R v Edward King

On an appeal from a remuneration assessment, a generic explanation may be permissible where the claim is presented as an undifferentiated block. Where counsel supplies a detailed time log, however, a substantial reduction should be supported by reasons sufficiently particularised to the entries. A blanket allowance unsupported by reasons identifying excessive or unnecessary work is not justified. Consistency between trial and appellate counsel does not by itself establish duplication. The appellate court may set aside the assessment and reconsider the claim, taking account of the seriousness, importance, complexity and all relevant circumstances.

Richard Christie KC claimed remuneration for 110.79 hours of work on an appeal against Edward King’s murder conviction and sentence. The Determining Officer allowed 80 hours at the accepted rate of £250 per hour, giving generic reasons that the claimed preparation was excessive because counsel had acted below. The appellant challenged the number of hours allowed, but not the rate. The central issue was whether those reasons adequately explained the reduction despite a six-page log containing 59 dated entries and detailed descriptions of the work undertaken.

1. Appeal allowed. The court set aside the Determining Officer’s decision and conducted its own consideration of the remuneration claim.
2. The judge held that a generic approach may be permissible where counsel presents an undifferentiated block of time. In this case, however, the appellant had provided a six-page breakdown containing 59 entries over 31 dates, with accurate timings and descriptions. The Determining Officer could therefore have identified the dates on which work was excessive or the work that was unnecessary. The blanket reduction of more than 30 hours was not justified by the written reasons.
3. The seriousness and importance of the underlying case were clearly established. The appeal involved a murder conviction, concerns about audio evidence and expert credentials, and 13 grounds addressing evidential rulings, summing-up and direction failures, lack of balance, and the conduct of closing submissions. Although continuity between trial and appellate counsel may be relevant to duplication, the particular facts and circumstances did not materially support such a reduction here.
4. On reviewing each time entry and considering what was reasonable in all the circumstances, the court reduced the claim by 12.09 hours. The allowed time was therefore 98.7 hours, an increase of 18.7 hours over the Determining Officer’s assessment.
5. The £100 appeal fee was ordered to be repaid. The Respondent was ordered to pay appeal costs summarily assessed at £900.

1. Determining Officer — In reasons dated 12 September 2025, the appellant’s claim for 110.79 hours was assessed at 80 hours at £250 per hour.
2. High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) — On appeal, Costs Judge Nagalingam set aside the assessment, allowed 98.7 hours, ordered repayment of the appeal fee and summarily assessed appeal costs at £900: [2026] EWHC 1817 (SCCO) .