The regulation revolves around a small set of interlocking concepts that determine who receives payment, under what circumstances, and how amounts are calculated.

Fee units and rounding: Some fees and allowances are stated as numbers of fee units and therefore require conversion to dollar amounts. Section 4A prescribes rounding rules for that conversion, with three bands: up to $100 round to the nearest 5 cents; more than $100 up to $1,000 round to the nearest 10 cents; more than $1,000 up to $5,000 round to the nearest dollar. Section 4A also explicitly links the rounding exercise to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 48C(3), and gives a concrete numerical example (s 4A).

Types of allowances: The regulation defines four discrete allowance types that address typical costs incurred by non‑police, non‑prisoner prosecution witnesses. Each has a functional definition: travelling allowance for travel to and from court; meal allowance for meals where attendance causes absence from residence or workplace; accommodation allowance for overnight accommodation; and loss of earnings allowance for loss of income due to necessary absence (s 6). These are administrative definitions establishing eligibility triggers.

Entitlement rules and temporal tests: Section 7 sets the core entitlement. It states that a prosecution witness is entitled to each relevant allowance for attending court, subject to s 8. Section 7 contains detailed temporal rules for meal allowances tied to specific time thresholds: breakfast if leaving before 6.00 am; lunch if leaving before 1.30 pm or returning after 1.30 pm; dinner if returning after 6.30 pm. When attendance requires overnight absence, s 7(3) lists more complex rules covering the first day, intervening days and the day following the last overnight absence. The phrase “necessarily absent from the witness’s residence or place of work” appears repeatedly and is the operative factual trigger for meal, accommodation and loss of earnings entitlements (s 6, s 7(4)).

Alternative schemes and exclusion: Section 8 removes entitlement where an “alternative scheme” provides a corresponding allowance. The regulation defines an “alternative scheme” by listing particular statutory and contractual arrangements, including directives under the Public Sector Act 2022, engagements as government medical officers, Commonwealth employment under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cwlth) s 6, arrangements between Commonwealth and State for payments, and, where the prosecution witness is an expert witness, an arrangement to be paid to give opinion evidence (s 8(3)). The test of correspondence is functional: the alternative allowance corresponds if it is payable towards meeting the same, or a similar, type of expense or loss (s 8(2)). That test is fact based.

Discretionary reimbursements: Section 9 creates a residual head. If a prosecution witness “actually and reasonably” incurs an expense that is not otherwise provided for under Part 3, the relevant accountable officer “may” reimburse that expense (s 9(1)-(2)). The regulation names the accountable officer depending on whether the DPP is concerned or not (s 9(3)), locating responsibility in existing accountability structures (Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 s 32; Financial Accountability Act 2009; Police Service Administration Act 1990).

Exclusions and transitional carryovers: Part 3 does not apply to police officers or prisoners (s 5). Transitional provisions bring unpaid entitlements under the expired 2010 regulation forward (s 11), and permit references to the expired regulation in documents to be read as references to the new regulation where the context permits (s 12).

Definitions by schedule: The regulation relies on schedule 3 for particular word definitions (s 3). Amounts are in schedules 1 and 2 (ss 4 and 7). The Criminal Practice Rules 1999 are the point of reference where schedule 1 mentions a “rule” (s 4). Practitioners must therefore treat the schedules and the referenced instruments as part of the full scheme.

Primary recipients: The immediate recipients the regulation targets are prosecution witnesses in criminal proceedings who attend court to give evidence, other than police officers and prisoners (s 5). The definition of prosecution witness in this text is contextual; the detailed eligibility turns on whether attendance is “necessary” and whether alternative schemes apply (ss 6-8).

State and prosecuting agencies: The State, through accountable officers, bears the payment obligation. Section 9 identifies the “relevant accountable officer” depending on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned (the accountable officer under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 s 32) or otherwise the accountable officer under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 for the department administering the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (s 9(3)). That allocation means liability and administrative responsibility sit inside public agencies.

Expert witnesses and contracted providers: Expert witnesses occupy a dual position. If they are engaged under an arrangement with the prosecution for payment to provide opinion evidence, that engagement is an “alternative scheme” and, where it corresponds, excludes entitlement under Part 3 (s 8(3)(e)). Practically that means experts frequently paid by the prosecution will not also claim travel/accommodation/meal allowances under the regulation.

