R v Victoria Amas

For the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme, evidence forming part of a witness statement’s exhibits may be included in the pages of prosecution evidence count even if it was not uploaded to the Crown Court’s Digital Case System. Electronic evidence that has never existed in paper form may also count where it was supplied informally and was of central importance to the trial. Formal service is not an absolute prerequisite in that situation. Where the resulting evidence exceeds the applicable cap, the advocate may claim special preparation for reviewing the excess pages, subject to a reasonable assessment of the time claimed.

The appeal concerned counsel’s claim for special preparation under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The claim arose from a lengthy Crown Court prosecution in which substantial documentary material had been supplied as unused material before later being exhibited to a prosecution witness’s statement. The material was not uploaded to the Crown Court’s Digital Case System and was excluded from the formal PPE count.

The Determining Officer allowed 54 hours, treating the exhibits as unused material. The central issues were whether the exhibits formed part of the pages of prosecution evidence and whether electronic material which had never existed in paper form could be included despite the absence of formal service.

1. Appeal allowed. The advocate was entitled to claim special preparation for reviewing an additional 20,400 pages of prosecution evidence above the 10,000-page cap. The appropriate additional payment, together with the £100 appeal fee, was payable.
2. Exhibits verified by a prosecution witness’s statement formed part of the pages of prosecution evidence. Their status was not altered because the prosecution had supplied them earlier as unused material or had failed to upload them to the Crown Court’s Digital Case System.
3. Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, documentary or pictorial exhibits served electronically are generally included in the count. Material which had existed in paper form was therefore included.
4. Electronic evidence which had never existed in paper form could also be included. Applying Lord Chancellor v Edward Hayes LLP and Lord Chancellor v SVS Solicitors, formal service was not a prerequisite where the evidence had been supplied informally. Material of central importance to the trial was appropriately treated as served for PPE-count purposes.
5. The worklog did not provide particularly helpful support for the full claim. Nevertheless, the claim was reasonable when checked against the volume of material and the period over which the work was undertaken. Special preparation time was not assessed mechanically by minutes per page, but that comparison provided a useful cross-check.

The judgment was an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 from the Determining Officer’s decision allowing 54 hours’ special preparation. The High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) allowed the appeal in full.