CRIMLA 41 is one of those helpful points of principle for those billing mags fees. We even have a trial preparation form, based upon it and designed to assist firms justify claims. Just go to the resources section of this very website and it can be yours to keep.
Recently the LAA have rediscovered this PoP only to insist upon an entirely wooden compliance with the indicative “prepared for trial” features is contains. None of these factors are individually or collectively determinative trial preparedness in our view. Think for instance of an entirely legitimate “put the prosecution to proof” defence in a domestic abuse case, one might well not undertake a single one of these suggested action but still be trial ready.
In any event these cases can be judged on their own merits.
What is not acceptable is trying to apply CRIMLA 41 to Category 2.1 (contested trial) and 2.5 (mixed pleas) cases as we have seen on a number of recent cases. CRIMLA 41 expressly only relates to Cat 2.2 & 2.3 matters.
At another audit they suggested that the case was trial prepared and sought to reduce the fee claimed, an HC1 for a guilty plea, to a LC2 a cracked trial. In doing so they were either unaware of, or deliberately ignored, Contract Specification 10.92 which allows you to claim the higher value fee where work was done in both categories.
We cover both issues in our “Criminal Costs for Dummies” introductory course. Happy to run this, free of charge, for the powers that be.