R v Cam’ron Dunn

Relevance of electronic prosecution evidence does not require remuneration for every page. A proportionate percentage may be applied where the material has varying levels of relevance and other evidence addresses the issues. The appropriate starting point is ordinarily the number of pages, not the number of individual images. The assessment should consider the nature of the material, its relevance to the charges and defence, and the evidential significance of other material. The balance may be claimed as special preparation where appropriate.

The appellant solicitors appealed against a redetermination concerning remuneration for electronic images extracted from the defendant’s mobile-phone data in a murder prosecution. The defendant relied on self-defence and said that images showed the history of his relationships with the deceased and relevant gang members. The issue was whether 6,591 pages of images should be remunerated in full as prosecution evidence, whether each image should count as a page, or whether a percentage allowance should be applied.

1. The fact that material requires page-by-page analysis does not establish entitlement to remuneration for all pages. The appropriate starting point was the 6,591 pages in the images section, rather than approximately 37,570 individual images. The court rejected an assumed equivalence of one image to one page, while recognising that screenshots, documents and group photographs may sometimes require greater consideration.
2. The percentage allowance had to reflect the relevance of the images to the offences and the defence. CCTV footage and qualified admissions already formed the evidential foundation of the case. Images showing prior relationships between the defendant, the deceased and relevant gang members could nevertheless have contextual relevance. The Respondent’s 5 per cent allowance acknowledged relevance, but the circumstances justified a modest increase.
3. The appeal was allowed in part. Ten per cent of the 6,591 pages, namely 659 pages, was allowed as prosecution evidence. The balance could be claimed as special preparation. The Respondent was ordered to pay £750 plus VAT in costs and the court fee.

The judgment concerned an appeal against the Respondent’s redetermination of the appellant’s remuneration claim. No separate lower-court citation is stated.