The applicant had been awarded the costs of his defence by the magistrates, but the bill was halved on assessment, on the basis that an agreement to engage a solicitor of more than four years admission to defend a charge of assault and battery, and to pay him on an hourly rate was unreasonable. He appealed.
Held: The clerk had misread the test in the section. It was not whether a less experienced solicitor would have been reasonably sufficient. The test was directed not to the choice of solicitor, but to the remuneration claimed. It was reasonable to agree to pay a solicitor on a flat hourly rate when charging practices at that time were in a transition period, and fees for advice prior to the actual charge were also within the section.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Citations:
Times 29-Jan-2002
Statutes:
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.167486