R v Anjum

R v Anjum

There was only one case against the Defendant for the purposes of the 2013 Regulations, as all counts arose from a connected course of conduct and changes to indictments were administrative, not substantive, thus only one graduated fee is payable.

Parties
Respondent: R; Defendant: Sameer Anjum
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal (criminal Legal Aid) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Legal Aid (remuneration) Regulations 2013, Graduated Fees, Indictment Consolidation, Costs Appeals
Criminal Law Legal Aid Costs Criminal Legal Aid (remuneration) Regulations 2013 Graduated Fees Indictment Consolidation Costs Appeals

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Sameer Anjum

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal (criminal Legal Aid) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple case fees are payable under the 2013 Regulations for stayed indictments
  2. 2 Whether there was more than one 'case' against the Defendant for the purposes of graduated fees

Ratio Decidendi

There was only one case against the Defendant for the purposes of the 2013 Regulations, as all counts arose from a connected course of conduct and changes to indictments were administrative, not substantive, thus only one graduated fee is payable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No additional graduated fee is payable for indictments A or B; only one case fee is allowed.