R v Wandel

For the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme, reclassification of an unlisted indictable offence is determined by the nature of the offence and the structure of the LGFS Table of Offences. The particular complexity, publicity, resources, media interest, use of artificial intelligence, or defendant’s mental-health difficulties in an individual case do not justify classification in a different class. The Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme banding document is irrelevant because it operates within a distinct regime. A stalking offence under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, comparable with a section 4 offence under the same Act and not listed in the LGFS table, properly falls within Class H. The appeal was dismissed, although Class C was upheld for the purposes of the appeal.

SVS Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 against the Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s classification of the offence for which it had represented Julia Wandel in a Crown Court trial. The indictment charged stalking causing serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Defendant was convicted of the lesser offence of harassment under section 2 and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

The offence was not listed in the LGFS Table of Offences and therefore defaulted to Class H, subject to possible reclassification under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. The Determining Officer classified it as Class C; the Appellant sought Class B, relying on the offence’s maximum sentence, the trial’s length and complexity, exceptional publicity, use of artificial intelligence, mental-health issues, and the deployment of King’s Counsel and a High Court Judge. The central issue was the proper approach to reclassification under the LGFS.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the section 4A offence should properly have remained in Class H. However, because the Respondent accepted that the Determining Officer’s Class C decision should be upheld for this appeal, the case remained classified as Class C.
2. The LGFS is mechanistic. Its provisions take account of case weight and complexity through factors such as the pages of prosecution evidence and trial length, together with limited specified mechanisms such as special preparation. The offence classification is not a general discretion to adjust fees for the circumstances of an individual case.
3. Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, reclassification is determined by the nature of the offence for which the defendant is tried, or with which the defendant is charged if there is no trial. The relevant comparison is made by reference to the structure and content of the LGFS Table of Offences. Factors extraneous to the offence, including public interest, media attention, the allocation of senior counsel or a High Court Judge, alleged AI-related complexity and mental-health difficulties, do not determine the class.
4. The court treated the section 4 and section 4A offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as readily comparable. Since section 4 is listed in Class H and section 4A is not specifically listed, Class H was the obvious and correct classification. The Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme banding document could not assist because it belongs to a differently structured fee regime and has no application to LGFS classification.
5. Even on the alternative assumption that reclassification from Class H were permissible by reference to wider case factors, Class B was inappropriate. Its hallmark features were serious violence, damage or serious drugs offences, which were absent. The alleged additional burden from publicity, AI use and mental-health problems could not materially support that classification.

• High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): On an appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that Class H was correct but upheld Class C for the purposes of the appeal: [2026] EWHC 2470 (SCCO) .
• Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer: Classified the section 4A offence as Class C. The Appellant sought classification as Class B.