,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The Daily Mail’s front page claims that Jack Shepherd is “taking thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to fund an appeal”. This is a lie.
As I explain here, the legal aid cost of his appeal is negligible. His solicitors will likely not receive a penny. thesecretbarrister.com/2019/01/05/don…
As I explain here, the legal aid cost of his appeal is negligible. His solicitors will likely not receive a penny. thesecretbarrister.com/2019/01/05/don…
By all means, be outraged at his cowardice, his arrogance and his refusal to face justice. But legal aid is not the problem here. The Mail is exploiting this family’s grief to bang the same old tatty drum and whip up misinformed anger towards legal aid and access to justice.
An important addendum in light of this. If it is shown that Shepherd has means which he hid when applying for legal aid, then he should be required to pay back the costs of his publicly-funded defence. And, of course, there’d be the question of fraud.
But, again, that’s an adjacent issue to the purpose of the Mail’s coverage throughout this case, which has been to present legal aid as an overly-generous luxury which needs curtailing, rather than an underfunded and essential component of a fair justice system.
