There is a bit of auditing of mainstream Criminal contracts going on at present – not just Prison Law. One of the main issues is multiple police station claims – easy to target via same names and close UFNs. Here is what I have just summariesd for one client. If anyone has tried to appeal and get a Point of Principle certified please let us know. (Might do a similar post on Mags Standard Fees tomorrow).
Here are the relevant 2010 Contract provisions:
Specification Part A 4.45
Where two Matters are genuinely different problems requiring separate advice at the same time on one occasion only, then they must be treated as the same Matter, despite the fact that they would normally be treated as separate Matters.
Specification Part B 9.83
If you represent a Client at the Police Station, and that Client is under investigation for a number of different offences, the starting point is that you may only claim one Police Station Attendance Fixed Fee for that Investigation. You may claim more than one Fixed Fee in circumstances where your Client has genuinely separate legal problems requiring separate advice. A file note should set out your justification for this.
These are long-standing provisions.
The Criminal Bills Assessment Manual (CBAM) was amended as follows in April 2013:
CBAM 5.9.6
Where two or more Matters require advice on one occasion only they should be treated as the same Matter (reference should be made to Part A, 4.45, of the SCC Specification). An occasion can be defined as the same continuous period of detention.
This is guidance only and not contract and has never been challenged by an application for a Point of Principle as far as I know. Other elements of CBAM e.g. 6.6.6 are clearly wrong.
On balance however I think the “same continuous period of detention”, formulation makes sense.
