R v Azam

For special preparation under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, time reasonably spent reading prosecution evidence may include evaluating the material being read where that evaluation is an innate part of the reading process. It does not include separate evidential analysis or general trial preparation.

Where electronically served evidence is provided in spreadsheet form, a print-preview page count may be unreliable. A more reliable count may be obtained by removing completely blank columns before generating the print preview. The resulting count, together with the time claimed per page, may provide a useful cross-check when assessing reasonableness.

The appellant, a defence advocate, appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the allowance of 36 hours for special preparation. He had claimed 85.5 hours for reviewing chats and emails contained in a telephone download report served in spreadsheet form.

The parties accepted that the 700-page threshold was substantially exceeded and that special preparation was justified. The central issue was whether the appellant’s description of work involving assessment of relevance represented reading within paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 1, or separate evidential analysis outside its scope.

1. The appeal was allowed in full. The appropriate additional payment was ordered, together with £450 costs exclusive of VAT and the £100 paid on appeal.

2. Paragraph 17(3) requires the special preparation fee to be calculated by reference to time reasonably spent reading excess prosecution evidence. Work falling outside the reading process, such as separate evidential analysis or preparation of schedules, cannot be claimed under that provision.

3. The phrase in the appellant’s worklog referring to assessing relevance was capable of describing either a separate analytical exercise or consideration forming part of reading. The correct classification depended on the substance of the work and the surrounding circumstances.

4. The court treated spreadsheet print-preview counts with caution because they may contain many pages with minimal or no relevant information. Applying the method approved in R v Rimon Ali, the court removed completely blank columns and adopted the lower of the resulting alternative counts. This produced approximately 7,163 pages, or about 6,800 pages in excess of the 700-page limit.

5. The claim of 85.5 hours represented less than one minute per excess page. That was consistent with reading rather than additional analysis. The appellant’s assessment of relevance was therefore an innate part of the reading process and fell within paragraph 17(3).

The appeal was brought under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s allowance of 36 hours for special preparation. The High Court (Senior Court Costs Office) allowed the appeal in full.