Khan, R. v [2025] EWHC 1278 (SCCO) (22 May 2025)
Some of the material rejected by the Respondent should be included in the PPE count as it was relevant to the prosecution's case and admitted into evidence; specifically, MMS, SMS, Text messages, and certain images from co-defendants' phones. Videos, audio, and uncharacterised datum from the Defendant's phone were not sufficiently relevant. The PPE count should be recalculated to 3443 pages.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 1278 (SCCO)
- Parties
- Prosecution: REX; Defendant: Adam Khan
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 May 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Litigator's Graduated Fees Scheme, Pages of Prosecution Evidence, Electronic Evidence, Joint Enterprise, Bad Character Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
REX
Prosecution
Adam Khan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether additional electronic datum should be included in the PPE count for LGFS remuneration
- 2 Interpretation of 'served' evidence under Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013
Ratio Decidendi
Some of the material rejected by the Respondent should be included in the PPE count as it was relevant to the prosecution's case and admitted into evidence; specifically, MMS, SMS, Text messages, and certain images from co-defendants' phones. Videos, audio, and uncharacterised datum from the Defendant's phone were not sufficiently relevant. The PPE count should be recalculated to 3443 pages.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- LGFS claim to be recalculated by reference to PPE count of 3443
- Appellants awarded £300 plus any VAT payable in costs, in addition to £100 paid on appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment