“47. When a defendant has been convicted of an offence which involved several conspirators, and resulted in the obtaining of property, the court has to decide on the basis of evidence, often relying on common sense inferences, whether the defendant in question obtained property in the sense of assuming rights of an owner over it, either because he received it or because he was to have some sort of share in it or its proceeds, and, in that connection, “the role of a particular conspirator may be relevant as a matter of fact, but that is a purely evidential matter”.”
“The length and content of any statements taken from a defendant and/or witnesses should be considered, particularly if lengthy attendances are claimed. As a guide, it will normally take approximately one to two units (6 to 12 minutes) preparation to consider and dictate each page of a simple document. More complex documents may take longer per page and justification for this should be on file (5.7, 8.30 – 8.34 of the SCC Specification). Any lengthy attendances should be capable of substantiation by reference to statements taken or a full file note or a letter to the client confirming the advice given. The time spent attending the client will not necessarily correlate with the length of any statement prepared. However, for longer attendances the Assessor would expect to see a more detailed justification on file e.g. witness statement, attendance note etc. There may be circumstances affecting the client which may justify a longer than usual attendance e.g. language problems, mental disability, or the case itself may be complex. The solicitor should justify why additional time was spent as part of the claim”
“11. This was, in my view, a difficult, complex and comparatively high-value conspiracy, where the paucity of the prosecution’s forensic evidence meant proceedings were rendered more complex than simplified. I do not accept, however, that this case could be classed as “exceptional”, either in terms of the competence, skill or expertise, or despatch with which the work was done by the Appellants, or the complexity of the case per se, or any other exceptional circumstances, or in respect of any combination of the above. The benefit claimed and agreed of£1.64m /£1.39m is large but not in any way atypical for confiscation proceedings. There was, as the Respondent has noted, no question of complex, corporate identity or hidden assets. Notwithstanding the fact that was a “highly sophisticated and complex conspiracy”, therefore, I cannot classify it as exceptional, thereby permitting an enhancement on the prescribed rate.”