I spoke on Criminal Costs last week at TLS Legal Aid conference – it was a slightly unusual 3 X 20 minute set up with me moving between tables of about 8 delegates.
I was asked to post a summary of the main topics covered – albeit briefly – so here we go.
These are the main areas chosen for attack by the LAA. I write on a day I have worked exclusively on criminal costs appeals, which are becoming more frequent again.
The key theme is “claim splitting” in both investigations and proceedings classes of work. These are easy for the LAA to target – same name, close or even concurrent UFN.
We discussed one of the themes regarding multiple police station claims for the same client here recently, read the whole thing however the main definition is that if the separate matters occur during the “same continuous period of detention” then it is only one fee. Should the matters genuinely branch into independent investigations – for instance one charged, one bailed – and you do work on both occasions, you have more than one fee. There is a reasonable set of examples at section 5.9 of the Criminal Bills Assessment Manual.
With Magistrates Courts standard fee claims there have been 2 or 3 areas of focus.
The first again is multiple fees, identified as above via names and close UFNs. The 3 legged series of offences rule (SCC Spec Part B 10.68) is as follows:
- Are the charges laid at the same time?
- Are the charges founded on the same facts?
- Are the charges part of a series of offences?
A single affirmative answer and you have a single fee. It is the final, more subjective element which is usually decisive – are they a series, do they demonstrate a “system of conduct”? The key test here is generally – “would evidence of one be admissible at the trial of the other?”. Care with multiple fees is therefore needed.
They also are looking at cracked trial/discontinued matters both when billed as Category 2 claims under CRIMLA 41 and conversely, when billed as Category 1 under SCC Spec 10.92.
We covered the latter here and this issue has again formed part of today’s representations. They essentially seek to apply 10.92 in reverse – assessing the claim down to the lower fee available.
CRIMLA 41 is the Point of Principle which defines what “listed and fully prepared for trial” means; the former is simply “adjourned following a not guilty plea”, you are “fully prepared” if you can complete one of our free CRIMLA 41 trial preparation sheet available here.
You can ring Simon for a free chat on these aor any costs issues on 07970 494805.
