R. v Chapman: High Court rules on legal aid costs

27 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court partially upholds appeal on legal aid costs for prosecution evidence pages

High Court's Decision on Legal Aid Costs

The High Court, presided over by Costs Judge Rowley, delivered a judgment on the appeal regarding the calculation of legal aid costs in the case of R. v Chapman. The appeal was brought by DPP Law Ltd, representing Connor Chapman, against the determination of the number of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) allowed in calculating the solicitors' graduated fee under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

Connor Chapman faced charges of attempted murder, section 18 GBH, and possession of a firearm and ammunition. The appeal focused on the quantification of electronic pages, which had proven contentious in the original determination.

The paper PPE, consisting of witness statements, exhibits, and forensic reports, totalled 1,549 pages. The determining officer initially allowed 566 electronic pages, making a total of 2,115 pages. However, during the appeal, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) conceded additional pages, increasing the total to 3,000 pages.

Mr Lewis, representing DPP Law Ltd, argued that the determining officer's calculations were flawed. He presented a detailed spreadsheet showing discrepancies in the page counts across various formats, including Excel, PDF, and HTML documents.

The appeal highlighted issues with using 'print preview' on Excel spreadsheets as a reliable measure of page counts. Judge Rowley noted that this method could lead to inflated page counts, as recognised in a previous case, Lord Chancellor v Lam and Meerbux Solicitors [2023] EWHC 1186 (KB).

Despite these challenges, the court accepted the LAA's concession of 3,000 pages, which exceeded the original determination. Consequently, the graduated fee was ordered to be recalculated based on this revised page count.

While the appeal was partially successful, Judge Rowley did not fully agree with the appellant's claims. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeal process, acknowledging the lengthy duration of the proceedings.

This case underscores the complexities involved in calculating legal aid costs, particularly with electronic evidence, and highlights the need for clear guidelines to ensure fair assessments.