England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> RM Broudie & Co v The Lord Chancellor [2000] EWHC 9010 (Costs) (17 May 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2000/9010.html
Cite as: [2000] EWHC 9010 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 

 No.10 of 2000

RM Broudie & Co v The Lord Chancellor

17 May 2000

Mr Justice Sachs Sitting with One Assessor

This criminal review concerned the proper interpretation of sub paragraph 2(4)(c) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 concerning the extent of representation under a Crown Court legal aid order in respect of an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Section 2(4) reads, so far as relevant:

"Representation means representation for the purposes of proceedings and includes:

(c) In a case of criminal proceedings, advice and assistance as to any appeal."

As is well known, except in the rare case where a certificate of appeal is granted by the trial Judge, the appeal process is initiated by the solicitors seeking leave to appeal, and this is normally granted or refused by the Single Judge on the papers, but, if it is refused, it can be renewed to the Full Court.

The question in this case was whether the Crown Court legal aid order extended beyond the stage where the Single Judge refused leave, to cover work done in preparation for the renewal of the application, but the Judge, affirming both the Costs Judge and the Determining Officer, held that, on the proper construction of the section, the legal aid order for the Crown Court proceedings did not extend beyond the refusal of leave to appeal by the Single Judge. The Court of Appeal could grant leave retrospectively, but if the solicitors did work after the refusal by the Single Judge they did so at their own risk in that respect. The Judge did not consider that he was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Gibson (1983) 77 CAR 151.