- 2 -
thinks that Mr Grant's fees should have been capped on a daily and/or monthly basis within six months or so of his appointment;
states that the non-inclusion of the Government's instructing solicitors. in counsels' fee negotiations resulted in subsequent misunderstanding concerning their terms of engagement and basis of charging;
believes that the solicitors were not accorded the requisite control and direction of counsel by the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC);
* believes that the procedure within AGC for approving the fee notes for payment was flawed;
* believes that the AGC's internal budgetary control arrangements were inadequate.
On the key issues of fee rates and capping, Mr Mathews said there were sharply divergent views between Mr Somerville on the one hand and the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr John Wood, and Mr Grant's solicitors on
the other.
Mr Mathews said Mr Somerville, very fairly, pointed out in his Report that the issues concerning arrangements for briefing counsel involved matters of negotiation and judgment in respect of which there were no hard and fast rules and on which lawyers might hold varying opinions and preferences. Mr Somerville also stressed that his comments were based on hindsight.
Mr Mathews added: "This points up this dilemma: how can one make a judgment that is fair, final and conclusive as between those divergent views.
"Mr Wood and Mr (Clive) Grossman were (and are) very senior and experienced criminal lawyers, who were the persons most conversant with the conduct and the progress of this massive case.
"I simply do not believe that it would be right for me, some years after the decisions were reached, to second guess these decisions, decisions on which there can be no hard and fast rules."
2.