R v Anjum

In determining criminal legal aid remuneration, a court may adjust a nominal electronic page count to exclude blank pages and obviously irrelevant material. Where the case requires understanding the context and nuance of extensive electronic communications, keyword searching alone may be insufficient. Reasonable manual review may be allowed in addition to digital searching.

A claim for consideration of unused material should not be rejected solely because of an erroneous understanding of when disclosure occurred. The court may make a conservative assessment where the evidence supports the work undertaken but does not permit precise calculation.

The appellant, representing a defendant in a terrorism-related Crown Court trial, appealed the Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s assessment of claims under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

The claims concerned special preparation for reviewing served telephone-download evidence and consideration of the unused portion of a complete mobile-phone download. The Determining Officer allowed 100 hours for special preparation and rejected the unused-material claim in full. The central issues were the appropriate methodology for reviewing extensive electronic material and whether the unused material had been disclosed within the scope of the Representation Order.

1. The appeal succeeded in part. The allowance for special preparation was increased from 100 to 190 hours, and 80 hours were allowed for consideration of unused material.
2. The nominal PPE count had to be assessed having regard to blank pages and pages wholly or partly comprising obviously irrelevant material. The court relied on the established approach in The Lord Chancellor v Lam & Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB).
3. The Determining Officer was entitled to take account of the content and density of the electronic material and the potential efficiency of digital search techniques. However, keyword searching alone was inadequate in this case. The defence needed to examine the relationship between the defendant and her son, and to assess the context and significance of communications, including text contained in images. A methodology combining keyword searches with manual analysis was therefore appropriate.
4. Because the court had limited information about the proportion of irrelevant material, it adopted the Determining Officer’s 100-hour allowance as a base for keyword analysis and allowed a further 90 hours for manual review.
5. The complete download from PO/1 had been available to the defence by 24 January 2024. The contrary understanding relied upon by the Determining Officer was incorrect. The appellant’s worklog provided sufficient evidence that substantial consideration of the unused material had taken place. Although the precise allowance could not be calculated, dismissing the claim entirely would cause injustice. A conservative allowance of 80 hours was appropriate.

The appropriate additional payment was to be made, together with £800 exclusive of VAT for costs and the £100 paid on appeal.

• Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer: allowed 100 hours for special preparation and rejected the unused-material claim.
• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): allowed the appeal in part and increased the allowances as stated above.