R v Goudie

For the purposes of the Litigators Graduated Fee Scheme, controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship is not a serious sexual offence merely because some threats are sexual in character. The alleged behaviour must be assessed in its relationship context and by reference to the categories in the applicable Table of Offences. Sexual threats may concern the balance of power within a coercive relationship rather than constitute serious sexual offending. A higher classification requires sufficient evidence that the conduct is analogous to the serious sexual offences identified in Class J. Where the conduct is principally violent, coercive or otherwise non-sexual in character, Class C may be appropriate.

Liberty Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the graduated fee assessed for representing Paul Goudie. The indictment included assault occasioning actual bodily harm, non-fatal strangulation, controlling and coercive behaviour, and possession of Class C drugs.

The solicitors claimed the controlling and coercive behaviour count in Class J, described as serious sexual offences. The determining officer classified it as Class C. The issue was whether the alleged conduct justified classification in Class J rather than Class C.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The determining officer was correct to classify the controlling and coercive behaviour count in Class C.

2. The offence categories in Part 7 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, together with the applicable guidance, require the alleged behaviour to be assessed by its nature and context. The guidance permits controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship to fall within Classes B, C or J, with the appropriate classification depending on the nature of the alleged behaviour.

3. The evidence relied upon included some sexual threats, but other threats were threats of violence. The psychological and physical harm, duration of the conduct, previous convictions and manipulation did not demonstrate that the events were sexual in nature for the purpose of Class J. Sexual threats are commonly made as part of coercive or controlling behaviour in intimate relationships and may concern the balance of power within the relationship rather than amount to serious sexual offences of the kind contemplated by Class J.

4. The alleged conduct was not sufficiently analogous to the serious sexual offences in Class J. The sentencing remarks also suggested that the culpability and harm were not at the highest level, although the remarks may have related principally to the assault count. The Class C classification therefore stood.

• High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 dismissed. The determining officer’s Class C classification was upheld.