High Court allows Kamrans Solicitors’ claim for reviewing electronic PPE above the 10,000-page cap
Special preparation claim rules have been clarified by the High Court after it allowed Kamrans Solicitors’ appeal over payment for reviewing electronic prosecution evidence exceeding the 10,000-page cap.
Costs Judge Leonard allowed the appeal in R v Mafune [2026] EWHC 2246 (SCCO), handed down on 28 August 2026 in the Senior Courts Costs Office.
The appeal arose from a claim under Schedule 2 to the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. The relevant Representation Order was made on 24 January 2025, meaning the 2013 Regulations applied as they were in force on that date.
Kamrans Solicitors represented Lawrence Mafune in the Crown Court at Leeds. The case involved allegations concerning the supply of Class A and Class B drugs. Two telephones were seized and the prosecution relied on messaging extracts from them.
The prosecution served comprehensive telephone download reports for an iPhone and a Samsung phone in spreadsheet format. The reports contained the full contents of the phones.
The non-electronic Pages of Prosecution Evidence (PPE) count was 871. The two electronic reports took the overall PPE count above 10,000 pages, and Kamrans received a Graduated Fee calculated on the 10,000-page limit. This meant 9,129 pages of electronic evidence were included in the PPE count for calculating the Graduated Fee.
The issue on appeal was whether the firm could claim special preparation for work undertaken on electronic PPE above that cap.
Judge Leonard said the first step in considering a claim under paragraph 20(1)(b) of Schedule 2 would normally be to establish the total PPE count, including appropriate electronic evidence. This is necessary to identify the evidence exceeding 10,000 pages and assess the reasonableness of the special preparation claim against it.
The judgment also considered earlier authorities concerning electronic evidence. Where key prosecution evidence is extracted from a particular category of electronic data, the judgment said all electronic evidence in that category would normally be expected to be included within the PPE count.
However, spreadsheet evidence presents particular difficulties because page counts can vary significantly according to how the data is organised and displayed. Printouts can also contain blank pages, fragments of data and obviously irrelevant material. The judgment therefore recognised the need for a “sensible approximation” when determining the PPE count.
The original claim sought payment for 342 hours and 36 minutes of Grade B work reviewing the “Chats” data. The worklogs showed that this involved 199,425 pages in one spreadsheet, while further work was recorded on the second spreadsheet.
The Determining Officer allowed 60 hours for reviewing what was described as non-PPE “residual content”. Judge Leonard found that approach had overlooked paragraph 20(1)(b) of Schedule 2.
The judge emphasised that the claim was specifically for special preparation concerning electronic PPE where the total PPE count exceeded 10,000 pages. The fact that some electronic evidence had already been included within the PPE count for the Graduated Fee did not prevent a special preparation claim for work reasonably required to review PPE above the cap.
After applying basic filtering to remove, among other things, messages without content and obviously irrelevant data, Judge Leonard calculated 61,800 pages of “Chats” in the first spreadsheet and 4,512 pages in the second. This produced a total of 66,312 pages.
After deducting the 9,129 pages already included within the PPE count, the judge calculated that the claim concerned 57,183 pages of PPE above the 10,000-page cap.
Judge Leonard concluded that the 342 hours and 36 minutes claimed for special preparation was not unreasonable. He noted that the work represented less than half a minute per page, while stressing that special preparation is paid according to time reasonably spent rather than on a “minutes per page” basis.
The appeal therefore succeeded, and Kamrans Solicitors was to be remunerated for 342 hours and 36 minutes of special preparation. The judgment also states that an additional £500, exclusive of VAT, was payable for costs, together with the £100 already paid on appeal.