Rigelsford, R [2005] EWHC 90021 (Costs)

SUPREME COURT COSTS OFFICEVenue CLIFFORD'S INN, FETTER LANE.LONDON, EC4A lDQTelephone No: 020-7947-6468Fax No: 020-7947-6247DX: 44454 STRAND X42 June 2005Dear SirAPPEAL FROM DETERMINATION UNDER THE LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL AND CARE PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) REGULATIONS 1989/COSTS IN CRIMINALCASES (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1986/CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE (FUNDING ORDER) 2001
BLACKFRIARS CROWN COURT
Case No T20030173
REGINA -V- RIGELSFORD
CENTRAL TAXING TEAM CASE: YES
COURT REF:
SCCO REF: 289/04
DATE OF REASONS: 13/10/04
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/11/04
APPLICANT: COUNSEL
Miss L S
DX
London/Chancery Lane
The appeal has been dismissed for the reasons set out below.
C CAMPBELL
COSTS JUDGE
1

In his written reasons dated 13th October 2004, the Determining Officer said this:

[1]"In submitting Graduated Fees, the advocate claims that the prosecution pages of evidence amount to 33,702 pages. The breakdown of this was: Recovered photographic exhibit 33,357

In support of this claim, the advocate states that:

[2]"The Crown's case against Mr Rigelsford was that he stole in excess of 60,000 photographs from Associated Newspapers. These photographs he went on to sell at two specialist shops in London. By the time the theft was discovered, a number of photographs had already been sold on. However, the library recovered a great many. Evidence in support of the number of photographs that were recovered was included in the committal documents.[3]Their evidence, together with the seized photographs, was the evidence which the Crown relied on to prosecute Adrian Rigelsford. That being the case, it cannot be said that the photographs referred to within their statements represented unused material. Unused material is material which does not form part of the Crown's case. This was not the position here The photographs were in every sense of the word "used" material... All the seized photographs were available for viewing at Associated Newspapers. The only reason that they were not actually brought to Court was because the sheer volume of photographs made that exercise impractical. The defence made two visits to Associated Newspapers. " Statement bundle 40 pages Exhibits 1393 pages[6]TOTAL 1433 pages

The Determining Officer then said this:

[7]"I do not dispute that the Crown relied on the entire 33,357 photographic evidence recovered, but they only served photos in 05/45, 05/46, 05/47, 05/143 and 101 and PN17 [reference to the exhibits] as representative of the photographs recovered. These were samples served on the Court, defence and copied to the jury. "

The Determining Officer then continued:

[8]"Having due reference to the above, I came to the conclusion that the appropriate pages of evidence in the case is 1393 evidence bundle and 40 pages of statement bundle which amounts to 1433 pages. These I have subsequently allowed I cannot accede to advocate's submission that the remaining 32,059 photographs not copied for the jury or served on defence form part of the pages of evidence in this case. "[9]The Graduated Fee Scheme Guidance A2 (1.2) states that; “Any documentation provided outside the committal bundle or without a written notice of additional evidence should not be included in the page count” 1.3. states that: "Pages of evidence for payment or for deciding if a case forms part of the Scheme is defined as the committal documents (or similar for transfer and sent up cases) including records of interview, photos or schedules or financial data, plus any documents included in the notice of additional evidence”[11]"When counsel examined these images, he found that some of the images on the CD ROMS were duplicated. His client had insisted that some of the images were not indecent at all, but again, counsel had to look at the images so that he could advise the client. "