R v Campbell & Sobers

R v Campbell & Sobers

The determining officer's inclusion of 10% of images from the electronic downloads was reasonable, as most of the data was not of central evidential value, and the Crown did not rely significantly on the images or other electronic data from MG2 and MG3. The appellant failed to demonstrate that a higher percentage or additional categories of electronic evidence should be included in the PPE count.

Parties
Appellant: Ashcott Solicitors; Defendant: Everton Campbell; Co Defendant: Mary Sobers; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal Under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (remuneration) Regulations 2013
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme, Pages of Prosecution Evidence (ppe), Electronic Evidence, Special Preparation Fees
Criminal Law Legal Aid Costs Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme Pages of Prosecution Evidence (ppe) Electronic Evidence Special Preparation Fees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashcott Solicitors

Appellant

Everton Campbell

Defendant

Mary Sobers

Co Defendant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal Under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (remuneration) Regulations 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional electronic evidence from mobile phone downloads should be included in the PPE count for legal aid remuneration
  2. 2 Appropriate percentage of electronic images and data to be included in the PPE count

Ratio Decidendi

The determining officer's inclusion of 10% of images from the electronic downloads was reasonable, as most of the data was not of central evidential value, and the Crown did not rely significantly on the images or other electronic data from MG2 and MG3. The appellant failed to demonstrate that a higher percentage or additional categories of electronic evidence should be included in the PPE count.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed