R v Valjeet Singh

Under the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme, a second fee may be payable where a later indictment represents a substantial change in the case, rather than merely an administrative or housekeeping amendment. The court must adopt a case-specific approach. It must consider whether the nature of the alleged criminality or the defendant’s jeopardy as to sentence has materially changed. Different defendants in the same proceedings may therefore be entitled to different fees. Where the later indictment substantially alters the allegations and the defendant’s alleged role, a cracked trial fee may be payable for the earlier indictment in addition to the trial fee for the later indictment.

Counsel appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against a determining officer’s decision to allow only one graduated fee. The defendant had originally faced conspiracy allegations on an indictment fixed for trial in 2020. Following further evidence, a later 53-count indictment included six substantive counts against him and materially altered the prosecution case, including his alleged role from follower to principal. Earlier iterations of the indictment were ultimately quashed. The central issue was whether the later indictment was merely administrative or constituted a sufficiently new and materially altered case to justify an additional fee.

1. Appeal allowed. Counsel was entitled to a cracked trial fee for the earlier indictment in addition to the trial fee already paid, together with the £100 appeal fee.
2. The graduated fee scheme ordinarily provides one fee for one case, defined by one or more counts on a single indictment. A further fee is ordinarily available where there is a retrial or severance. The quashing of earlier indictment versions within the Digital Case System can nevertheless create a difficult question where successive indictments appear concurrently.
3. The correct approach is case-specific. The court must distinguish administrative or housekeeping amendments from a substantial change in the case faced by the defendant. The relevant considerations include the change in the nature of the alleged criminality and the defendant’s jeopardy as to sentence.
4. Where multiple defendants are involved, the assessment may differ between defendants. A later indictment may leave one defendant’s case materially unchanged while substantially altering the case against another.
5. Here, the later indictment did more than alter the form of the charges. It introduced specific substantive offences and changed the alleged role of the defendant from a follower or organiser within the United Kingdom to a principal who recruited couriers and personally delivered cash abroad. The change was therefore sufficiently significant to justify a second fee.
6. For calculating the cracked trial fee, the relevant prosecution disclosure was that available at the June 2022 hearing. Although there was no express reference to a stay, the 53-count indictment was before the court and the original indictment had, in effect, been stayed by that stage.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 allowed. The determining officer’s decision allowing only one fee was varied by awarding a cracked trial fee in addition to the trial fee.