R v Miguel Lewin-Miller

The statutory jurisdiction of a Costs Judge under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 is confined to the categories of claim specified by the Regulations. It does not extend to an appeal concerning an advocate’s disbursement where the relevant appeal provisions do not cover such claims. An incorrect notification by the Legal Aid Agency cannot confer jurisdiction which the Regulations do not provide. An appeal brought outside that statutory jurisdiction must fail.

The Appellant appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Legal Aid Agency’s reduction of a rail-fare disbursement claimed under the Advocate’s Graduated Fees Scheme. The Respondent allowed only the amount calculated under the local bar rule, leaving £122.40 in dispute.

The appeal was initially listed for an oral hearing but was determined on the papers. The central issue was whether the Determining Officer and the Senior Courts Costs Office had statutory jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning an advocate’s disbursement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was unsuccessful because the Senior Courts Costs Office had no statutory jurisdiction to determine it.
2. The Representation Order was issued in July 2021. The applicable regime was therefore the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, as amended.
3. Regulation 29.1 provides an applicant’s right of appeal. A Costs Judge may entertain an appeal only following delivery of written reasons under regulation 28(8). Regulation 28(1) defines the circumstances in which an advocate may appeal.
4. The categories of claim to which regulation 28 applies do not include claims for advocate’s disbursements. Consequently, neither the Determining Officer nor the Senior Courts Costs Office had statutory jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
5. The conclusion was consistent with R v. Humfrey [2020] SCCO Ref: SC2020-CRI-000138 and R v Stallard [2024] SC-2023-CRI-000095, which adopted the same reasoning. The court emphasised that its jurisdiction was statutory and could not be extended beyond the scope of the Regulations.
6. The Legal Aid Agency’s earlier advice that the Appellant was entitled to appeal did not confer jurisdiction. Since the court lacked jurisdiction, the appeal had to fail.

• Senior Courts Costs Office: Appeal from the Determining Officer’s decision reducing payment for an advocate’s rail-fare disbursement. The appeal was dismissed for want of statutory jurisdiction.