Employees and Commonwealth‑engaged persons: The regulation excludes duplicate payment where the witness is covered by Commonwealth employment, or where a Commonwealth-State arrangement provides payment (s 8(3)(c)-(d)). It also excludes those engaged as government medical officers or where a Public Sector Act 2022 directive applies (s 8(3)(a)-(b)). Therefore witnesses who are public servants or engaged through intergovernmental arrangements will typically be covered outside this regulation.

Courts and administrators: Court registries and prosecuting agencies will be affected operationally because entitlements are defined by the regulation but payment and reimbursement processes are administrative. Courts may be required to provide attendance verification. The regulation does not set a claims form or timeframe, so court administrators and agencies must create internal process flows to record attendance and compute entitlements under the timing tests (s 7).

Witness employers and commercial parties: Where witnesses are employees of private firms, the loss of earnings allowance is payable if the witness is necessarily absent from their place of work (s 6). Employers will be affected indirectly: employees who give evidence can claim a loss of earnings allowance (s 7 and s 6). The regulation does not alter employers’ obligations to continue pay or to reimburse deductions; it merely creates an entitlement against the prosecution.

Legal representatives and defence: While the regulation is directed at prosecution witnesses, defence practitioners will need to be aware of the entitlements when advising clients who are witnesses, particularly where witnesses have competing claims under other schemes or where reimbursement decisions may be discretionary (s 8; s 9).

Transitionally affected parties: Witnesses who had entitlements under the expired Criminal Practice (Fees) Regulation 2010 and had not been paid at the time this regulation commenced are brought within Part 3 (s 11). Agencies must therefore review pre‑commencement unpaid liabilities under the expired regulation and process them under the new regime.

Primary rights: The regulation confers a statutory right to specified allowances for prosecution witnesses who meet the factual triggers. Section 7 states the prosecution witness “is entitled to be paid” the travelling allowance, meal allowance (subject to the temporal rules), accommodation allowance, and loss of earnings allowance. That language creates an enforceable entitlement against the prosecuting authority to the extent the entitlement is not excluded by s 8.

Temporal and factual duties: The entitlement is conditional on factual matters that must be established when making a claim. Meal allowances are tied to specific time thresholds (leave before 6.00 am for breakfast; leave before 1.30 pm or return after 1.30 pm for lunch; return after 6.30 pm for dinner) (s 7(2)). Overnight absence is defined by necessity to be absent overnight to attend court (s 7(4)). Those tests allocate the duty to demonstrate timing and necessity to the witness or the paying authority when processing claims.

Duty to avoid double payment: Section 8 creates a duty on both the paying authority and the witness to avoid duplicative payment where an alternative scheme covers the same or similar expense. The authority must refuse payment under this regulation if the witness is entitled under an alternative scheme. The witness has a right to an alternative payment if that scheme applies, but no entitlement to both where they “correspond” (s 8(1)-(2)). The regulation lists the kinds of alternative schemes that negate entitlement (s 8(3)).

Discretionary reimbursement: For expenses outside the enumerated allowances, the relevant accountable officer has the discretion to reimburse “actually and reasonably” incurred expenses (s 9(1)-(2)). That is an affirmative but discretionary power. It means the accountable officer can say yes or no depending on reasonableness and whether the expense is already covered under Part 3.

Administrative duties: The regulation embeds administrative duties in existing accountable officer frameworks. Section 9(3) names the accountable officer roles responsible for reimbursement decisions. That places a duty on those officers to make or authorise payments in accordance with this regulation and other applicable financial management instruments such as the Financial Accountability Act 2009.

Calculation duties: Where fees are expressed in fee units, officials must convert them to dollar amounts applying the rounding rules in s 4A. The Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 48C(3) is expressly invoked by s 4A, which provides graduated rounding rules and a worked example. Officials therefore bear the duty to follow those conversion and rounding steps to compute amounts accurately.

Transitional duties: Agencies must check for outstanding unpaid entitlements under the expired 2010 regulation and apply Part 3 to those attendances (s 11). Documents referring to the old regulation may be read as referring to the new regulation where context permits (s 12), which imposes a record‑keeping duty to update references.

Absence of penal duties within the regulation: The regulation does not create criminal offences or civil penalties within the text provided. Enforcement and redress mechanisms for nonpayment are not specified here. Rights to payment are statutory; remedies for nonpayment will therefore depend on administrative review, wider financial accountability mechanisms, and any relevant provisions in the underlying Act or other statutes.

