Legal aid: Fugitives shouldn’t get a penny

A YEAR ago, there were howls of outrage when black cab rapist John Worboys was granted freedom from prison.

In an egregious example of incompetence, the Parole Board tried to put the monster – who terrorised more than 100 victims – quietly back on the streets, even though he remained a serious danger to women.

Justice Secretary David Gauke promised to keep the vile predator behind bars – then performed a screeching U-turn.

The legal establishment was adamant: nothing could be done. However horrendous, the decision was set in stone.

But something was done. The courageous victims funded, with the help of Mail readers, their own court challenge... and won, keeping the prolific sex attacker in jail.

A year on, Mr Gauke’s Ministry of Justice is at the centre of another scandal.

Womanising coward Jack Shepherd, who killed his date, 24- year- old Charlotte Brown, while drunkenly showing off in his speedboat on the Thames, spinelessly fled before standing trial.

He was convicted in his absence and sentenced to six years. But despite being on the run, he was awarded thousands of pounds in legal aid to appeal.

He exploited a loophole – backed by (who else?) the European courts – allowing fugitives to try to clear their name.

Critics, including former deputy speaker Nigel Evans, who was denied taxpayers’ money when fighting unfounded rape claims, describe this as ‘indefensible’. The Mail wholeheartedly agrees.

It is absolutely right that legal aid exists. Every defendant, no matter what their background, wealth or severity of crime, is entitled to effective legal representation.

Without this, there is a grave risk of miscarriages of justice.

But Shepherd’s grasping for public money is a grotesque affront to justice – and adds insult to fatal injury for Charlotte’s family.

Mr Gauke has wisely asked officials to look at the fiasco. He should insist on changing the law so convicts on the run do not receive a penny until they hand themselves in.