Appeal Committee Ruling 3 of 2021 – R v [REDACTED]
GFS Appeals Committee
R-v- [REDACTED]
Appeal of [REDACTED]
Introduction
This case falls to be remunerated under the CPS Graduated Fee Scheme D. This case was an investigation conducted by the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (I FED) of the City of London Police into an alleged induced vehicle collision, colloquially known as 'Crash for Cash'
Issue in appeal
R v [REDACTED] is a case that went to trial and resulted in a Guilty verdict against 3 defendants.
This is an appeal against the fees paid to [REDACTED] in the case of [REDACTED] and concerns the trial fee. The central point of the Appeal is that the jury was discharged after 7 days of an effective trial and counsel then had to return the case to a colleague in chambers for professional reasons. The new jury was sworn on the following day (no break in proceedings) and a defendant was also dropped at that point. There were 4 defendants at the first trial (reduced to 3 for the new jury for the second trial).
Counsel’s position
Counsel believes that the first trial against 4 defendants (lasting 7 days) should attract a full trial fee (that is a main hearing fee and daily fees) and the second trial against 3 defendants (lasting 12 days) with different counsel should also attract a full trial fee (that is, a main hearing fee and daily fees).
CPS position
The CPS believe that the case should be remunerated as a single trial of 19 days because there was a trial for 7 days against 4 defendants and a re-trial (which followed the next day) against 3 defendants for the remaining 12 days. As there was no break in proceedings and in accordance of paragraph 138 of MOG, the payment should be a continuous trial fee.
Consideration by the committee
The Fees Appeal Committee convened to consider the appeal on 3 November 2021 and considered the following documents before arriving at their decision:
- GFS Manual of Guidance scheme D
- Taxation note from Counsel
- Final CPS written reasons 5 October 2021
The Committee considered the information advanced by counsel as well as all the other documentation listed above, including the relevant paragraphs of the Manual of Guidance. The Committee were of the view that paragraph 138 should be read in conjunction with paragraph 137, that is where the same advocate conducts both the trial and the retrial. In this instance, where the case was returned to a different advocate for retrial, the controlling paragraph of the MOG should be paragraph 141, which provides that where a different advocate prosecutes a retrial, the full main hearing fee will be paid for that retrial.
Ruling
The Committee found in favour of the appellants and the appeal is successful.
The Fees Appeal Committee convened to consider the appeal on 03 November 2021