R v Hugo Pires

Prescribed rates for interpreters in publicly funded criminal cases may be exceeded where the applicable guidance permits it and the relevant discretion is properly considered. A detailed assessment court lacks delegated authority to authorise rates above those prescribed, but an appellate court may review whether the determining authority addressed the reasons for seeking a higher rate and the absence of prior authority.

Exceptional circumstances require the expert’s evidence to be key to the client’s case and either a high level of seniority to be required because of complexity, or the material to be so specialised and unusual that very few experts are available. The ordinary need for a Portuguese interpreter did not satisfy that test. Scarcity is a separate route and may justify a higher rate where supported by evidence of attempts to obtain alternative quotations or of the best value available.

The appellant solicitor firm appealed against the Legal Aid Agency’s redetermination of two interpreter invoices. The defendant faced charges including murder, and the firm had engaged a Portuguese interpreter at a rate marginally above the prescribed London rate because an interpreter available at that rate could not be located for the required prison visit and video engagement.

The Legal Aid Agency maintained that the prescribed maximum was firm and did not attend the appeal, relying on its written reasons. The central issues were whether a rate above the prescribed amount could ever be allowed, whether the claim fell within the exceptional-circumstances provision in the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, and whether the guidance separately permitted a higher rate where scarcity was demonstrated.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claim was brought on the basis of exceptional circumstances under regulation 16(2) and paragraph 16(3)(b) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
2. The guidance recognised a mechanism for rates above those prescribed. Although a court conducting a detailed assessment had no delegated authority from the Lord Chancellor to authorise higher rates, the present proceedings were an appeal. The judge therefore had jurisdiction to consider whether the Legal Aid Agency had properly addressed the absence of prior authority and the justification for exceeding the maximum rate.
3. Regulation 16(2) conferred a discretion to increase the fixed fees or rates in exceptional circumstances. The interpreter’s assistance was key to the defendant’s case because meaningful communication was impossible without it. However, paragraph 16(3)(b) additionally required material of such a specialised and unusual nature that only very few experts were available. Portuguese interpreting did not meet that threshold. The appeal therefore failed on the case advanced.
4. The judge observed that the Agency’s initial response appeared to adopt a blanket refusal and did not address the circumstances relied on. It was unclear whether the exceptional-circumstances criterion had actually been applied. That did not alter the result because the appellant had not established the statutory test.
5. The guidance also identified scarcity as a separate basis for exceeding prescribed rates. Had the appellant demonstrated attempts to obtain an interpreter at a lower rate, or shown that the claimed rate represented the best value available, the appeal would likely have succeeded. This was a hypothetical observation rather than the basis of the order.
6. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal.

• Legal Aid Agency: The determining officer rejected the claim for interpreter fees above the prescribed rate. A subsequent redetermination maintained the assessment.
• High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): The appeal against redetermination was dismissed.