Background
Laurence Selby KC represented Harrison Freeman in Northampton Crown Court proceedings involving a multi-count indictment against Freeman and five co-defendants. Freeman faced the murder count. The first trial began on 1 September 2025, but the jury was discharged on 11 September after a co-defendant’s legal team withdrew. Proceedings recommenced on 29 September. Freeman later pleaded guilty to a newly added offensive-weapon count and received a six-month youth rehabilitation order.
For legal-aid remuneration purposes, the proceedings constituted a trial and retrial. Selby claimed fees for both, arguing that the applicable percentage reduction for the retrial should apply only to the basic fee and not to daily attendance fees. He also claimed a daily attendance fee for 23 October 2025. The Determining Officer rejected both positions, applying the reduction to the entire graduated fee and finding that 23 October was not a trial day.
The Court’s Holding
Costs Judge Brown rejected the challenge to the percentage reduction. Under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, the “graduated fee” includes both the basic fee and daily attendance fees. The requirement that “the fee” be reduced for a retrial therefore applies to the graduated fee as a whole. The current provisions contained no language exempting daily attendance fees, unlike earlier regulations that expressly excluded the refresher element.
The court allowed the appeal concerning 23 October 2025. Although the judge and court log had indicated that the trial would not sit that Thursday or Friday, the subsequently published Daily List identified the case as “For trial,” named all six defendants, and stated that Freeman would be produced. Selby attempted unsuccessfully to clarify the inconsistency and then attended. The official listing was sufficiently inconsistent with the earlier directions to justify his attendance, so a daily attendance fee was payable. The Lord Chancellor was ordered to pay £350 toward the appellant’s costs for the successful ground.
Key Takeaways
- The statutory percentage reduction for a retrial applies to the entire advocates’ graduated fee, including daily attendance fees.
- Historical regulations expressly excluding refresher fees did not justify reading a comparable exception into the current scheme.
- An erroneous official Daily List may justify counsel’s attendance, and therefore a daily attendance fee, when it conflicts with earlier courtroom directions and counsel cannot obtain clarification.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that advocates cannot isolate daily attendance fees from the retrial reductions prescribed by the current legal-aid remuneration scheme. The wording of the regulations governs even where counsel argues that trial-day work involves less duplication than preparatory work.
It also recognizes that counsel should not bear the financial risk created by materially inconsistent official listing information. Where the Daily List reasonably indicates that a case is proceeding and clarification is unavailable, attendance may remain compensable despite contrary indications given earlier.