R v Kalim Chaudhry

Remuneration for electronic prosecution evidence is not determined by counting every page that requires review. The court should assess the relevant evidence and award a percentage that reasonably reflects its importance and the size of the data set. Relevant considerations include duplication, stock material, the availability of other evidence, the evidential purpose of the material and the format in which it is presented.

A still image extracted from a video is not a documentary or pictorial exhibit qualifying as electronic prosecution evidence where there is no paper equivalent to the video. Time spent watching the video may instead be claimed as non-page-based remuneration.

The appellant solicitor appealed against the redetermination of remuneration for reviewing electronic prosecution evidence in a criminal case. The original claim was based on 10,000 pages, but remuneration was assessed on 259 pages, with further concessions made during the appeal.

The remaining issues concerned the appropriate percentage allowance for 4,332 pages of still images in an electronic phone download, and whether still images taken from video files qualified as prosecution evidence for page-count purposes. The court also had to determine the costs of the appeal.

1. Image pages. The fact that material requires page-by-page analysis does not automatically justify remuneration for 100 per cent of the pages. The court must adopt the settled approach of assessing the relevant pages and applying a percentage reasonably reflecting the importance of the evidence and the size of the data set.
2. Here, many images were stock images, emojis, graphics or duplicates capable of rapid dismissal. Physical evidence found at the arrest address reduced the significance of images concerning drugs and paraphernalia. Images of some individuals and groups nevertheless required consideration for attribution. The thumbnail format both complicated detailed analysis and enabled many images to be dismissed quickly.
3. An allowance of 20 per cent of the image pages was therefore reasonable for considering relevance concerning drugs, related paraphernalia and attribution. This was additional to the categories already allowed by the respondent.
4. Video thumbnails. The court declined to depart from the settled approach reflected in R v Parle. A still taken from a video could not qualify as electronic prosecution evidence on the basis of a paper equivalent, because a video has no paper equivalent. A still might also be taken from any part of a video and fail to represent its true content. No allowance was made for stills of videos. Time spent watching videos could form part of a non-PPE remuneration claim.
5. Costs. Although the appellant achieved substantial success, its more realistic position had been advanced very late. The hearing was nevertheless unlikely to have been avoided, and the respondent had been directed to produce a Scott schedule. The court allowed the appellant £1,250 for appeal costs, fully inclusive.

• Senior Courts Costs Office: appeal against the redetermination of remuneration allowed in part. A 20 per cent allowance was made for the still-image pages, no allowance was made for video stills, and £1,250 was allowed for appeal costs.