Griffiths, R. v, Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Cost Office, February 25, 2011,  EWHC 90204 (Costs)
|Resolution Date:||February 25, 2011|
|Issuing Organization:||Supreme Court Cost Office|
|Actores:||Griffiths, R. v|
SCCO Ref: 277/10Dated: 25th February 2011ON APPEAL FROM REDETERMINATIONREGINA v GRIFFITHSCROWN COURT AT SWANSEAAPPEAL PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 21 OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE (FUNDING) ORDER 2001 / ARTICLE 30 OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE (FUNDING) ORDER 2007CASE NO: S2010 0048 & S2010 0020LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION CASEDATE OF REASONS: 8th November 2010DATE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL: 10th December 2010The appeal has been successful for the reasons set out below.The appropriate additional payment, to which should be added the sum of £750 (exclusive of VAT) for costs and the £100 paid on appeal, should accordingly be made to the Applicant. ANDREW GORDON-SAKERCOSTS JUDGEREASONS FOR DECISION1. This is an appeal by Michael J Reed Ltd, solicitors of Carmarthen, against the decision of the Legal Services Commission not to pay 2 fees for a sentencing hearing.2. The solicitors were instructed to represent Michaela Griffiths who was charged with being in possession of amphetamines and cocaine. The date of the offences was 23rd October 2009. A representation order was granted on 22nd December 2009 by the Dyfed Powys Magistrates' Court. On 14th January 2010 the Llanelli Magistrates' Court committed Ms Griffiths to Swansea Crown Court for sentence.3. The next day, 15th January 2010, Ms Griffiths was arrested again and charged with being in possession of amphetamines. A representation order was granted by the Carmarthen Magistrates' Court on 21st January 2010. On 3rd February 2010 the Carmarthen Magistrates' Court committed Ms Griffiths to Swansea Crown Court for sentence.4. Both cases were listed in the Crown Court for sentence on 12th February 2010. The cases were given different numbers: S2010 0020 for the case committed from Llanelli and S2010 0048 for the case committed from Carmarthen. Ms Griffiths was sentenced in both cases on 12th February 2010.5. The solicitors claimed and were paid a fixed fee for each case. However the Commission subsequently sought to recoup one of the fees on the basis that ``these two matters were dealt with at the same hearing and were, therefore, almost certainly one case rather than two''.6. The solicitors requested redetermination but the Commission remained of the view that only one fee was payable. In their written reasons dated 8th November 2010 the Commission referred to paragraph 12 of schedule 2 to the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 and explained:Paragraph 12 clearly says that the fee is payable...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL