R v Price [2026] EWHC 1298 (SCCO)

[2026] EWHC 1298 (SCCO)Case No 202300975 B1SCCO Reference: SC-2025-CRI-000136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE
Thomas More Building
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate 29 May 2026
London, WC2A 2LL
Before
COSTS JUDGE LEONARDRvPRICEJudgment on Appeal under Regulation 29 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013Appellant: Richard Christie KC (Counsel)The appeal has been successful for the reasons set out below.The appropriate additional payment, to which should be added the sum of £1600 (exclusive of VAT) for costs and the £100 paid on appeal, should accordingly be made to the Applicant.COSTS JUDGE LEONARD
Between
PriceDefendantRCrown
[1]This appeal concerns the fees payable to Leading Counsel, under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, for representing a Legally Aided party in the Court of Appeal.[2]Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 2013 Regulations reads:
“(1) The provisions of this Schedule apply to proceedings in the Court of Appeal. (2) In determining fees the appropriate officer must, subject to the provisions of this Schedule— (a) take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case including the nature, importance, complexity or difficulty of the work and the time involved; and (b) allow a reasonable amount in respect of all work actually and reasonably done.” (a) take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case including the nature, importance, complexity or difficulty of the work and the time involved; and (b) allow a reasonable amount in respect of all work actually and reasonably done.”
[3]Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 prescribes the rates payable to advocates for such work but, at sub-paragraph (4), says:
“(4) Where it appears to the appropriate officer, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, that owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case the amount payable by way of fees in accordance with the table following sub-paragraph (1) would not provide reasonable remuneration for some or all of the work the appropriate officer has allowed, the appropriate officer may allow such amounts as appear to the appropriate officer to be reasonable remuneration for the relevant work.”

The Background to this Appeal

[4]On 2 December 2021, Carl Dyche became embroiled in a fight that led to his deathfrom a stroke three days later. Three men, Ajay Price (“the Defendant”), Luke Bellis and John Lock, were found guilty of his murder. They were sentenced to life imprisonment on 24 March 2023.[5]The fight began between the Mr Dyche and Bellis, in Mr Dyche’s back garden. Lock and Price entered the garden and joined in. In the course of the fight, which lasted about two minutes, Mr Dyche was held in a headlock by the Defendant and kicked by both the Defendant and Bellis.[6]The Defendant had been 19 years old at the time of the incident and of previous good character. Bellis and Lock had, respectively, been 29 and 33 years old. The minimum term for Lock and Bellis was set at 17 years’ imprisonment. The minimum term for the Defendant was set at 15 years.[7]The cause of death was established by a joint statement from clinical pathologists Dr David Rouse and Dr Charlotte Randall. Both accepted that only injury to the neck could have been causative of Mr Dyche’s stroke, which was believed to have caused by plaque, created by cocaine abuse, breaking off in his carotid artery. The breaking off would have been caused by the neck hold or a blow to the neck.[8]Neither expert had seen this sort of death in practice. It is a rare event, with only 3-5 cases recorded in medical literature, usually accompanied by relatively limited force. The experts accepted that with the exception of the “thyroid horns” there were no broken bones, only bruising to the head. There was no injury of any significance to any other part of the body. There were no petechial haemorrhages in the eyes, suggesting a neck hold of no longer than 15-30 seconds.[9]Lock and the Defendant submitted applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Bellis submitted an application for leave to appeal against sentence only. The Appellant, Mr Christie KC, was counsel for the Defendant.[10]On 24 November 2023 Wall J refused all the applications for leave. The Defendant did not renew his applications.[11]On 5 April 2024 the Appellant submitted a claim for payment. The claim was for £9,171.25 plus VAT for 31.9 hours’ work (over about a nine month period) on the conviction application and £1,269.79 plus VAT for 4 hours 25 minutes’ work on the sentence application. Overall that represents an hourly rate of about £287.50).[12]It is not in issue that the prescribed rates at paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 would not represent reasonable remuneration for the work undertaken by the Appellant. The Determining Officer, nonetheless, reduced the amount allowed substantially from that claimed by the Appellant. He allowed £5,250 for 26 hours’ work on the conviction application (an hourly rate of just over £200) and £1,000 for the sentencing application (an hourly rate of about £227).[13]The Appellant appeals in relation to the Determining Officer’s allowance for the conviction application.

