R v Spriddell

A proposed point cannot support certification as a Point of Principle of General Importance if it was considered only academically and was not necessary to the costs judge’s decision. Where an appeal was decided on the basis that an IFFO payment could be a valid comparator for reasonable remuneration, the alternative question whether it could ever be such a comparator was academic and could not found a further appeal.

The applicant had appealed under regulation 10 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 against the Legal Aid Agency Determining Officer’s assessment of costs recoverable under a defendant’s costs order made under section 16(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The appeal was dismissed on 6 February 2026.

The applicant then applied under regulation 11 of the 1986 Regulations for certification of a point concerning whether potential fixed fees payable under the IFFO scheme could be considered when determining reasonable remuneration. The central issue was whether that point had been necessary to the decision on the appeal.

1. The application was refused. The proposed point could not be certified under regulation 11 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.
2. The court had considered whether payment under the IFFO scheme could be an invalid comparator when assessing reasonable remuneration by reference to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. That issue arose because the 2013 Regulations generally did not apply to VHCCs, subject to specified provisions concerning reporting requirements and prescribed rates.
3. The issue was academic on the appeal. The Determining Officer had proceeded on the basis that an IFFO payment could be a valid comparator. The decision instead turned on the finding that the particular comparator relied upon was not a good comparator on the facts, a conclusion with which the costs judge agreed.
4. The appeal was therefore determined on the basis that an IFFO could be a valid comparator. The court’s concern about the possible contrary interpretation did not form part of the reasoning leading to the result. It was consequently not a point on which the applicant could found a further appeal or which should be certified under regulation 11.

The application followed the dismissal on 6 February 2026 of the applicant’s regulation 10 appeal against the Determining Officer’s assessment. The judgment under appeal is not given a citation in the supplied text.