R v Azad & Anor

Under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, a single indictment against one assisted person constitutes one case for the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme. One case attracts one graduated fee: a full trial fee is payable for the first trial and a retrial fee thereafter. Two full trial fees may arise where separate indictments create separate cases. Changes to the prosecution case, additional evidence, delay, a different judge or greater work do not convert one case into two. The scheme is applied mechanistically, even where the retrial required substantially more work.

City Law Chambers represented Mujahid Azad and Daniyal Gates in Crown Court proceedings funded under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The first trial ended with a hung jury for both defendants; at the January 2025 retrial they were acquitted. The Legal Aid Agency’s Determining Officer allowed a retrial fee rather than two full trial fees.

On an appeal under regulation 29, the solicitors relied on changes to the indictment, the prosecution’s joint-enterprise case, extensive additional digital evidence, the time between trials, and a different trial judge. The central issue was whether those matters created more than one case for the purposes of the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme.

Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The court agreed with the Determining Officer that the January 2025 proceedings attracted a retrial fee, not a second full trial fee.

1. Meaning of case. Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 defines a case as proceedings in the Crown Court against one assisted person on one or more counts of a single indictment. The scheme therefore permits one graduated fee for one case.
2. Fee consequence. Where a single case contains more than one trial, the full trial fee is payable for the first trial and the retrial fee thereafter. Two full trial fees may arise where there is more than one indictment and therefore more than one case, depending on the circumstances. They cannot arise within one case.
3. Application. The change to count 1 was minimal and was treated as reflecting the guilty plea of ZG. It did not materially change the indictment against MA or DG. The altered prosecution theory, additional digital evidence, lengthy interval between trials, change of judge and increased defence work could not convert one case into two. Those matters might support characterising the proceedings as a trial followed by a retrial, but could not justify two full trial fees where there was only one indictment.
4. Authorities and approach. The court followed Lord Chancellor v Eddowes Perry and Osbourne Ltd [2011] 3 Costs L.R. 498, which established the one-case, one-fee principle on identical wording. It explained the effect of R v. Curtis Howarth [2024] EWHC 310 (SCCO) and [2026] EWHC 249 (SCCO), and read R v Elijah Heart [2025] EWHC 2735 (SCCO) as depending on changes to the indictment. The Regulations are applied mechanistically, reflecting the swings-and-roundabouts principle.

1. High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): On appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, Costs Judge Leonard dismissed the appeal and held that a retrial fee was payable.
2. Legal Aid Agency: The Determining Officer had decided that the fee for the January 2025 proceedings was a retrial fee rather than two full trial fees.