R v Lodge

For a graduated criminal legal aid fee to be payable for a Newton hearing, the sentencing hearing must involve a fact-finding exercise. Live evidence is unnecessary if the judge resolves disputed facts through submissions. But interpreting undisputed facts, assessing the offender’s role and applying sentencing guidelines do not amount to a Newton hearing.

The appellant solicitor represented a defendant who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy offences. The defendant was sentenced after disputes concerning the significance of a substantial cocaine supply and his role in the wider operation. The appellant claimed a trial fee, arguing that the sentencing hearing was a Newton hearing. The issue was whether the hearing involved the fact-finding exercise required by Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

1. The appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 was dismissed.
2. Schedule 2 paragraph 1 defines a Newton hearing by reference to the principles of R v Newton. It may involve disputed facts being determined by a jury, by a judge after hearing evidence, or by a judge after hearing submissions without live evidence.
3. The essential requirement is a fact-finding exercise. A sentencing decision based on the interpretation of undisputed facts, the wider context and relevant guidelines does not satisfy that requirement.
4. The sentencing judge was not required to decide the factual issues advanced by the appellant. She assessed the defendant’s role for sentencing purposes on the basis of uncontested facts. That was a sentencing evaluation, not a finding of fact.
5. The hearing was therefore not a Newton hearing and the appellant was not entitled to a trial fee.

The judgment records an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The appeal was dismissed.