R v Hamoud Salem Al Soaimi

Background

1. On 9 October 2023 the Defendant (Applicant in the relevant appeal) was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and one count of assault of a child under 13 by penetration. The alleged offences took place between August 2018 and April 2019 in public. There were 3 co-accused. The Applicant was 15 years of age at the material time.

2. He received a sentence of 24 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years with requirements attached.

3. An appeal against conviction was advanced on at least five grounds, and in general terms sought to establish that the trial was unfair and/or the convictions were unsafe. Claim

4. The Appellant claimed 10 hours for “Preparation of Advice & Grounds of Appeal- Completion of Forms NG and B; Consideration of transcripts obtained by Court of Appeal [279 pages]” and 4 hours for “Legal Research”. All time is claimed at £150/hr.

5. The Respondent allowed 8 hours at £75/hr for the first tranche of work and nil for “Legal Research”. Relevant Legislation

6. The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013, schedule 3, paragraph 1 provides: “1.—(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.” Submissions

7. The Respondent has confirmed they do not wish to attend the hearing of this appeal and have not submitted any written submissions for the hearing. They rely on the written reasons of the Determining Officer in the Criminal Appeals Office, dated 21 November 2024. This followed an original determination dated 24 October 2024.

8. Mr Hedworth, the Appellant, appeared on his own behalf. He expressed concern as to the approach adopted by the Respondent in considering his fees claim, suggesting that a generic approach had been applied which failed to have proper regard for the work he had undertaken and all relevant circumstances.

9. He also expressed concern that the Respondent had allowed for hourly rates which were much less than those regularly allowed in similar costs appeals in the SCCO, and failed to account for the economic reality of work done in the period covered. Analysis and decision

10. The underlying case facts, concerning sexual assault offences involving children, means that the nature of the appeal was grave and significant. The case was of the utmost importance to the Applicant and indeed those who had been impacted by the offences reported.

11. Whilst the Appellant pragmatically accepts this was not the most complex or difficult of cases, I accept that the Senior Courts Costs Office has consistently recognised that advocates instructed in the Court of Appeal have a greater level of responsibility placed on them than when appearing in any of the divisions of the lower courts. I also concur that there is an irreducible minimum amount of time one requires to prepare arguments for the Court of Appeal regardless of prior familiarity with the case.

12. In any event, citing prior familiarity is not sufficient without also recognising that the nature of an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is different from the hearing of the original convictions.

13. With regards to the time spent, the Appellant presented two distinct claims. One was described as “Preparation of Advice & Grounds of Appeal- Completion of Forms NG and B; Consideration of transcripts obtained by Court of Appeal [279 pages]” for which 10 hours is claimed. This time includes work perfecting the grounds of appeal.

14. I have had the benefit of the Appellant’s oral submissions, written appeal pleadings and the actual documents produced. I accept the relevance and volume of documentation that had to be considered. I cannot conclude that 10 hours is an unreasonable amount.

15. As to the additional claim for ‘legal research’, I understand why the Determining Officer made no allowance in the first instance. A claim for “legal research”, without something more, gives rise to concerns that the time incurred yielded a general professional practice development for the individual concerned, such that it would not be reasonable to attach the associated time to any one case.

16. However, I am satisfied that that the Appellant has since explained that the 4 hours claimed in legal research in fact concerns careful consideration as to whether there were any authorities which were either on all fours or otherwise relevant to the issues to be decided upon appeal. In circumstances where such “research” was in fact necessary in order to prepare this case for presentation in the Court of Appeal, I cannot conclude it was unreasonable. However, I do consider the time unreasonable in amount and allow for 3 hours.

17. In terms of rates, the Appellant relies on Evans and others v Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 1525 (QB) . He is not seeking £240 per hour and recognises the distinctions to be drawn between Evans and the index matter. However, the Appellant relies on the fact he is more senior than the junior in Evans , and that the Evans decision is now 10 years old.

18. It is in that context that the Appellant pleads a rate of £150 per hour to be reasonable. I accept that the £75 per hour permitted should be departed from but not to the extent pleaded. I consider £135 per hour to be appropriate in this matter.

19. Thus permitting an allowance of 13 hours in total, at £135/hr, I allow the appeal in the sum of £1,755 plus VAT and direct that the balance be paid to the Appellant. Costs

20. The Appellant seeks £1,000 in costs plus the appeal fee of £100, on the basis he had to return a case this morning. That is not a sound basis for the costs of the appeal save for where the SCCO was approached to consider hearing the appeal at a different time or date and refused. I am not aware of any such request but certainly would have accommodated the same.

21. I will allow £600 for the costs of the appeal on a fully inclusive basis. COSTS JUDGE NAGALINGAM