R v Sultan Bakr

A sentencing hearing qualifies as a Newton hearing for remuneration purposes only where evidence is heard at that hearing on a factual issue material to sentence. Live evidence is not essential, but reliance solely on evidence heard at the earlier trial is insufficient. A change of solicitors does not create a new Crown Court case where the proceedings remain substantively the same. The fee is therefore calculated under the transfer provisions, rather than as if the replacement solicitor had conducted a new trial.

Berkeley Square Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The appeal concerned remuneration for a sentencing hearing following the defendant’s murder conviction. The sentencing judge resolved a disputed factual issue concerning whether the defendant had taken a knife to the scene, relying on evidence heard at trial. The appellant argued that the hearing was a Newton hearing and that the change of representation created a new case for remuneration purposes.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing hearing was not a Newton hearing for the purposes of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
2. A Newton hearing requires the sentencing court to hear evidence at that hearing concerning facts necessary for sentence. Live evidence is not invariably required, but evidence must be heard at the hearing itself. Evidence heard only at the earlier trial is insufficient.
3. The issue concerning the knife was material to sentence, but the judge merely reconsidered evidence already heard at trial. No new evidence was served or referred to. The hearing was therefore an ordinary sentencing hearing. The conclusion was consistent with R v Williams [2024] EWHC 3159 (SCCO).
4. A change of solicitors did not create a new case. Under Schedule 2, a case means the Crown Court proceedings against the assisted person. As there was no new indictment charging a substantively different case, the transfer provisions governed the fee.
5. Had the hearing been a Newton hearing, it would apparently have added one day to the earlier trial for remuneration purposes. The fee would still not have been calculated as for a new case or second trial. No final finding on that calculation was necessary.

This was an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 from the Determining Officer’s assessment. The appeal was unsuccessful.