VERY HIGH COST CASE – APPEAL TO THE APPEAL COMMITTEE
R-v- [REDACTED]

DECISION

Introduction

1. The purpose of the Advocate Fee Appeals Committee (the Committee) is to resolve disputes by reference to published CPS fee schemes. The decision of the Committee is based solely on what it considers to be the correct interpretation of those fee schemes. The Committee does not have the remit to apply any discretion.

2. This case falls to be remunerated under the CPS Very High Cost Case scheme (VHCC).

Issue in appeal

3. This appeal is brought by prosecuting counsel [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] against the categorisation of this case under Category 3.

4. The categorisation of a case is a decision for the lawyer with conduct of the case having regard to the guidance set out in the Very High Cost Cases (VHCC) Terms of Appointment published in April 2024. Annex A of Part 2 of that document sets out the criteria for setting hourly rates in non-fraud cases. The reviewing lawyer originally determined that Category 3 is appropriate in this case (allowing that Category 1 is not relevant, and that Category 3 applies in all cases where all the criteria for Category 2 are not met).

5. The criteria for a category 2 case are that:

(a) It must be a class 1 or 2 offence or be a serious drug case; and 
(b) The maximum sentence for the offence is imprisonment for life or over 30 years; and 
(c) The case is likely to give rise to widespread public concern; and
(d) If the offence is of a violent or sexual nature, there are multiple victims or if a sole victim, there is something significant about the crime. If the case involves drugs, their total value is estimated to exceed £10 million; and
(e) The volume of prosecution documentation (excluding unused material in Crown Court cases)     exceeds 10,000 pages.

6.  All of those criteria must be met in order for Category 2 to apply.

Counsel’s position

7. Both counsel have contested that all elements of Annex A Part 2 have been met and that the case should move into Fee Category 2. This Appeal centres on two of those criteria, namely (c) and (d) above, which are disputed in this case. It is acknowledged that the remaining criteria for Category 2 of the VHCC Scheme are met in this case.

Documentation

8. The Appeal Committee [‘the Committee’] (comprising [REDACTED] [Director of Legal Service, Crown Prosecution Service], [REDACTED] [as prosecution barrister nominated by the Bar Council], and [REDACTED] [Attorney General’s Office] met on Friday 1st May 2026 and considered the following documents before arriving at their decision:

• VHCC terms of appointment
• Taxation notes from Counsel
• Final CPS written reasons

Ruling

9. The Committee was unanimous that the two disputed criteria are not satisfied in this case.

10. The Committee’s reasons are:

11.  Criteria (c): there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate this case was likely to give rise to widespread public concern. Whilst it was accepted that there was a degree of public concern in the locality the Committee concluded that it was insufficient to meet this criterion and which does require a greater level of anxiety and unease.

12. Criteria (d): there is insufficient evidence to establish that there was “something significant about the crime”. The Committee took into account its experience of the casework of the CPS nationally.

13. The Committee having found that all the criteria for Category 2 of the VHCC scheme are not satisfied in this case, the Appeal is therefore dismissed.