{"id":604576,"date":"2026-04-19T12:02:56","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T10:02:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/"},"modified":"2026-04-19T12:02:56","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T10:02:56","slug":"r-v-nathan-powell","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Nathan Powell"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>Introduction 1. Mr Keith Harrison, Counsel (\u2018the Appellant\u2019) appeals against the decision of the Determining Officer at the Legal Aid Agency (\u2018the Respondent\u2019) in a claim submitted under the Advocate\u2019s Graduated Fees Scheme (\u2018AGFS\u2019). The issue for determination is whether this case should be assessed and paid as a 27-day trial, as claimed, or as a 21- day trial, as assessed. A secondary issue concerns payment for a conference on 1st December 2021 between the Appellant and his client. Background 2. The Appellant represented Mr Nathan Powell (\u2018the Defendant\u2019) who appeared with other co-defendants at Manchester (Crown Square) Crown Court on an indictment alleging conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and conspiracy to transfer criminal property. The Appellant\u2019s AGFS claim included a 27-day trial that took place between 18th January 2021 and 19th January 2022. The Respondent concluded that the trial lasted for 21 days. The DO found that the hearings on 1st March 2021, 9th April 2021, 20th April 2021, 20th May 2021, 28th May 2021 and 15th November 2021 were not trial days, but were rather subsidiary hearings which attracted the standard appearance fee. The Appellant challenges this assessment regarding the first five disputed days; the hearing on 15th November 2021 is no longer challenged. Thus, the issue on appeal is whether this was a 26 -day or 21-day trial. 3. The initial PTPH was held on 15th July 2020, and the judge indicated that there would be a Preparatory Hearing pursuant to ss29-31 of the CPIA 1996. It was listed initially on 9th November 2020 but, following several adjournments, did not actually begin before Dove J until 18th January 2021. The court then sat on various days between 18th January 2021 and 18th June 2021. Judgment was reserved and delivered on 19th July 2021. It was appealed. On 19th January 2022, the Defendant changed his plea to guilty and, except for sentencing, the case concluded. The Regulations 4. The Representation Order is dated 2nd July 2020 and so the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 (\u2018the 2013 Regulations\u2019), as amended, apply. I am referred variously to para. 1, \u2018Interpretation\u2019, of Part 1 to Schedule 1, which sets out, inter alia, the definition of \u2018standard appearance\u2019, and para. 19, \u2018Fees for conferences &amp; views\u2019, of Part 5 to Schedule 1, which provides for the payment of conferences. The submissions 5. The Respondent\u2019s case is set out in Written Reasons dated 21st November 2022. No appearance was made at the appeal hearing on 21st July 2023. The Appellant\u2019s case is set out in the Grounds of Appeal filed on or about 20th January 2023 and in a detailed Draft Chronology dated 17th June 2021. The Appellant attended and made oral submissions at the hearing on 21st July 2023. 6. The Respondent, in summary, submits that the DO correctly assessed the hearings on 1st March, 9th April, 20th April, 20th May and 28th May 2021 as standard appearances and not days which comprised part of the preparatory hearing\/trial. The Court Log shows that contested hearings \u201cwere all listed for mention only and therefore fall within the Regulatory definition of a Standard Appearance\u201d. No fee, other than the standard appearance fee, is payable in respect of those days. Although, moreover, the trial lasted 21-days (the minimum threshold set out in para. 19), the Appellant had not demonstrated that the conference on 1st December 2021 was \u2018reasonably necessary\u2019, and so payment was refused. 7. The Appellant, in summary, submits first that as the preparatory hearing\/trial began on 18th January 2021, a starting point accepted by the Respondent, \u201call days on which the court sat\u201d between that date and the end of the hearing were \u201cdays of the preparatory hearing\u201d which should be paid as trial days and not hearings attracting a standard appearance fee. Alternatively, if each contested date is assessed properly, it is clear that those hearings comprised work that was substantive to the preparatory hearing, to the extent that it should be assessed and paid as trial days. Given that the Defendant was not present on many of the preparatory hearing days, it was reasonably necessary to hold a conference with him on 1st December 2021, so that the Appellant could explain and unravel \u201cthe complex nature of the proceedings\u201d. Time was also spent reasonably \u201cas to preparation of defence evidence and disclosure issues relevant to the jury trial\u201d. 8. I reject the Appellant\u2019s first contention, namely that all dates listed between the start and end of the preparatory hearing should be assessed and paid automatically as trial days. It seems to clear to me that the regulations provide for the possibility of listings and hearings within the ambit of a trial (mentions, bail applications etc.) and should properly be classified and assessed differently to \u2018trial days\u2019 for the purposes of the AGFS. I also reject the Respondent\u2019s apparent contention that payment is determined by the fact of the court listing; in other words, if the hearing day is listed as a \u2018Mention\u2019, it is automatically classified and paid as a standard appearance. It seems to me to be reasonable and necessary to look at each disputed day and determine whether the work undertaken formed a qualitative, substantive part of the preparatory hearing\/trial, or whether it dealt simply with relatively straightforward matters of procedural direction. 