R v Farrell: costs judge dismisses appeal over disputed Newton hearing

The Senior Courts Costs Office has dismissed an appeal brought by Lloyds PR Solicitors seeking a trial fee rather than a guilty plea fee for their representation of a defendant convicted in a major cocaine importation conspiracy.

In R v Farrell [2026] EWHC 2224 (SCCO), Costs Judge Leonard considered whether a sentencing hearing held in September 2025 amounted to a Newton hearing under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, which would have entitled the firm to a higher fee.

Kieran Farrell had faced four charges at Winchester Crown Court, including conspiracy to import Class A drugs, arising from the smuggling of 889 kilograms of cocaine into Southampton by boat in July 2024. He was one of ten defendants named on a nine-count indictment.

Farrell pleaded guilty in August 2025 to three of the four charges, with a money laundering count left to lie on file. His basis of plea maintained that he had acted only as a support driver and lookout, that he had limited awareness of the scale of the wider conspiracy, and that any payment he received would go towards clearing a personal drug debt rather than yielding significant financial gain.

The prosecution contended that Farrell had played a significant role, pointing to the fact that he had stayed in a hotel with three co-conspirators around the time of the drug landing as evidence that he must have understood the scope of the operation.

At the sentencing hearing before His Honour Judge Feest KC, defence counsel accepted that anyone involved in a conspiracy of this scale would have some awareness of its scope, but argued for sentencing on the basis of a lesser role. Judge Feest ultimately sentenced Farrell on that basis, albeit reflecting the extent of his participation and an expectation of material financial advantage, imposing a twelve year custodial sentence alongside a six year extended driving disqualification.

The central question for Costs Judge Leonard was whether the exchanges at the sentencing hearing amounted to a fact-finding exercise sufficient to constitute a Newton hearing, notwithstanding that no such hearing had formally been listed. The Appellant relied on R v Williams [2024] EWHC 3159 (SCCO), in which a Costs Judge had found that extensive submissions over the factual conclusions to be drawn from undisputed evidence could amount to a Newton hearing even in the absence of a formal listing.

Costs Judge Leonard distinguished the present case from Williams, finding that Judge Feest had not undertaken any genuine fact-finding exercise. Rather, he had drawn an obvious inference from established facts and dismissed as incredible the defendant's assertion of limited knowledge of the operation, a position defence counsel had themselves largely conceded during submissions. Similarly, the argument that using drug proceeds to pay off debts negated any financial advantage was described as self-evidently unviable, since receiving money to discharge a debt still confers a financial benefit.

Judge Leonard concluded that Judge Feest had simply dismissed two unarguable interpretations of undisputed facts, rather than resolving a genuine factual dispute, and that this fell short of the fact-finding exercise required to convert the hearing into a Newton hearing. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the guilty plea fee, rather than the higher trial fee, was confirmed as the appropriate remuneration.

The judgement reinforces that not every contested submission at a sentencing hearing will convert it into a Newton hearing for fee purposes, and signals caution against extending the reasoning in Williams beyond cases involving a genuine dispute over factual conclusions.