A silk has successfully challenged the sums allowed by the Legal Aid Agency after a senior costs judge found the standard hourly rate allowed ‘does not sufficiently value the weight of this case or…the expertise of counsel’.
Richard Christie KC was instructed on behalf of Sherome Williams, who was convicted of murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, to appeal both conviction and sentence. Christie claimed 86 hours for the work involved on the appeals, which were ultimately dismissed, at an hourly rate of £287.50 together with attendance at the appeal claimed at £1,500, exclusive of VAT. He also claimed a further 11 hours for 66 emails.
The determining officer allowed an hourly rate of £200 and ‘considered the sum of £16,000 exclusive of VAT to be reasonable remuneration as opposed to the £26,225 claimed by counsel’.
However in R v Sherome Williams senior costs judge Rowley said that costs judges have generally allowed a higher hourly rate than the notional £200. The judge said £25,000 plus VAT – 90 hours at £275 – is ‘reasonable remuneration’ taking into consideration the ‘various complexities’ of the case.
Read more
He added: ‘In my judgement, the standard hourly rate allowed by [Legal Aid determining officer] does not sufficiently value the weight of this case or indeed the expertise of counsel. Whilst it is easy to produce a figure as the product of a reasonable number of hours multiplied by a specific hourly rate, that is not strictly the task of establishing reasonable remuneration.
‘It follows therefore that counsel has been successful in his appeal and he is also entitled to a contribution to his costs of having to bring it.’
The judge ordered the appropriate additional payment as well as £1,500, exclusive of VAT, for costs.
This article is now closed for comment.
6 Readers' comments