R v Edward King [2026] EWHC 1817 (SCCO)

[2026] EWHC 1817 (SCCO)Case No 202202018 B2SCCO Ref: SC-2025-CRI-000141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE
Thomas More Building
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate 13/07/2026
London, WC2A 2LL
Before
COSTS JUDGE NAGALINGAMR-v-Edward KingIN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST REDETERMINATION
Between
Richard Christie KCAppellantThe Lord ChancellorRespondentHearing Hearing date: 09/07/2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 16.30pm on 16 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
COSTS JUDGE NAGALINGAM

Background and Appeal

[1]Whilst not seeking to excuse the actions of those involved, and for the purpose of providing context only, the Appellant explained that the Defendant’s home address, family property (including motor vehicles), and that of their neighbours had been the targets of criminal activity on a total of 88 occasions before the events of 20 June 2021.[2]None of the reported crimes had led to a successful conviction, save for one incident (which the perpetrator admitted to and was therefore recorded as being left to lie on his file but otherwise not pursued unless he was further arrested and charged in a future offence).[3]One such incident of crime was a burglary which took place some two years before the events of 20 June 2021. On that occasion, the Defendant and his father, David King, had exchanged text messages over the course of 3 days in which frustrations were ventilated as to those responsible for the burglary, and the fact they remained at large.[4]Those messages would later be used by the prosecution as part of a bad character application to demonstrate the Defendant’s state of mind and that of David King’s on 20 June 2021.[5]The prosecution also relied on an incident in which David King had remonstrated with a neighbour whom he suspected of having damaged the wing mirror of his car. This incident was also cited by the prosecution as part of their bad character application, presenting David King and his son as aggressive and intimidating.[6]The prosecution also sought to rely on an occasion in which the Defendant was charged following an incident in which he waved an iron bar aggressively, leading to arrest and a subsequent search of his home. That search revealed a collection of knives – subsequently seized but later returned because possession of the same was not in fact illegal at the time. This was also relied on as part of the prosecution’s bad character application.[7]On 20 June 2021, the Defendant and his father reacted to a CCTV alert of movement outside the Defendant’s home caused by someone tampering with the door handle of a family car at around 1am.[8]Both father and Defendant son left the house to investigate, walking for around 20 minutes before returning to the property. CCTV showed that when the Defendant returned he had a “Ninja sword” tucked into his jogging bottoms.[9]Text messages amongst family members corroborated efforts made by the Defendant and his father to look for the person tampering with the car door handle at the relevant time.[10]A further CCTV alert at around 3.48am alerted the Defendant to another attempt to access cars on the driveway, and access a door to the Defendant’s home. The Defendant and his father embarked on a second attempt to locate the person concerned.[11]CCTV showed that the Defendant was once again armed with a sword, and his father was armed with a dagger. The defence case was that because the property was located on a crescent, the Defendant and his father agreed to move around the crescent in opposite directions to improve their chance of catching the person who had been outside the house.[12]Minutes later, CCTV footage captured a confrontation between David King and Neil Charles (deceased). Mr Charles was fatally stabbed and it was accepted David King was responsible.[13]However, rather than accepting that the Defendant had arrived soon after the offence (as he travelled the opposite way around the crescent), the crown’s case was that the Defendant was sufficiently involved to warrant being joined with his father in a murder charge.[14]This was on the basis that upon being attacked by David King, Mr Charles attempted to flee on a bike. The crown’s case was that the Defendant used the sword in his possession to continue the attack on Mr Charles. The Defendant’s case was that he slashed at a tyre on Mr Charles’ bike to incapacitate his means of escape but in doing so he accidentally caused injury to Mr Charles’ leg.[15]A post-mortem confirmed that the cause of death was blood loss from a stab wound to the chest, which David King accepted he caused.[16]The Defendant, Edward King, was charged and subsequently convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Ipswich. He was sentenced to Custody for Life with a minimum term of 19 years less time served on remand.[17]The Defendant’s father, David King, was sentenced to Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years less time served on remand.[18]The Defendant appealed against conviction and sentence on 4 December 2023 and on 9 February 2024 the appeal was refused. A fresh appeal was renewed and on 2 May 2025 refused by the court.[19]The Appellant submitted a remuneration claim for 110.79 hours, which was assessed down to 80 hours (£20,000). The Appellant takes no issue with his time being assessed at a rate of £250/hr. However, he appeals the number of hours allowed.

