Ali, R. v [2025] EWHC 2861 (SCCO) (27 October 2025)
The Determining Officer's 10% allowance for images was unreasonably low given the specific and general relevance of images to the prosecution case. A PPE allowance for images in the range of 20-25% was reasonable on the facts. The total PPE count should be increased to 1850 to reflect a fair assessment of the evidence, including images and installed applications.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 2861 (SCCO)
- Parties
- Prosecution: REX; Defendant: Phillip Ali
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 October 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Appeal (criminal Legal Aid) / Appeal Under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (remuneration) Regulations 2013
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Litigator's Graduated Fees Scheme, Pages of Prosecution Evidence (ppe), Electronic Evidence, Animal Welfare Act Offences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
REX
Prosecution
Phillip Ali
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal (criminal Legal Aid) / Appeal Under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (remuneration) Regulations 2013
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Determining Officer's assessment of pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) was correct under the 2013 Regulations
- 2 Whether the allowance for images and installed applications from the defendant's phone was reasonable
Ratio Decidendi
The Determining Officer's 10% allowance for images was unreasonably low given the specific and general relevance of images to the prosecution case. A PPE allowance for images in the range of 20-25% was reasonable on the facts. The total PPE count should be increased to 1850 to reflect a fair assessment of the evidence, including images and installed applications.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part
Orders
- The LGFS claim is to be recalculated by reference to a PPE count of 1850.
- The Appellants are awarded £1500 plus any VAT payable in costs, in addition to the £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