GROTESQUE PANTOMIME THAT SHAMES JUSTICE

For his appalling crime, the only place Jack Shepherd should be is behind bars. He is a callous individual, who not only destroyed the life of a young woman through gross negligence while showing off to her in his speedboat, but then compounded his lethal offence by failing to tell his rescuers she was in the water.

He further displayed his cowardice when he absconded during his trial for the killing of Charlotte Brown.

The six-year jail sentence imposed in his absence was hardly a tough punishment, given that Shepherd would almost certainly be automatically released halfway through his term. But shamefully, he has been unwilling to take responsibility for his actions and remains on the run.

The fact is that he should be in jail – not mocking this country’s justice system by cynically giving it the run-around from a bolthole – perhaps Spain or even Georgia – with the British authorities having not a clue where he is.

What makes his conduct even more outrageous is that, from this unknown hiding place, Shepherd is appealing his conviction for manslaughter. How utterly perverse that a criminal who felt unable to face his first trial is now demanding a second.

Just as shockingly, this ridiculous claim is being funded by legal aid, which means that British taxpayers are being forced to bankroll the antics of this fugitive.

As a barrister, I know that legal aid was never meant to be used in this way. It was devised as a tool to achieve justice for those who could not normally afford the cost of legal advice. It was not meant to be a way of making a mockery of the law and exploiting the public’s goodwill.

Indeed, the Shepherd saga risks bringing the British legal system into disrepute.

That is why, as a believer in the vital need to uphold the law’s integrity, I welcome the Mail’s campaign to help end this farce and bring Shepherd to justice.

of course, legal aid must remain an essential element of the system, just like the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. It is a basic principle that every defendant, no matter what their background or financial means, no matter how serious their crimes, is entitled to effective legal representation.

Without such help, there is a severe risk of miscarriages of justice, arbitrary punishment and authoritarian rule.

However, many people understandably are appalled by the fact that Shepherd is still entitled to legal aid despite being on the run from his trial. The financial support during his trial meant that there was still a defence team to make a case, so the trial could proceed and a verdict be reached.

For the truth is that without the legallyaided trial, even in Shepherd’s absence, he would not have been convicted of manslaughter and Charlotte Brown’s family would have been denied justice.

But legal aid to fund an appeal by someone on the run is a different matter. I believe there is no duty at all for the State to assist someone who is a fugitive of justice. Shepherd is no longer the defendant, facing charges. He is now a convicted criminal. If he wants his appeal to be heard – and be subsidised by taxpayers – he must show himself. Anything else is a grotesque pantomime.

What’s more, such a disgraceful use of legal aid comes at a time when there is less available. As a result, more and more people do not qualify for legal aid because of the level of their disposable income, and either have to pay their own legal representation or are forced to represent themselves in court.

And then, if acquitted, these people’s fees are only reimbursed at legal aid rates – something described as an ‘innocence tax’ and which has led acquitted defendants to have to sell their homes and empty their savings.

THere are two other deeply disturbing aspects of this case. The first is the fact that Shepherd was given bail before his old Bailey trial – which made it easy for him to abscond. Secondly, people will not understand why his lawyers have not helped the police track him down, even though they must have been in contact with him while organising his appeal.

His lawyers cite ‘client confidentiality’ to justify this. of course, ‘client confidentiality’ is another vital pillar of our justice system, designed, like the right to a jury trial, to prevent abuses. But is it right that it should be applied indiscriminately? There must be exceptions, especially when a convicted client is wilfully evading justice.

I happily offer a solution to a scandal such as this. A stay could be put on proceedings if an appellant refuses to appear. No presence would equal no action, and, as a result, no legal aid or invocation of european human rights. With such a reform, the public would no longer have to put up with fiascos such as the case of Jack Shepherd.

In the meantime, it can only be hoped that the Mail’s campaign will prevail and justice can be achieved for Charlotte Brown’s family.