R v Tanvir Islam & Ors

For the purposes of calculating prosecution evidence under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, a searchable and navigable PDF created from mobile-phone data does not thereby become a document that existed in paper form. Where an electronic documentary or pictorial exhibit never existed on paper, paragraph 1(5) applies and the determining officer must exercise discretion over the pages to be included as prosecution evidence. The fact that material was served, or that it was presented in PDF format, does not require remuneration for its entire page count. Relevance, the nature and functionality of the material, and the availability of a special-preparation claim may be considered.

The appellant solicitors represented a defendant charged with drug-supply conspiracies. The charges were dismissed, and the solicitors claimed 10,000 pages of prosecution evidence under the Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme. The Respondent allowed 4,789 pages, including a substantial allowance for electronic evidence from a mobile-phone download report.

The appellant argued that the paginated PDF report was served evidence falling within paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 2 and should therefore be counted in full. The appeal concerned whether the report had existed in paper form and whether the Respondent could exercise discretion under paragraph 1(5).

1. The appeal against the redetermination failed. The report was created by downloading data from a mobile phone and converting it into an editable, searchable and navigable PDF. The original form of the evidence was the phone data, not a paper document.

2. PDF remains an electronic format. Its pagination does not establish that the document existed in paper form. The report’s hyperlinks, contents navigation and search functionality provided materially more functionality than a printed page. It therefore did not automatically qualify under paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 2 without the discretionary exercise required by paragraph 1(5).

3. Service of the material did not remove the need to consider relevance. Paragraph 1(5) is an important control mechanism where electronic evidence produces very large page counts containing material that can be identified as irrelevant. The determining officer was entitled to assess which electronic pages should be remunerated, having regard to the nature of the documents and the relevant circumstances.

4. The decision in The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB) did not assist the appellant. That case concerned different circumstances involving spreadsheet data converted to PDF, whereas the present report had substantial digital functionality.

5. R v Furniss (Nottingham Crown Court case number T20137653) was not binding and did not govern the different circumstances of this appeal. The court’s task was to interpret the regulations and allow remuneration that they permitted. The Respondent’s allowance was rational, and the page count was assessed at 4,882 pages. The Respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s £100 appeal fee because a further 93-page concession resulted from the appeal.

Senior Courts Costs Office: The appellant appealed against the Respondent’s determination allowing 4,789 pages of prosecution evidence. The appeal was dismissed, with the page count assessed at 4,882 pages and the Respondent ordered to pay the £100 appeal fee.