R v Chahal: guilty plea with contested basis triggers trial fee entitlement

A costs judge has ruled that a criminal defence solicitor was entitled to a trial fee rather than a guilty plea fee following sentencing proceedings in which disputed facts were determined by the court, even though the defendant declined to give evidence at a Newton hearing.

In R v Bhipon Chahal [2026] EWHC 944 (SCCO), Costs Judge Nagalingam allowed the appeal of litigator Balbir Singh against a redetermination by the Legal Aid Agency, finding that the proceedings had the character of a Newton hearing and that remuneration should reflect the substantially greater preparation involved.

The defendant was one of seven charged with conspiracy to supply cocaine, heroin and cannabis as part of Operation Venetic, which targeted organised criminal groups using EncroChat devices. He entered guilty pleas at the PTPH in August 2021 but accompanied those pleas with a 22-paragraph basis of plea asserting, amongst other matters, that he had acted under significant emotional pressure from his uncle — the alleged lead defendant — and that his role, financial gain, and period of involvement had been considerably overstated by the prosecution.

The prosecution's detailed response rejected those assertions in full, characterising the defendant as holding a managerial-type role within the OCG and contending that a Newton hearing was necessary if he maintained his position. A five-day Newton hearing was listed, first for September 2022 and subsequently relisted for May 2023 following Bar strike action. It was stood down on neither occasion at the defendant's instigation.

The defendant ultimately indicated he would not give evidence, principally out of concern that doing so might jeopardise the one-third sentencing discount secured by his early guilty plea. Notwithstanding that position, he continued to contest his categorisation as a leading role offender, his level of financial benefit, and the dates of his involvement. A drugs conspiracy expert, Mr Andrew Tennant, was instructed and his report placed before the court.

Recorder Michael Auty KC identified a starting point of 26 years for a leading role offender across all three conspiracies. He ultimately found the defendant's role to be subordinate to his uncle's, applied a three-year reduction to reflect that finding of lesser role and a further two-year reduction for matters in mitigation, before applying the early guilty plea discount to arrive at a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.

Costs Judge Nagalingam rejected the Lord Chancellor's argument that, absent live disputed evidence, the proceedings amounted to nothing more than mitigation. He drew a clear distinction between the Recorder's factual determinations — concerning role, duration of involvement, use of EncroChat, and proximity to the source of supply — and submissions in mitigation going only to personal circumstances.

The judge noted that the prosecution had itself submitted a Newton hearing was required if the defendant maintained his position, and that the court had listed a five-day hearing on that basis. He declined to treat the Recorder's remark that he was "less concerned with putting any particular defendant in any specific category" as evidence that no findings of fact had been made, observing that sentencing is intrinsically linked with culpability and that the three-year role-based deduction clearly reflected a factual determination.

Applying R v Badibanga [2025] EWHC 89 (SCCO) and R v Williams [2024] EWHC 3159 (SCCO) by analogy, the judge found the criteria for a Newton hearing to have been satisfied. The appeal succeeded on both the trial fee point and a separate ground relating to travel expenses, which the LAA had conceded prior to the hearing. Appeal costs were allowed in the sum of £900 plus the £100 appeal fee.