R v Price

In assessing remuneration for leading counsel in publicly funded Court of Appeal proceedings, the appropriate officer must allow a reasonable amount for all work actually and reasonably done, having regard to all relevant circumstances. The assessment should reflect the importance, complexity and difficulty of the case, the skill and responsibility involved, the documents considered, the time spent and any other relevant factor. A detailed and properly accounted-for worklog should not be reduced merely because the total time appears substantial. Typical rates allowed in comparable appeals may inform the assessment. Where the prescribed rate produces inadequate remuneration, and the case has exceptional circumstances, the exceptional-circumstances provision permits a higher fee.

Leading counsel appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Determining Officer’s assessment of fees for representing a defendant in applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal concerned an unusual murder conviction involving rare medical causation, complex medical and evidential issues, extensive CCTV material, bad-character evidence and substantial written work. The prescribed rates were accepted to produce inadequate remuneration. The Determining Officer allowed £5,250 for 26 hours on the conviction application, although 31.9 hours had been claimed. The issue was whether that allowance properly reflected the work reasonably undertaken and the exceptional circumstances of the case.

1. The appeal was allowed. The appropriate fee for leading counsel’s work on the conviction application was £8,500 rather than £5,250.
2. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 requires the appropriate officer to consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature, importance, complexity and difficulty of the work and the time involved, and to allow a reasonable amount for all work actually and reasonably done. Paragraph 9(4) permits a higher amount where exceptional circumstances mean that the prescribed rates would not provide reasonable remuneration.
3. The Determining Officer had not fully recognised the unusual factual and legally complex features of the appeal, including the extensive authorities concerning the presentation of video evidence. The relevant factors were those identified in the Taxing Officer’s Notes for Guidance, paragraph 1.11.
4. The claimed 31.9 hours were not manifestly excessive. The worklog accounted for the time with precision and disclosed no sign of over-claiming.
5. An effective rate of approximately £200 per hour was inadequate. The authorities cited showed that rates of approximately £250 to £275 per hour had typically been allowed to leading counsel on comparable appeals. Taking the relevant criteria and the circumstances of the conviction application into account, £8,500 was reasonable.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): the appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 succeeded to the extent of increasing the fee for the conviction application from £5,250 to £8,500.
• Determining Officer: allowed £5,250 for 26 hours’ work on the conviction application. The allowance was varied on appeal.