Background
SVS Solicitors represented Julia Wandel at a five-week Crown Court trial on a charge of stalking causing serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The prosecution alleged that Wandel falsely claimed to be Madeleine McCann and repeatedly contacted Madeleine’s parents and others connected with the case. Wandel was ultimately convicted of the lesser offence of harassment and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
For payment under the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme, section 4A is not specifically listed in the applicable table and therefore falls by default within Class H, subject to reclassification. SVS sought Class B treatment, relying on the case’s seriousness, extensive electronic evidence, worldwide publicity, use of King’s Counsel, assignment to a High Court judge, alleged use of artificial intelligence, and the defendant’s mental-health difficulties. The Legal Aid Agency’s Determining Officer instead reclassified the case as Class C, and SVS appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Costs Judge Leonard dismissed the appeal. The judge held that offence classification under the scheme depends on the nature of the charged offence and the structure of the LGFS Table of Offences, not on case-specific burdens such as publicity, evidential complexity, the seniority of counsel or judge, alleged AI use, or the defendant’s mental health. Complexity and workload are addressed elsewhere in the fee scheme, including through trial length, pages of prosecution evidence, and special-preparation provisions.
The proper classification of a section 4A offence was Class H because the closely comparable section 4 offence—arising under the same statute and carrying the same maximum sentence—is expressly placed there. The separate advocates’ fee-banding document was irrelevant to the litigators’ scheme. Even if reclassification were permissible, Class B would be inappropriate because the prosecution alleged neither actual nor threatened violence nor physical damage.
Although the judge concluded that the Determining Officer had erred by moving the offence to Class C, the Lord Chancellor asked only that the existing Class C decision be upheld. The particular claim therefore remained classified as Class C, and SVS’s appeal seeking Class B was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- LGFS offence classification turns on the nature of the offence, not the unusual complexity, publicity, or practical burdens of an individual prosecution.
- A section 4A stalking offence should ordinarily remain in Class H because its closest listed analogue, a section 4 offence under the same Act, is classified there.
- The AGFS banding system for advocates does not govern classification under the distinct litigators’ graduated-fee scheme.
- The appeal failed and the case retained its Class C classification because the respondent sought only to preserve the Determining Officer’s decision.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies that reclassification under the litigators’ fee scheme is not a general mechanism for compensating solicitors for an exceptionally demanding or high-profile case. Those burdens must be addressed through the scheme’s other prescribed fee components rather than by moving the offence into a higher class.
It also establishes an important distinction between the court’s view of the legally correct classification and the practical result of the appeal: section 4A belongs in Class H as a matter of principle, but Wandel’s case remained in the more favorable Class C because the Lord Chancellor did not seek to reverse the Determining Officer’s uplift.