The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.11 of 2005

 Meeke & Taylor v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs

 23 March 2005

 Mr Justice David Clarke (Sitting with Assessors)

This was a criminal appeal from a Deputy Costs Judge by way of final appeal to a High Court Judge.

The background was that the Appellants, Martin Meeke QC and Rupert Taylor, were Leading and Junior Counsel respectively for Stephen Harper who was a serial rapist and who faced an indictment containing eight counts of rape and threats to kill in respect of nine victims over a period of 13 years. The Defendant maintained his complete innocence, despite strong advice from both Leading and Junior Counsel that he ought to consider pleading to at least some of the counts, and the trial was listed to last approximately three weeks. On the morning of that trial both counsel again tried to persuade their client of the good sense of considering changing his pleas, but he refused. The jury was sworn, and, somewhat unusually, counsel for the prosecution opened his case for some 10 or 15 minutes prior to the lunch adjournment. Over that adjournment the Defendant had a change of heart, and decided to offer pleas to certain counts, on the basis that the remaining counts were dropped. This proved acceptable to the Crown, and, after lunch, the Judge directed the jury to convict and he was sentenced appropriately.

In those circumstances both Leading and Junior Counsel had to have their fees assessed under the graduated fee scheme as a one day rape trial. This resulted in Mr Meeke receiving a basic fee of £975, together with an additional £1,874.88 in respect of the prosecution page count, making a total payment to him of £2,849.88. Correspondingly calculated, lower figures were paid to Mr Taylor.

Feeling that they had been underpaid counsel sought a special preparation fee of £3,625, representing 60 hours special preparation at the appropriate rate pursuant to paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001, because the papers ran to 806 pages, there were 65 witnesses, 139 pages of the Defendant's proof and other complications which required 60 hours' preparation.

Both the Determining Officer, and on appeal the Deputy Costs Judge, refused the special preparation claim, but the latter certified a point of principle of general importance to enable this final appeal to be brought before the High Court Judge.

The point of principle certified, which was submitted by the Appellants but approved by the Deputy Costs Judge, was:

"In a case which has to be taxed as a one day rape trial is counsel entitled to "special preparation" under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 because the papers ran to 806 pages, there were 65 witnesses, 139 pages of Defendant proof and other complications requiring 60 hours preparation?"

In the skeleton arguments the unfairness of the rigid and formalistic graduated fee scheme was underlined by counsel for the Appellants, who reminded the court that had the Defendant changed his plea before the jury was sworn, then both counsel would have received a fee based on a "cracked trial", some two to three times higher than the fee they actually received.

The Judge however held that the graduated fee scheme was a self contained scheme, and that there was no "equity" in it, and that, harsh though the result undoubtedly was, the decisions below had to be upheld. The Judge accepted that the hours of preparation were in fact appropriate for a trial estimated to last three weeks, and therefore greatly in excess of what was required for a one day trial. He also accepted that the fact that it turned out to be a one day trial could not have been known when the preparation was being carried out by counsel, but he held that this made no difference.

He also held that the amendment introduced to the Regulations in respect of higher value cases, namely paragraph 17A under the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2004 did not assist the Appellants, nor did the civil case of Loveday v Renton (No.2) [1992] 3 All ER 184.

Accordingly the Judge dismissed the appeal, and awarded costs, summarily assessed at £3,000, in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.