R v Batley

For graduated criminal legal aid fees, a Newton hearing depends on substance rather than its listing or description. It requires a substantial factual dispute affecting sentence to be resolved by the judge. Live evidence is unnecessary, but there must otherwise be substantial submissions on the disputed facts, followed by a ruling, either separately or within the sentencing remarks. Preliminary discussion of competing bases of plea, sentencing ranges, and a Goodyear indication does not itself amount to a Newton hearing where the judge makes no ruling on the disputed facts.

John Delaney & Co appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s calculation of the graduated fee on a guilty-plea basis rather than a trial-fee basis.

The issue was whether proceedings on 14 August 2025 constituted a Newton hearing. The defendant’s basis of plea differed materially from the prosecution’s case, but the hearing involved discussion of sentencing ranges and a subsequent Goodyear indication. No live evidence was called and the judge made no ruling on the disputed facts.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The graduated fee was properly calculated on the basis of a guilty plea rather than a trial fee.
2. Under Schedule 2 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, a Newton hearing is a hearing at which evidence is heard for sentencing purposes in accordance with (1982) 77 Cr App R 13. The essential feature is a substantive factual issue which must be resolved to enable the judge to sentence appropriately. Substance, rather than the hearing’s label, is determinative.
3. R v Newton identified three procedural possibilities: the disputed facts may be determined by a jury; the judge may hear evidence and decide the issue; or the judge may hear no live evidence but determine the issue following submissions from counsel.
4. Live evidence is not essential. Where no evidence is called, however, there must be substantial submissions on the disputed facts and relevant material, followed by a ruling by the judge, either separately or as part of the sentencing remarks.
5. The exchanges in this case showed a difference between the defence and prosecution positions, and the disputed issue could have materially affected sentence. Nevertheless, the advocates made no substantial submissions on the disputed facts. The judge commented on the text messages and gave a Goodyear indication, but did not rule on the disputed basis of plea. The hearing therefore fell outside the second and third Newton possibilities and was not a Newton hearing.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 dismissed.