R v Sandra Hannah

Where a first indictment is stayed and a separate indictment involving a different prosecution proceeds, the defendant is entitled to separate graduated fees under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. References to joinder may concern the addition of defendants to the later indictment and do not necessarily establish that the two indictments were joined. The court must assess the documentary and procedural evidence to determine whether the indictments remained separate.

Solicitors acting for Sandra Hannah appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The determining officer allowed only one graduated fee, treating two indictments as joined and deducting a previously paid guilty plea fee from the cracked trial fee.

The first indictment concerned drug importation and criminal property offences. After a second indictment alleging conspiracy to import a controlled drug was preferred, the first indictment was stayed and the second proceeded to trial. The prosecution offered no evidence against Ms Hannah, who was acquitted. The central issue was whether the indictments were separate proceedings for remuneration purposes.

1. Appeal allowed. The solicitors were entitled to both the guilty plea fee claimed for the stayed indictment and the cracked trial fee claimed for the later indictment.

2. The court preferred the solicitors’ evidence that the first indictment had been stayed on 21 July 2023, relying in particular on the apparent Digital Case System screenshot. The determining officer had not adequately answered that evidence.

3. The references in the court records to joining defendants and to joining indictments were capable of referring to further defendants being added to the second indictment. They did not demonstrate that the two separate indictments faced by Ms Hannah had been joined.

4. Where the first indictment was stayed and a second indictment involving a different prosecution proceeded, there was no dispute that two fees were payable under the Regulations. That was the position on the facts found.

5. The solicitors were also entitled to repayment of the appeal fee and £250, exclusive of VAT, for the costs of bringing the appeal.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 allowed against the determining officer’s decision that only one graduated fee was payable.