R v Hamoud Salem Al Soaimi

In assessing criminal legal aid remuneration for Court of Appeal work, the appropriate officer must consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature, importance, complexity and difficulty of the work and the time involved. A reasonable amount may be allowed for work actually and reasonably done.

Preparation for a criminal appeal requires an irreducible minimum of time, even where the advocate is familiar with the underlying case. Legal research is remunerable where it involves necessary, case-specific consideration of relevant authorities rather than general professional development. Hourly rates may be adjusted by reference to the circumstances of the case and appropriate comparative authority.

The appellant challenged a redetermination of his criminal legal aid remuneration following his conviction and sentence for sexual offences. He claimed 10 hours for preparing advice and grounds of appeal, completing forms and considering 279 pages of transcripts, together with four hours for legal research, all at £150 per hour.

The Respondent had allowed eight hours at £75 per hour for the preparation work and nothing for legal research. The appeal concerned the reasonable amount of time and appropriate hourly rate payable under Schedule 3 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

The appeal was allowed in part. The court allowed 13 hours at £135 per hour, totalling £1,755 plus VAT, and directed payment of the balance to the appellant.

1. Relevant statutory approach. Under Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Schedule 3 paragraph 1, remuneration must reflect all relevant circumstances, including the nature, importance, complexity and difficulty of the work and the time involved. The assessment must allow a reasonable amount for work actually and reasonably done.
2. Preparation time. The appeal involved grave and significant offences and was of the utmost importance to the appellant. Advocates in the Court of Appeal bear greater responsibility than when appearing in lower courts. There is an irreducible minimum preparation time for a criminal appeal, regardless of prior familiarity with the case. Having regard to the volume and relevance of the documentation, the claimed 10 hours for preparation, forms, grounds and transcripts was not unreasonable.
3. Legal research. A claim described simply as legal research may suggest time spent on general professional development. Once the appellant explained that the four hours concerned consideration of authorities relevant to the appellate issues, the work was accepted as necessary and remunerable. The amount claimed was excessive, however, and three hours was allowed.
4. Hourly rate. The court considered Evans and others v Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 1525 (QB), while recognising distinctions between that case and the present matter. The rate of £75 was too low, but £150 was not justified. A rate of £135 per hour was appropriate.
5. Costs. The claim for £1,000 plus the appeal fee was not justified by the appellant’s need to return another case. The court allowed £600 for the appeal costs on a fully inclusive basis.

1. Criminal Appeals Office: An original determination was made on 24 October 2024. The Determining Officer redetermined the claim on 21 November 2024.
2. High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): The appeal against redetermination was allowed in part. The remuneration was increased to £1,755 plus VAT, with £600 allowed for the appeal costs.