R v Dodsworth

Under the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme, where several defendants face a murder charge in the same case, band 1.2 applies to the fee for each defendant’s advocate if any one of them has a previous murder conviction. The wording is read in the context of a mechanistic scheme that generally bands offences by their nature and seriousness and is expected to operate consistently. It would be anomalous for advocates representing defendants charged with the same offence at the same trial to receive different bands solely because one defendant has a previous murder conviction.

Richard Wright KC appealed a Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s decision about the fee payable for representing Samuel Dodsworth in a murder prosecution. Dodsworth was tried alongside Rico Gedel, who had a previous murder conviction; Dodsworth did not. A second charge alleged possession of an offensive weapon in prison. The jury was discharged and a retrial remained pending.

The Determining Officer placed the murder charge in band 1.3. Wright sought band 1.2, arguing that it applied because a co-defendant had a previous murder conviction. The Respondent distinguished R v Symons [SCCO Ref 149/21], in which band 1.2 had been applied to adults charged alongside a child. The central question was whether band 1.2 turned on the previous conviction of the individual represented or of any defendant charged in the case.

1. Appeal allowed. The fee payable for representing the Defendant was to be calculated under band 1.2. The appropriate additional payment, together with the appeal fee, was to be made to the Applicant.
2. The ordinary and natural meaning of the band 1.2 wording was ambiguous. It could refer only to the defendant who personally had a previous murder conviction, or to a case in which any defendant charged with the murder had such a conviction. The wording had to be read in the context of the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme and the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.
3. The scheme operates mechanistically, with only limited discretion for Determining Officers. Although the resulting fee may not always match the work done by an individual advocate, users of the scheme are entitled to expect consistency. The scheme generally bands offences by their nature, while its bands broadly reflect the seriousness and complexity of the case.
4. Reading band 1.2 as applying only to the advocate for the defendant with the previous conviction would make it the only band under which advocates representing different defendants charged with the same offence at the same trial could receive different fees. That result was anomalous. Here, the co-defendant’s previous conviction and the security conditions, evidence and issues arising from it materially affected both advocates’ work. The court therefore interpreted band 1.2 to apply to the case where any defendant charged with murder had a previous murder conviction.
5. The court regarded the approach taken in R v Symons [SCCO Ref 149/21] to avoiding an anomalous outcome as unsurprising.

1. High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) — allowed the appeal under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and directed payment on the basis of band 1.2.
2. Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer — assessed the murder charge under band 1.3; that determination was appealed.