R v Magon

R v Magon

The determining officer correctly applied the relevant guideline hourly rates and binding case law in allowing £250 per hour for both advocacy and litigation work by Mr Khan. There was no compelling reason to depart from these rates, and the dual role or unique experience did not justify a higher rate.

Parties
Respondent: R; Defendant: Magon; Appellant/private Prosecutor: Euphrazia Matete
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs in Criminal Case) / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution Costs, Assessment of Legal Fees, Guideline Hourly Rates, Compensation Under Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Criminal Law Costs Private Prosecution Costs Assessment of Legal Fees Guideline Hourly Rates Compensation Under Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Magon

Defendant

Euphrazia Matete

Appellant/private Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs in Criminal Case) / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the determining officer erred in allowing an hourly rate of £250 instead of £350 for Mr Khan's work as litigator and advocate for the private prosecutor
  2. 2 Whether unique experience or dual role justifies a higher hourly rate than guideline rates

Ratio Decidendi

The determining officer correctly applied the relevant guideline hourly rates and binding case law in allowing £250 per hour for both advocacy and litigation work by Mr Khan. There was no compelling reason to depart from these rates, and the dual role or unique experience did not justify a higher rate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The determining officer’s decision to allow costs at £250 per hour is upheld.
  • No further compensation or adjustment to the hourly rate is ordered.