Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial had begun in a meaningful sense, as only ordinary case management and administrative matters occurred before the prosecution offered no evidence. No substantial judicial rulings or exceptional case management were undertaken. Therefore, only a cracked trial fee is payable.
Source excerpt
The High Court’s Costs Office held that the March 2025 sentencing hearing was not a Newton hearing, so the appellant was entitled only to a cracked trial fee.
Appeal allowed on a criminal legal aid special preparation claim concerning electronic telephone download spreadsheets and PPE over the 10,000-page cap.
Rossitter, R. v [2026] EWHC 1156 (SCCO) (14 May 2026)
Appeal over counsel’s fees for committal-for-sentence hearings was dismissed. The court held that standard fixed fees were adequate and the escape clause did not apply.
Murphy, R. v [2026] EWHC 1154 (SCCO) (14 May 2026)
The Senior Courts Costs Office allowed counsel’s appeal, increasing legal aid fees for work on a criminal appeal and awarding appeal costs.
The Senior Costs Judge dismissed an appeal over whether a hearing qualified as a Newton hearing for graduated fee purposes under the Criminal Legal Aid regulations.
An advocate’s appeal for higher fees under the Criminal Legal Aid Regulations was dismissed. The court held the fixed fee scheme applied and no escape clause was justified.
The Senior Courts Costs Office corrected a costs assessment in criminal legal aid appeals, holding that work on refused grounds could still be remunerable if reasonably done.
Szczurkowski, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWHC 1075 (Admin) (07 May 2026)
The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to an ECF refusal, holding there was no duty to consider investigative representation and no unlawful delay.
Judicial review of an exceptional case funding refusal. The High Court held the Director was not bound to consider investigative representation, and dismissed the claim.
Explore more