The regulation text provided contains no express penalty clauses or enforcement mechanisms. There are no fines, offences or enforcement procedures specified within the regulation for nonpayment, false claims, or other breaches. The instrument is primarily prescriptive as to entitlements, rounding rules and administrative responsibility.

Enforcement architecture implied by the text: Although the regulation does not itself specify penalties, it allocates payment authority to named accountable officers (s 9(3)). Practical enforcement therefore will be administrative. The relevant accountable officer has discretion to reimburse (s 9(2)), and would be the entity to authorise or refuse payments. Where the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned, the accountable officer under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 s 32 is the decision maker (s 9(3)(a)). Otherwise the accountable officer under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 for the department that administers the Police Service Administration Act 1990 is the deciding officer (s 9(3)(b)). Those accountable officer roles sit inside statutory financial management regimes that have their own compliance and review pathways outside this regulation.

Where remedies may lie: Because the regulation creates statutory entitlements (s 7), a witness denied payment could pursue administrative review channels within the relevant agency, invoke financial accountability mechanisms, or seek judicial review of an adverse administrative decision if grounds exist. The regulation does not set time limits or process requirements for claims or internal review. Practitioners should therefore check the underlying Act and departmental financial management policies for appeal and review processes.

Risk of duplication and control mechanisms: Section 8 prevents double recovery by excluding entitlement where an alternative scheme provides a corresponding allowance. That is an internal control intended to limit duplicate payments. The regulation lists the kinds of alternative schemes (s 8(3)), which gives administrative bodies a statutory basis to refuse payment where duplication would occur. Absent explicit criminal penalties for false claims, internal disciplinary or financial recovery mechanisms under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 or other employment statutes would be the likely enforcement pathway against improper claims.

Rounding compliance and statutory linkage: Section 4A mandates rounding conventions and links the method to a specific provision of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (s 48C(3)). Non‑compliance with the prescribed rounding method could produce financial miscalculations and potential audit findings under financial accountability frameworks, even though the regulation does not specify a separate penalty.

Transitional and document reference matters: Section 11 carries forward unpaid entitlements from the expired regulation, creating administrative obligations on agencies to identify and discharge those liabilities. Section 12 permits references to the expired regulation in documents to be read as references to this regulation where context permits, which reduces administrative friction but also requires agencies to ensure their documentation is consistent with the new instrument.

In short, enforcement is administrative. Payment obligations are enforced by accountable officers, and disputes will be resolved by agency procedures, financial accountability instruments, or, if necessary, judicial review. The regulation itself provides no criminal or civil penalty regime.

The regulation operates by reference to, and in tandem with, a number of other statutory instruments and rules. Its cross‑references shape interpretation, administrative responsibility and exclusionary rules.

Criminal Practice Rules 1999: Schedule 1, which lists the fees payable under the Act, uses the term “rule”. The regulation clarifies that where schedule 1 refers to a rule it means a rule of the Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (s 4). This embeds the Criminal Practice Rules into the fee‑setting architecture.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954: Section 4A expressly invokes the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 48C(3) when prescribing rounding for fee unit conversions. That cross‑reference ensures the rounding technique sits inside the established interpretative framework for monetary rounding in Commonwealth and State contexts.

Public Sector Act 2022: Section 8 lists a directive made under the Public Sector Act 2022 as an “alternative scheme” that can exclude entitlement under Part 3 (s 8(3)(a)). This means public sector directives can supersede the regulation’s allowances for employees covered by such directives, and agencies must coordinate their internal policy instruments with the regulation.

Public Service Act 1999 (Cwlth): Section 8 treats engagement of a witness by the Commonwealth as an employee under Public Service Act 1999 s 6 as an alternative scheme (s 8(3)(c)). Witnesses employed by the Commonwealth for whom the Commonwealth pays allowances will be excluded from the regulation’s payments.

Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 and Financial Accountability Act 2009: Section 9 allocates reimbursement authority to accountable officers named in other Acts, linking payment power to established financial accountability structures. Where the DPP is concerned the accountable officer is the one named under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 s 32; otherwise the accountable officer under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 for the department administering the Police Service Administration Act 1990 is the responsible officer (s 9(3)).

Police Service Administration Act 1990: The department administering that Act is the relevant department for naming the accountable officer in non‑DPP matters (s 9(3)(b)). The regulation explicitly excludes police officers from Part 3 (s 5), which suggests police payment arrangements sit within other internal schemes.

