Legal aid fee dispute resolved in court

High Court dismisses appeal over legal aid fees in robbery case involving alleged use of a bat
High Court Dismisses Appeal on Legal Aid Fees in Robbery Case
The High Court, presided over by Costs Judge Whalan, dismissed an appeal concerning the classification of legal aid fees under the Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) in a robbery case. The appellant, Mr Samuel Ponniah, represented Andrew Murphy, who was charged with robbery at Sheffield Crown Court.
The appeal focused on the correct banding of offences under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Mr Ponniah claimed fees based on Band 11.1, which covers aggravated burglary and armed robbery, while the Legal Aid Agency assessed the case under Band 11.2, which pertains to other robberies.
The case involved an alleged robbery on 22nd January 2023, where Mr Murphy and a co-defendant, Jacqueline Williams, were accused of robbing Stephanie Bennett of £20. The victim claimed that Williams threatened her with a bat, though the bat was not seen.
The court examined the statutory definitions of robbery and armed robbery. Under the Theft Act 1968, robbery involves theft with the use or threat of force. The Serious Crimes Act 2007 further defines armed robbery as involving a firearm or offensive weapon.
Judge Whalan considered previous case law, including R v. Stables and R v. Kendrick, which provided guidance on what constitutes armed robbery. In particular, the court noted that merely implying possession of a weapon does not meet the threshold for armed robbery.
The appellant argued that the implied threat of a bat should elevate the offence to armed robbery. However, Judge Whalan preferred the reasoning in Kendrick, which held that implied threats with non-specified weapons do not qualify as armed robbery.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the presence of a concealed bat, while potentially an aggravating factor, did not meet the statutory or common law definitions of armed robbery. As such, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Legal Aid Agency's original fee assessment.
This decision clarifies the application of the AGFS and the definition of armed robbery, impacting future legal aid claims in similar cases.
Learn More
For more information on legal aid and criminal law, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.
Read the Guide