R v Murphy

On an appeal under Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, reasonable remuneration must be assessed by reference to the overall fee allowed. A reduction in an hourly rate requires adequate justification. Where the claimed preparation time has been reduced, the court may uphold that assessment if it is based on the determining officer’s experience and is not challenged. However, an unexplained reduction in the rate may make the resulting fee unreasonable, particularly in a serious case involving complex issues. The court may restore the rate, or otherwise increase the fee, so that the total remuneration properly reflects the work undertaken and the complexity of the matter.

Nicholas Bleaney, counsel, appealed under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against fees allowed by a determining officer. The underlying case concerned a defendant convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Her conviction appeal failed, but her sentence was reduced. Counsel claimed remuneration for preparing advice and grounds of appeal and for subsequent work.

The determining officer reduced both the hourly rate and the amount of time allowed for the original advice, while allowing the time claimed for later work. The central issue was whether the resulting fees constituted reasonable remuneration.

1. Appeal allowed. The court increased the first fee from £400 to £600 plus VAT and the second fee from £1,450 to £2,100. Counsel was also awarded £500 plus VAT for the appeal and reimbursement of the £100 appeal payment.
2. The assessment concerned whether the sums allowed provided reasonable remuneration. That question required consideration of the overall fee, rather than treating the time and hourly-rate reductions as isolated matters.
3. The determining officer’s reduction in preparation time was upheld. Counsel did not challenge that reduction, and the determining officer had given comprehensive reasons and relied on long experience in comparing similar documents and claimed preparation times.
4. The reduction in the hourly rate was not adequately justified. The determining officer stated only that £70 per hour was reasonable, without explaining why the claimed rate of £100 was unreasonable. Any suggestion that counsel’s prior familiarity with the case justified the lower rate was insufficiently clear and did not justify the reduction.
5. The case involved serious and complex issues concerning mental capacity, the defendant’s participation in the alleged conspiracies, and sentencing. In that context, £400 plus VAT for the first work and £1,450 for the later work did not constitute reasonable remuneration. Restoring the claimed hourly rate for the first fee and allowing the claimed second fee produced reasonable remuneration.

• High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office): Appeal under Regulation 29 allowed. The fees were increased and a contribution to the costs of the appeal, including reimbursement of the court fee, was ordered.
• Court of Appeal: In February 2021, the underlying appeal against conviction was unsuccessful, but the sentence was reduced from 12 years’ imprisonment to 10 years. No citation is stated in the judgment.