Commonwealth-State arrangements: Section 8 recognises arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State providing for payment of allowances as alternative schemes (s 8(3)(d)). That preserves intergovernmental payment arrangements and prevents inconsistent double compensation.

Acts and instruments not included in this text: The regulation refers generically to “the Act” in s 4 when it states “The fees payable under the Act in relation to a criminal proceeding are stated in schedule 1.” The provided text does not name that underlying Act. Practitioners must therefore identify the parent Act under which this regulation was made to understand the full legislative context and enforcement options.

Expired regulation and transitional interaction: Transitional provisions (ss 10-12) deliberately interact with the expired Criminal Practice (Fees) Regulation 2010 by carrying forward unpaid entitlements (s 11) and permitting documents referring to the expired regulation to be taken as referring to the new regulation where context permits (s 12). That reduces discontinuity between regulatory versions.

In sum, the regulation is not a freestanding code. It integrates with court practice rules, financial accountability regimes, public sector directives, Commonwealth employment rules and intergovernmental arrangements. Practitioners should consult the referenced instruments when applying the regulation, particularly to resolve issues about alternative schemes, accountable officer powers and rounding/computation of fees.

The regulation was made to commence 1 September 2021 (s 2). The text provided contains explicit records of two subsequent amendments recorded in provision notes.

Section 4A insertion (2022): Section 4A, which prescribes rounding of amounts expressed as numbers of fee units, carries an insertion note: “s 4A ins 2022 SL No. 79 s 55”. That indicates subsection 4A was inserted by Subordinate Legislation No. 79 of 2022, section 55. The inserted section provides graduated rounding bands and a worked numerical example.

Section 8 amendment (2023): Section 8 has an amendment note: “s 8 amd 2023 SL No. 60 s 17 sch 1”. That records that s 8 was amended by Subordinate Legislation No. 60 of 2023, section 17 schedule 1. The form of s 8 in the text includes the alternative scheme list and the expert witness carve‑out; that content reflects the post‑amendment text. Practitioners should consult the amending instrument (SL No. 60 of 2023) for the amendment history and the precise changes made to s 8.

Transitional carryover from 2010 regulation: Part 4 names the expired Criminal Practice (Fees) Regulation 2010 as the “expired regulation” (s 10). Section 11 carries forward unpaid entitlements under the expired regulation where a witness was entitled under the old s 5 and had not been paid. Section 12 allows references to the expired regulation in documents to be read as references to this regulation where context permits.

Schedules: The regulation depends upon schedules for operative amounts and definitions. Schedule 1 contains fees under the Act (s 4). Schedule 2 contains the amounts of the “relevant allowances” (s 7(5)). Schedule 3 contains definitions (s 3). Any amendment to the regulation’s monetary components may therefore be achieved by updating schedules or by subordinate legislation altering particular sections. The recorded insertions and amendments show that updating has occurred by way of subordinate legislation since commencement.

Practical note: the amendment notes in the text provide statutory citations to the amending subordinate legislation. For formal compliance or litigation purposes practitioners should obtain SL No. 79 of 2022 and SL No. 60 of 2023 to review the exact amendment provisions, commencement dates for the amendments, and any transitional or savings clauses associated with those instruments.

The provided regulation text contains no case citations and records no litigation history. It does not list any judicial determinations interpreting its provisions, nor does it cite precedent or authority beyond statutory cross‑references. The instrument appears to be an administrative fees and allowances regulation for which disputes would typically generate administrative review or, potentially, judicial review filings in the relevant courts.

Absent material in the regulation: Because the text does not include any reported cases or examples of contested application, there is no statutoryly recorded litigation history to summarise. Practitioners seeking to understand how courts have treated similar provisions (for example disputes about whether an expense is “actually and reasonably” incurred, the meaning of “necessarily absent”, or whether an alternative scheme “corresponds”) will need to search case law databases for decisions under the parent Act, or for judicial review decisions involving accountable officers under the relevant financial management statutes.

Areas likely to generate litigation: Based on the regulation’s content, the factual and discretionary points most likely to be litigated or reviewed are:

• Whether an expense was “actually and reasonably” incurred for the purpose of s 9. That standard contains a reasonableness element that courts often review by reference to administrative law principles.
• Whether an allowance under an “alternative scheme” corresponds to a relevant allowance so as to exclude entitlement under s 8. That is a mixed question of law and fact involving contractual or statutory entitlements under other schemes and the regulation’s functional tests.
• Whether a witness’s attendance “necessarily” required absence from residence or place of work (s 6 and s 7). That factual trigger could be contested in close cases.
• Whether the accountable officer properly applied the rounding conventions when fees are stated in fee units (s 4A), particularly in high‑value or repeated transactions where rounding could be material.

