Background
Kyle Fletcher was tried at Sheffield Crown Court in May 2022 for conspiracy to supply diamorphine and cocaine between January and May 2020. The trial proceeded against Fletcher and two co-defendants. One co-defendant was convicted, another was acquitted, and the jury could not reach a verdict on Fletcher.
Fletcher was tried again in January 2026 after his legal aid representation had transferred to Newgate Solicitors. Although the later indictment alleged the same offence over the same period, the prosecution had introduced substantial new cell-site and EncroChat evidence, requiring expert evidence from both sides. Fletcher was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Newgate challenged the Legal Aid Agency’s treatment of its claim under the Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme, arguing that the January 2026 proceedings should attract a new-trial fee rather than the reduced fee prescribed for a retrial involving a new litigator.
The Court’s Holding
Costs Judge Whalan dismissed Newgate’s appeal. The January 2026 hearing was a separate trial rather than a continuation of the May 2022 trial, but that did not make it an entirely new “case” for purposes of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Unless the later proceedings concerned an entirely new case, the Regulations provided only for a retrial fee.
The court held that the changes to the indictment did not create a new case because Fletcher faced one count alleging the same offence, during the same period, in both proceedings. The identity of the “core criminality” outweighed the changed co-defendants, new indictment document, passage of time, different representation, and substantially expanded evidential record. Applying the Regulations mechanistically, the court found no discretion to award a full new-trial fee, despite acknowledging the complexity and volume of Newgate’s additional work.
Key Takeaways
- A later hearing may be a separate trial without constituting an entirely new “case” under the criminal legal-aid remuneration rules.
- Revisions to an indictment do not necessarily create a new case when the defendant still faces the same offence concerning the same period and core criminality.
- Substantial new technical evidence, a long delay, and a change of legal team did not permit the court to depart from the reduced retrial-fee provisions.
Why It Matters
The decision limits when newly instructed litigators can obtain a full new-trial fee after an earlier trial ends without a verdict against their client. The controlling question is whether the later proceedings amount to an entirely new case, not merely whether the second trial requires substantially different or more demanding preparation.
The judgment also highlights a mismatch between the work required and the remuneration available under the Regulations: even where new EncroChat, cell-site, and expert evidence makes the later trial vastly more complex, the court considered itself bound to apply the prescribed retrial fee.