R v Tamim Ahmed

Fees for Court of Appeal work must reflect all relevant circumstances and a reasonable amount for work actually and reasonably done. The assessment includes the work’s nature, importance, complexity or difficulty, and time involved.

Prior familiarity may reduce the time needed, but does not by itself justify reducing the hourly rate or diminish the work’s complexity, value, importance or wider implications. Appellate responsibility and a minimum preparation time may remain relevant despite that familiarity.

Joseph Piers Hedworth, who had acted for Tamim Ahmed in a criminal case, appealed against the redetermination of his criminal legal aid remuneration. Ahmed had pleaded guilty to possessing a Class A controlled drug with intent and received a 27-month prison sentence. Hedworth claimed 5 hours and 50 minutes for sentence appeal work, including preparation for an abandoned Full Court hearing. The Criminal Appeal Office allowed the time claimed at £75 per hour. The Lord Chancellor maintained that rate on redetermination.

Hedworth argued that the hourly rate failed to reflect the responsibility of Court of Appeal work, the importance of the appeal to Ahmed and the economic reality of the work. The issue was what hourly rate was reasonable for the work claimed.

1. The appeal was allowed. Applying the agreed 5 hours and 50 minutes at £140 per hour, the court allowed £816.67 plus VAT and directed that the balance be paid to Hedworth [33]–[34].

2. Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the fee assessment must take account of all relevant circumstances, including the nature, importance, complexity or difficulty of the work and the time involved. It must allow a reasonable amount for work actually and reasonably done [13], [24]–[33]. The time claimed was not disputed and was modest [27].

3. The court recognised that advocates instructed in the Court of Appeal carry greater responsibility than advocates appearing in lower courts. It also recognised an irreducible minimum time for preparing appellate arguments, regardless of prior familiarity with the case [25]–[26]. Familiarity may reduce the time required, but its bearing is on time spent, not the applicable rate. Time spent cannot reduce the case’s complexity, value, importance or wider implications [27]–[28].

4. The appellant relied on Evans and others v Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 1525 (QB) as a rate comparison, while acknowledging distinctions between the cases [29]. The court assessed the present claim by its own circumstances. The appeal was important to Ahmed, but that personal importance did not justify the £150 rate claimed. The underlying facts were uncomplicated, the offending was of low value and the sentencing points were clear. The court fixed the rate at £140 per hour [30]–[33].

5. The court allowed £700 on a fully inclusive basis for the costs of the appeal. Rearrangement of counsel’s diary did not itself justify costs; a different hearing date might have been relevant if a request to the SCCO had been refused [35]–[36].

1. Criminal Appeal Office: The determining officer allowed the claimed 5 hours and 50 minutes at £75 per hour.
2. Redetermination: The Respondent maintained the £75 hourly rate and provided written reasons for refusing the request for redetermination.
3. High Court (Senior Court Costs Office): The appeal was allowed and the hourly rate was fixed at £140.