9. I am satisfied that the hearing on 1st March 2021 should be classified as a trial day and not a standard appearance. Looking at the narrative on p.3 of the Written Reasons and the detail outlined at para. 5 of the Draft Chronology, I am satisfied that the work undertaken on that day was of sufficient complexity (dealing, in part, with evidence disputed by the prosecution and defence), to justify a trial day fee. 10. I am not satisfied that the hearings on 9th April, 20th April, 20th May or 28th May constituted trial days. The DO, in my conclusion, was right to classify them as standard appearances. On 9th April, the case was listed for the prosecution to update the Court and Defence as to the progress of the case, leading to the conclusion that it would resume on 4th May. The case was listed on 20th April to confirm simply that the matter would be ready to proceed as listed. 20th May was listed \u2018for mention to update the Court as to the progress the defence had made in identifying and instructing an expert\u2019. On 28th May the case was listed \u2018by the Defence for mention following their concerns about their expert\u2019s access\u2019 to some relevant, digital datum. These were straightforward procedural hearings at which no substantive progress was made and could not properly be described as \u2018trial days\u2019. 11. I am satisfied that the conference between the Appellant and the Defendant on 1st December 2021 was \u2018reasonably necessary\u2019, for the reasons set out in the Grounds of Appeal. Insofar as this was a 22- day trial, both limbs of para. 19(3) are satisfied, and the conference fee is payable. 12. I direct, in conclusion, that the Appellant\u2019s claim should be payable as a 22- day trial, with payment for the conference on 1st December 2021, with standard appearance fees payable for 9th April, 20th April, 20th May and 28th May 2021. Costs 13. The Appellant\u2019s contested appeal has been successful (in part) and I award costs of \u00a3250 (+ any VAT), in addition to the \u00a3100 paid to lodge the appeal. TO: COPIES TO: Mr Keith Harrison St John\u2019s Buildings 24A-28 St John\u2019s Street Manchester M3 4DJ Determining Officer Legal Aid Agency DX10035 Nottingham The Senior Courts Costs Office, Thomas More Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL: DX 44454 Strand, Telephone No: 020 7947 6468, Fax No: 020 7947 6247. When corresponding with the court, please address letters to the Criminal Clerk and quote the SCCO number.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewhc\/scco\/2024\/109\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction 1. Mr Keith Harrison, Counsel (\u2018the Appellant\u2019) appeals against the decision of the Determining Officer at the Legal Aid Agency (\u2018the Respondent\u2019) in a claim submitted under the Advocate\u2019s Graduated Fees Scheme (\u2018AGFS\u2019). The issue for determination is whether this case should be assessed and paid as a 27-day trial, as claimed, or as a 21- day trial, as&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8229],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8677],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,12581,7916,9795,8231],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-604576","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-senior-court-costs-office","kji_year-8677","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-april","kji_keyword-hearing","kji_keyword-standard","kji_keyword-trial","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R v Nathan Powell - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Nathan Powell\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction 1. Mr Keith Harrison, Counsel (\u2018the Appellant\u2019) appeals against the decision of the Determining Officer at the Legal Aid Agency (\u2018the Respondent\u2019) in a claim submitted under the Advocate\u2019s Graduated Fees Scheme (\u2018AGFS\u2019). The issue for determination is whether this case should be assessed and paid as a 27-day trial, as claimed, or as a 21- day trial, as...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathan-powell\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathan-powell\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Nathan Powell - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-19T10:02:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathan-powell\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathan-powell\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-nathan-powell\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Nathan Powell\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Nathan Powell - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Nathan Powell","og_description":"Introduction 1. Mr Keith Harrison, Counsel (\u2018the Appellant\u2019) appeals against the decision of the Determining Officer at the Legal Aid Agency (\u2018the Respondent\u2019) in a claim submitted under the Advocate\u2019s Graduated Fees Scheme (\u2018AGFS\u2019). The issue for determination is whether this case should be assessed and paid as a 27-day trial, as claimed, or as a 21- day trial, as...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"6 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/","name":"R v Nathan Powell - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-19T10:02:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-nathan-powell\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Nathan Powell"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/604576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=604576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=604576"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=604576"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=604576"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=604576"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=604576"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=604576"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=604576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}