Procedural routes: Disputes over entitlement are likely to be resolved first within agency administrative processes. For judicial remedies, available avenues include judicial review of administrative decisions, claims under public sector employment or financial accountability frameworks, or statutory review mechanisms provided in the parent Act or other legislation. Practitioners should check for any prescribed internal review procedures in the DPP office or in departmental policies as the regulation does not specify a statutory appeal path.

Because the regulation itself provides no litigation record, anyone relying on court interpretation should perform targeted legal research into decisions citing this regulation or its predecessor.

This regulation is short and procedural but contains several practical points that commonly cause operational friction. The following are concrete, source‑based pitfalls to watch for.

Rely on the schedules: The monetary amounts are not in the body of the regulation provided; they sit in schedule 1 (fees under the Act) and schedule 2 (allowance amounts) (ss 4, 7(5)). Do not assume amounts or fee unit values exist in the section text. Always consult schedules 1-3 and any index of fee unit values used by the parent Act.

Rounding is prescriptive and graduated: Where fee units are used, s 4A requires specific rounding bands tied to dollar thresholds and a rounding‑half‑up rule. That means small arithmetic differences can change the payable amount. The section even gives an example using a fee unit value of $1.015, producing rounding to $35.55. Administrative staff must implement the rounding algorithm exactly as prescribed to avoid audit issues (s 4A).

Narrow exclusions for witnesses: Part 3 does not apply to police officers and prisoners (s 5). For police witnesses, check separate payment arrangements. For prisoners, do not assume entitlement under this regulation.

Temporal thresholds are specific: Meal allowances depend on precise times: leaving before 6.00 am for breakfast, leaving before 1.30 pm or returning after 1.30 pm for lunch, and returning after 6.30 pm for dinner (s 7(2)-(3)). These cut‑offs are strict triggers in a statutory regime and will determine entitlement. Claims must document departure/return times.

“Necessarily absent” is a factual determinant: Entitlement to meal, accommodation and loss of earnings allowances depends on whether the witness is “necessarily absent” from their residence or workplace (s 6 and s 7(4)). The regulation does not define “necessarily absent” in the text provided; schedule 3 may contain definitions. Prepare to evidence necessity in claims.

Alternative schemes can negate entitlement: If a witness is covered by an “alternative scheme” that corresponds to a relevant allowance, the witness is excluded from payment under this regulation (s 8(1)-(3)). The regulation lists several alternative schemes, including Public Sector Act directives, Commonwealth employment, intergovernmental arrangements, engagement as a GP government medical officer, and expert witness engagements paid by the prosecution. Do not process duplicate payments without checking these schemes.

Expert witnesses are frequently excluded: Where an expert witness has an arrangement with the prosecution to be paid to give opinion evidence, that arrangement is an alternative scheme that corresponds to the allowances and excludes payment under Part 3 (s 8(3)(e)). Ensure engagement contracts for experts state whether travel and related expenses are included, to avoid double claims.

Discretionary reimbursements require pre‑clearance: Section 9 allows the relevant accountable officer to reimburse other reasonable expenses. It is discretionary. Do not assume reimbursement will be automatic; obtain pre‑authorisation where practicable and document the reasonableness of out‑of‑scheme costs (s 9(2)).

Who pays and who decides can vary: For DPP matters payment decisions lie with the accountable officer under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984, section 32. For other matters payment responsibility lies with the accountable officer under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 of the department administering the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (s 9(3)). Administrative responsibility thus varies with prosecutorial context. Verify the accountable officer’s identity before submitting claims.

Transitional entitlements may survive: If a witness was entitled under the expired 2010 regulation and payment was outstanding immediately before commencement, Part 3 now applies to that attendance (s 11). Agencies must check pre‑commencement claims.

No penalties in this regulation: The instrument does not specify offences or penalties for improper claims. However, other statutes and financial rules can apply. Do not assume absence of penalty power means absence of recovery or disciplinary action.

Document references may be interpreted as updated: Section 12 permits a document reference to the expired regulation to be taken as a reference to this regulation where the context permits. That can change how legacy contracts, policies and forms operate. Review templates and forms to ensure they refer to the current instrument where intended.

