R v Daljit Singh Pamma

Enhancement of criminal legal aid fees depends on the cumulative effect of the relevant exceptional circumstances, not on comparison with other complex or high-value cases. The assessment must consider responsibility, care, speed, economy, novelty, weight and complexity under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Evidence relevant to confiscation proceedings may reasonably require substantial consideration, but an experienced specialist is expected to identify the material of particular relevance. Property valuation and ownership issues will rarely, by themselves, justify exceptional enhancement. A 35% enhancement was appropriate where significant responsibility and careful, speedy and economical work were established, but the case did not justify the maximum 100% enhancement.

The appellant solicitors represented a defendant convicted of conspiracies involving the importation and supply of controlled drugs. Following confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, they claimed 93.5 hours and a 100% enhancement. The determining officer allowed 30 hours and a 25% enhancement.

The solicitors appealed against the redetermination. The issues were whether the time claimed was reasonably incurred and whether the circumstances justified a greater enhancement under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The reasonable time was increased from 30 to 80 hours, and the enhancement was increased from 25% to 35%. The enhancement applied to all hours allowed.

2. The determining officer had adequately explained the reduction in hours. Nevertheless, allowing 30 hours, or allowing the 93.5 hours claimed, would permit no more than brief consideration of the evidence. Nearly 11,000 pages were of core or limited relevance, and neither category could reasonably be ignored.

3. The relevant question under regulation 26(3) was what work appeared reasonably to have been done. An experienced defence specialist was expected to hone in on evidence of particular relevance to the confiscation issues. The substantial volume of evidence therefore justified 80 hours, but not the full claim.

4. Under regulation 29, the assessment was not a comparison with other complex, high-value confiscation cases. The court had to consider the relevant circumstances and the cumulative effect of the factors in regulation 29(5). The fact that the case involved a large drug conspiracy did not, without more, justify the maximum enhancement.

5. Property valuation and establishing ownership or interests in a single property would only rarely engage the exceptionality provisions. Those matters did not do so here. The defendant’s financial affairs were otherwise relatively straightforward.

6. The fee earner had accepted significant responsibility and had acted with a high degree of care, speed and economy. Those factors, together with the other circumstances already recognised by the determining officer, justified a 35% enhancement. The solicitors were awarded £500 plus the appeal fee.

• Senior Courts Costs Office — The determining officer allowed 30 hours and a 25% enhancement. On appeal, Costs Judge Nagalingam increased these to 80 hours and a 35% enhancement.