Analysis and Decision

[20]The remuneration appeal hearing was attended remotely by the Appellant, Mr Christie KC. There was no attendance on behalf of the Respondent, by prior notification. No written submissions have been prepared specifically for the appeal hearing. The Respondent thus relies on the Determining Officer’s written reasons dated 12 September 2025.[21]The Appellant takes no issue with the rate allowed but says he has had no explanation of why the hours were reduced save that the written reasons say:
“In assessing the appropriate fee careful consideration was given to the weight, seriousness, importance and complexity of the case having regard to all relevant facts as set out in paragraphs 1-11 of the Taxing Officers’ Notes for Guidance. Counsel objects to the fees paid with respect to the written work. Notwithstanding the seriousness and difficulty involved in this matter, 110¾ hours preparation as claimed on the written work on appeal, under the scope of the lower court representation order was considered far too high given King's Counsel’s familiarity with the relevant facts and issues on appeal having acted below.”
[22]The written reasons represent the fullest reason the Appellant has received as to why he was remunerated on the basis of 80 hours.[23]It does not assist to provide a full timeline of this remuneration appeal save to say that the Appellant’s initial request was in fact for an explanation as to how the Determining Officer had settled upon a deduction of nearly 30%.[24]The copy documents I have been shown demonstrate some back and forth correspondence predicated on the assumption that the original remuneration decision could be the subject of a Teams call between the Appellant and the Determining Officer following which the decision could be reviewed.[25]That approach never materialised and instead this appeal was lodged.[26]Whilst I am critical of the Determining Officer for providing reasons which appear generic, or otherwise are insufficiently particularised to the facts of this case, I find that was an approach he was entitled to take. The obvious flaw in that approach however is that save for where further reasons and/or a breakdown of the allowance is provided, it is an approach likely to give rise to appeals.[27]The provision of a breakdown of the time allowed is to be considered on a case by case basis. Had Appellant counsel presented a single block of text by way of description followed by a claim for 110.79 hours then clearly the Determining Officer’s approach would have been warranted.[28]However, the Appellant in fact provided a 6-page breakdown of his fees, logged under 59 separate time entries which are accurate as to the time of day and the date work was done.[29]Time totals for 31 separate dates, with detailed descriptions of what was done on each date, mean that the Determining Officer could have at least either identified on which date the time was considered unreasonably high or where that work was not required at all.[30]The provision of a blanket allowed figure which accounts for in excess of 30 hours of reductions is not justified by the written reasons provided.[31]The “seriousness” and “importance” of this case is clearly made out. The Defendant had been convicted and sentenced for his part in a murder which his father had admitted to, and in which he and the Defendant concurred that the Defendant played no part other than an accidental leg wounding (on the Defendant’s case).[32]The post-mortem concluded it was the stab to the chest that caused Mr Charles’ death.[33]The grounds of appeal included concerns as to the audio evidence and whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury as to the limitations of the expert audio evidence.[34]Those concerns extended not only to the fact that audio evidence was from devices such as internet-enabled front door cameras at some considerable distance from where Mr Charles was attacked, but also concerns as to the credentials of the expert himself.[35]Further, whilst the Appellant’s prior involvement is acknowledged, the grounds of appeal – running to 13 in number – were based on various decisions of the trial judge as to admission of evidence, summing up and direction failures, concerns as to lack of balance, and the attacking of the Applicant’s case during the Appellant’s closing submissions.[36]Thus whilst I accept the general proposition that where there is consistency of trial counsel and appellant counsel, I do not consider the facts and circumstances leading to an appeal of conviction and sentence in this matter materially contributed to duplication of time and work.[37]I have concluded that the appropriate course of action is to set aside the Determining Officer’s decision and conduct my own consideration of the remuneration claim, having regard to the detailed 6-page time log.[38]That exercise has resulted in a reduction of 12.09* hours from the 110.79 hours claimed. As a consequence, the allowed time is 98.7 hours meaning that an additional 18.7 hours has been allowed over and above the 80 hours concluded by the Determining Officer.[39]The reductions take into account my consideration of each entry in the log, and the time I consider to be reasonable in all the circumstances.[40]The appeal is therefore allowed.

Costs

[41]The £100 appeal fee shall be repaid to the Appellant in addition to the additional remuneration consequent upon the outcome of this appeal. The Respondent shall also pay appeal costs, summarily assessed in the sum of £900 COSTS JUDGE NAGALINGAM * An annotated marked up PDF copy of the Appellant’s ‘log of hours’ has been saved to CE File for the consideration of the parties if they so wish.