Lord Chancellor v Eddowes Perry and Osbourne Ltd [2011] EWHC 420 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 54 (Mar)
The definition of “case” in para 1 of Sch 2 to the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007, SI 2007/1174, covered a single defendant case as the basic model, and it was upon that model that the later provisions in para 9 of Sch 2 to the Order for defendant uplifts were grafted in order to cover multi-defendant cases.
What was clear from sub-paras (a), (b) and (c) of para 1 of Sch 2 was that the emphasis was on a “single” indictment, “single” notice of appeal, “single” committal for sentence and “single” alleged breach of an order. In other words, in identifying the “case” for which remuneration was claimed, the focus was on the machinery by which the proceedings in the Crown Court were initiated and/or determined: indictment, notice of appeal, committal for sentence or breach of an order. If, therefore, a defendant faced two separate indictments there were two separate “cases”, for each of which the litigator was entitled to separate remuneration.
It was elementary, of
