R v Rossitter

Under the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme, fees for committals for sentence are fixed unless the statutory escape clause applies. The determining officer must assess whether the fixed fee is inappropriate in the relevant circumstances and, if so, allow reasonable remuneration under the prescribed provisions. There is no general discretion to increase fees merely because a case is unusually demanding or involves work exceeding the norm. Work principally attributable to a guilty plea, including psychiatric evidence, extended sentencing and difficult instructions, does not necessarily justify an enhanced committal fee. The overall remuneration scheme may operate on a swings-and-roundabouts basis, and additional work will not trigger the escape clause unless the statutory conditions are met.

This was an appeal by counsel against fees allowed by the determining officer under the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme in the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Counsel represented a defendant who pleaded guilty to robbery and was later sentenced, together with three matters committed from the Magistrates’ Court, at hearings in November 2024 and January 2025.

The determining officer allowed the applicable guilty-plea and committal fees, including an uplift for the additional committals, but declined to invoke the escape clause. Counsel sought substantially higher remuneration, relying on the psychiatric evidence, the defendant’s changing instructions, the extended sentencing process and the work undertaken to present the offences as a wider course of conduct. The central issue was whether those circumstances made the standard committal fees inappropriate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The fees allowed for the committals for sentence were not shown to be inadequate under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
2. Schedule 1 applies to proceedings including sentencing hearings following committal for sentence. Paragraph 20 provides fixed fees for the relevant hearings, subject to the escape provisions in paragraphs 20(4) and 20(5). There is no general discretion to exceed the prescribed fees in a deserving or unusually difficult case.
3. The escape clause requires the appropriate officer to conclude that the fixed fee would be inappropriate, having regard to all relevant circumstances, and then to allow reasonable remuneration in accordance with the prescribed categories of preparation, attendance and refresher work. The statutory structure therefore governs both the availability and assessment of enhanced fees.
4. The extra work in this case was substantially connected with the robbery guilty plea. The psychiatric report, the two-day sentencing hearing and the difficulties in taking instructions could be viewed as relevant to the committal proceedings, but they were also directed principally towards reducing the sentence for the robbery. The additional offences attracted only a modest concurrent sentence.
5. The unusual features of the case and the justified efforts of the defence team did not make the standard committal fee unreasonable. The determining officer was entitled to remain unpersuaded that the work relating to the additional offences justified invoking the escape clause.
6. The prescribed aggregate of fees is intended to provide reasonable remuneration across cases. Work exceeding the norm does not itself trigger the escape clause. The appeal accordingly failed.

• Determining officer: Allowed the applicable guilty-plea and committal fees, including a 20% uplift for the further committals, but declined to invoke the escape clause.
• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): Dismissed counsel’s appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.