R v Ozemelam

When assessing special preparation under the Litigators Graduated Fee Scheme, the determining officer must assess the work actually required by the disclosed material. A general assumption that spreadsheet data converted to PDF has an inflated page count is insufficient where the PDF pages are substantially full of data. The assessment must also reflect the material actually reviewed and the nature of the search required. Search techniques suitable for locating discrete terms in a spreadsheet may not be appropriate where the task is to analyse the relationship between individuals across extensive telephone data. A broad time-per-page calculation should not be applied mechanistically, but may provide a useful cross-check when testing whether the time claimed is reasonable.

A2 Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s assessment of special preparation undertaken for Kevin Ozemelam’s defence. The case involved extensive telephone data disclosed in two PDF documents, comprising 6,178 pages, together with 22 pages of unused schedules. The solicitors claimed 101.33 hours at Grade A, whereas the determining officer maintained an allowance of 40 hours at Grade B. The central issues were whether the data had an inflated page count because it originated in Excel format and whether quicker spreadsheet search techniques should have been used.

1. Appeal allowed. The determining officer was directed to recalculate the special preparation claim on the basis of the net 101.33 hours claimed. The solicitors were also entitled to a contribution to their fees and the court fee.
2. The PDFs showed that the underlying data had originally been included in an Excel spreadsheet. That fact did not establish that conversion to PDF had distorted the information or significantly increased the page count. The pages were substantially full of rows and columns, with only the final two pages being blank or almost blank. The general proposition that conversion from Excel to PDF increases page count was therefore not made out on the evidence.
3. The determining officer’s allowance was based on an assumed page total of less than 4,000 and the possibility of faster search techniques. Those assumptions were rejected. The material supplied to the solicitors was in PDF form, and the relevant task was to investigate the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim, rather than to locate a discrete telephone number or other searchable term.
4. A time-per-page calculation should not be applied mechanically. In this case, however, the claimed time represented approximately one page per minute and provided a useful cross-check supporting the reasonableness of the claim. The work was important in the context of the charges and the claimed period was reasonable.

The appeal was brought to the High Court (Senior Court Costs Office) under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the determining officer’s determination and redetermination. The appeal succeeded, and the claim was remitted to the determining officer for recalculation.