The Appellant’s Submissions

[14]The Appellant argues that this was an appeal on behalf of a 19 year old of impeccable good character (itself very unusual in a murder case) with much positive good character evidence called on his behalf. He had been convicted of murder in circumstances where ordinarily manslaughter might have been the expected verdict. It cast an exceptional burden upon counsel, who had much exposure to his distraught family.[15]The Defendant was charged together with two much older men with substantial criminal records. The case had strong racial aspects to it because all three defendants were from a travelling background, and it was known that there was much hostility towards them in the Worcester area where the case was tried.[16]The case was unusual in that in many respects it arose out of what in ordinary circumstances might have been described as an affray: a fight starting between the defendants and the victim in the victim’s back garden. The fatal injury was in itself very unusual, and capable of being brought about without severe or prolonged pressure on the neck.[17]There were further complications over the medical evidence. The Defence case was that the prosecution pathologist had caused injury to the victim which she then relied upon against the defendants. This issue required careful consideration as a possible ground of appeal (not advanced in the end) on the basis that the Prosecution had withheld corroborative evidence from one of their witnesses until after that witness had given evidence. It was also addressed in detail in the Defendant’s response to the Prosecution’s Respondent’s Notice.[18]A central part of the Defendant’s case on appeal was that the Prosecution had been allowed, in the trial, to put the witness statement of the main police witness before the court with approximately 120 stills from the CCTV evidence, containing the prosecution case on a frame by frame basis. It totalled in excess of 170 pages (120 relating to the murder and the balance to other bad character evidence arising on the night). All three leading counsel for the defence opined that this was unlawful and contrary to the existing case law.[19]There is, says the Appellant, extensive authority supporting this view, but the Court of Appeal’s approach to this issue has changed over time. The Appellant and his junior took the lead in advancing the argument and developing it, and substantial liaison time between all the defendants’ counsel was necessary as a result. It required a detailed analysis of the material presented and of its effect.[20]There were also significant points regarding bad character that had been, in the Appellant’s view, inappropriately adduced relating to non- conviction bad character that had occurred earlier on the evening before the final event, but which had no direct relationship to it.[21]The Appellant’s advice and grounds of appeal ran to 42 pages regarding conviction and to 6 pages regarding sentence, the Defendant having received (argued the Appellant) no proper discount on his tariff sentence to reflect his youth and good character. A detailed response to the prosecution’s detailed, 31-page Respondent’s Notice was also submitted, running to 6 pages.

Conclusions

[22]Having reviewed the papers, including the advice and grounds of appeal on both conviction and sentencing, the Crown’s Respondent’s notice and the Appellants’ response, I am satisfied that this appeal should be allowed.[23]The Determining Officer referred to the Taxing Officer's Notes for Guidance which, at paragraph 1.11 set out the factors relevant in determining the reasonable amount of counsel’s fees:
“(i) the importance of the case, including its importance to each defendant in terms of the consequences to his livelihood, standing or reputation even where his liberty may not be at stake; (ii) the complexity of the matter; (iii) the skill, labour, specialised knowledge and responsibility involved; (iv) the number of documents prepared or perused with due regard to difficulty and length; (v) the time expended; and (vi) all other relevant circumstances…”
[24]His decision, nonetheless, does not seem to me fully to recognise the factually unusual and legally complex aspects of this appeal, for example the extensive authority referred to by both parties on the core issue of the appropriate presentation of video evidence.[25]Having reviewed counsel’s worklog, I can find no reason to find that the time claimed is, at 31.9 hours, manifestly excessive. All time is accounted for with a degree of precision. I can see no sign that time has been over-claimed: 61 emails, for example, are each claimed at one six-minute unit, for a total of 6.1 hours.[26]With regard to the effective hourly rate allowed by the Determining Officer, I have to hand a wealth of judicial reasoning in support of the proposition that an hourly rate of about £200 per hour is quite inadequate to compensate the Appellant at a reasonable rate for the work undertaken by him on this case.[27]I refer for example to the judgments of Costs Judge Whalan in R v Doak [2023] EWHC 271 (SCCO) and R v. Rafiq [2019] SCCO Ref: 27/19; of Costs Judge Brown in R v Walker [2022] EWHC 2841 (SCCO) and of Costs Judge Rowley (now the Senior Costs Judge) in R v Lawrance [2022] EWHC 3112 (SCCO) and R v Williams [2025] EWHC 2412 (SCCO). Typical rates allowed to leading counsel on appeals of this nature have, for some years, been between £250 and £275 per hour.[28]That aside, the Determining Officer seems to have overlooked his own allowance of a higher notional hourly rate for the much simpler sentence application.[29]Taking into account the TONG criteria and the nature and the circumstances of the conviction application, it is my conclusion that an appropriate fee to counsel for the conviction application would be £8,500 rather than the £5,250 allowed by the Determining Officer.[30]The appeal succeeds to that extent.