent to which the evidence featured in the case. Irrelevant material, blank cells and data requiring no close consideration may be filtered out. A sensible approximation is permissible where a mechanical count would cause overpayment.

This was an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 concerning remuneration for electronically served prosecution evidence.

Noble Solicitors represented Ashley Bowen in Crown Court proceedings concerning an alleged conspiracy to supply class A drugs. The disputed material comprised call data records supplied electronically in PDF, Excel and CSV formats. The Determining Officer assessed total prosecution evidence at 7,853 pages, while the appellant sought the 10,000-page cap on appeal.

The central issue was how to assess call data presented in A1 PDF format, including whether each A1 PDF page should automatically count as eight A4 pages and whether a further reduction was required for irrelevant or non-substantive data.

1. Disposition. The appeal was unsuccessful. The court allowed, subject to clarification of the precise calculation, 2,096 pages of ePPE for the disputed material served in A1 PDF format.
2. Under regulation 29(12) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the appeal was considered afresh. Paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 2 required the Costs Judge to consider the nature of the document and all relevant circumstances when deciding whether electronic documentary or pictorial exhibits should be included in prosecution evidence pages.
3. A page is a sheet of paper. Electronic material that has never existed in paper form is not automatically paginated for the purposes of the scheme. The task is therefore not to count PDF pages mechanically, but to exercise the statutory discretion so that remuneration is appropriate and neither underpayment nor overpayment results.
4. PDF pagination and upscaling provide a useful estimate of the work reasonably required. They are tools in the discretionary assessment, not rules which convert each PDF page into a fixed number of PPE pages. The assessment must account for the evidence’s importance, the amount and nature of the work, who performed it, and the extent to which the evidence featured in the case.
5. Call data could be important and require genuine analysis, including checking contact patterns, timing, frequency and location. However, raw data commonly contains irrelevant metadata, blank cells and information which can be filtered or located efficiently using Excel or PDF search functions. Material requiring only a glance or limited checking need not be treated as equivalent to closely considered paper evidence.
6. The court endorsed a sensible approximation. The relevant proportion of material requiring close consideration could be assessed broadly, without requiring an impracticable page-by-page exercise. A nominal eightfold conversion for A1 material would risk substantial overcompensation where the underlying data did not require equivalent work.
7. The court accepted the Legal Aid Agency’s figure of 2,096 pages. It noted that some material might instead have attracted a special preparation fee under paragraph 20 of Schedule 2, but that issue had not been developed in the submissions.

High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): Appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The appeal was unsuccessful and 2,096 pages of disputed ePPE were allowed, subject to clarification of the precise calculation.