This section sets out concrete, source‑grounded steps for administering and claiming under the regulation. References are to the relevant sections.

1. Identify which instrument applies and consult the schedules

   • Before any calculation, obtain the full regulation including schedule 1 (fees) and schedule 2 (allowance amounts) and schedule 3 (definitions) (ss 4, 7(5), 3). Do not rely on the body text alone.

2. Determine whether the witness falls within Part 3

   • Confirm the witness is a prosecution witness attending to give evidence and that the witness is not a police officer or a prisoner (s 5). If the witness is a police officer or prisoner, use the separate payment arrangements.

3. Check for alternative schemes

   • Review whether the witness is covered by an “alternative scheme” as defined in s 8(3): a Public Sector Act directive, engagement as a GP government medical officer, Commonwealth employment under Public Service Act 1999 s 6, an intergovernmental payment arrangement, or an expert witness arrangement paid by the prosecution. If such a scheme provides a corresponding payment, do not pay under Part 3 (s 8(1)-(3)).

4. Establish factual entitlement for specific allowances

   • For meal allowances, record departure and return times against the statutory thresholds (breakfast before 6.00 am; lunch before 1.30 pm or return after 1.30 pm; dinner return after 6.30 pm) (s 7(2)-(3)).
   • For overnight attendances, determine whether the witness is “necessarily absent overnight” from residence to attend court (s 7(3)-(4)). Keep documentation proving necessity.
   • For loss of earnings, obtain employer confirmation of lost income if applicable. The entitlement requires the witness to have incurred the loss through necessary absence (s 6, s 7).

5. Calculate amounts and apply rounding

   • Use schedule 2 amounts for allowances (s 7(5)). If those amounts are expressed as fee units, convert fee units to dollars using the fee unit value applicable under the parent Act and then apply the rounding rules in s 4A. Implement the graduated rounding bands precisely (s 4A). Document the calculation steps to withstand audit.

6. Seek pre‑approval for out‑of‑scheme expenses

   • If the witness has incurred an expense not covered by Part 3 but claims it is “actually and reasonably” incurred, seek pre‑authorisation from the relevant accountable officer where practicable. Section 9 creates a discretion for reimbursement; saving documentation on reasonableness will help secure approval (s 9(1)-(2)).

7. Identify the relevant accountable officer and follow departmental payment procedures

   • For DPP matters, route the claim to the accountable officer under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 s 32 (s 9(3)(a)). For other matters, route to the accountable officer under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 for the department administering the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (s 9(3)(b)). Follow departmental financial processing and record‑keeping rules.

8. Avoid duplicate payments and obtain declarations

   • Require claimants to declare whether they are entitled to any payment under an alternative scheme or an expert engagement contract. Cross‑check with payroll and Commonwealth employment records. Section 8 mandates exclusion where an alternative scheme corresponds (s 8(1)-(3)).

9. Keep contemporaneous proof for timings and expenses

   • For meal allowances, keep travel logs, employer confirmations and timestamps. For accommodation and travel, retain receipts and booking confirmations. For loss of earnings, preserve payslips or employer statements. These documents will be required to satisfy the factual triggers in s 6 and s 7 and to support discretionary reimbursements under s 9.

10. Audit and update forms and references

    • Review templates and forms to ensure references to the expired Criminal Practice (Fees) Regulation 2010 are updated, or contain a cross‑reference per s 12, which allows old references to be read as references to this regulation where the context permits (s 12). Also update internal guidance to reflect the s 4A rounding method and the s 8 alternative scheme list.

11. Address transitional cases

    • Identify any witnesses who were entitled under the expired regulation immediately before commencement but unpaid. Apply Part 3 to those attendances per s 11 and process payments accordingly (s 11).

12. Train staff and provide clear guidance to witnesses

    • Provide concise guidance to frontline staff and to witnesses explaining what the regulation covers, what documentation is required, and where to direct claims. Explicitly explain the exclusions in s 5 and s 8 and the discretionary nature of s 9.

13. Where disputes arise, follow internal review routes and financial accountability processes

    • Because the regulation does not set out penalties or formal appeal routes, use departmental grievance and financial accountability mechanisms. Consider legal review or judicial review where administrative remedies are exhausted.

These steps are procedural and designed to ensure compliance with the regulation’s specific textual requirements. Practitioners should also consult the parent Act, departmental policies and the full schedules of this regulation to capture amounts, definitions and any further procedural rules not included in the regulation body text provided.