R v Daniels

For graduated criminal legal aid fees, a sentencing hearing is a Newton hearing only where the judge is required to conduct a fact-finding exercise concerning disputed matters relevant to sentence. Live evidence is unnecessary: disputed facts may be determined by a jury, by the judge after hearing evidence, or by the judge on submissions alone. Conclusions drawn from undisputed facts, including conclusions about culpability, role, victims or harm, do not turn an ordinary sentencing hearing into a Newton hearing. The character of the hearing depends on what the judge was required to decide, not on how it was listed.

Shafi Solicitors appealed under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The appeal concerned the graduated fee payable for representing Samuel Daniels in the Crown Court. The Legal Aid Agency’s Determining Officer awarded a cracked trial fee rather than a full trial fee.

Daniels had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud and was sentenced after a two-day hearing. The issue was whether the hearing involved disputed factual findings for sentencing purposes and therefore constituted a Newton hearing under Schedule 2.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The two-day hearing was a sentencing hearing, not a Newton hearing.
2. Under Schedule 2 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, a Newton hearing is a hearing at which evidence is heard for the purpose of determining sentence in accordance with the principles of R v Newton (1983) 77 Cr. App. R. 13. The accepted principle was that live evidence is not essential.
3. The relevant question is whether the sentencing judge was required to resolve a disputed factual issue. The three recognised forms identified in R v Newton were: determination by a jury; determination by the judge after hearing evidence; or determination by the judge on submissions without live evidence.
4. The distinction drawn in R v Shehu [2023] EWHC 3483 (SCCO) was applied. A fact-finding exercise may constitute a Newton hearing, whereas undisputed facts capable of different interpretations or inferences do not.
5. The Crown had accepted that there was no evidence that premises rented by the defendant had initially been acquired for criminal purposes. No finding concerning breach of the suspended sentence was required. Nor was there a material dispute requiring a finding about the number of victims directly involved or the defendant’s awareness of the wider conspiracy. The judge’s conclusions about culpability, role and harm were drawn from the undisputed history and competing sentencing submissions.
6. The hearing therefore did not qualify for a full trial fee. The cracked trial fee determination stood.

High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): appeal under regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 dismissed. The Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s decision awarding a cracked trial fee was upheld.