Barrister says £465,000 legal aid for PC Harper’s killers is ‘price of fair legal system’

A leading barrister says the £465,000 legal aid for PC Andrew Harper’s killers was an example of a justice system that gives everyone a fair shake.

The fallen officer’s widow Lissie Harper has spoken out about how ‘horrified’ she is that so much public money had been put towards ‘defending the indefensible’.

But lawyers have been quick to point out that this is not an unusual sum, as murder trials require paying multiple top level lawyers who have ‘months of sleepless nights’ preparing to represent their clients.

They ask what would happen if only the rich had access to quality representation and urge caution against edging towards a system closer to that in the US.

PC Harper died in August last year after confronting a trio of teenagers trying to steal a quad bike from a home in Stanford, Dingley, near Reading, Berkshire. He was dragged for more than a mile after his ankles got caught in a tow rope on the back of a getaway car.

Last month jurors cleared the defendants of murder. Driver Henry Long, 19, had previously admitted manslaughter and was sentenced to 16 years. Passengers Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers, both 18, were found guilty of the same charge and given 13 years behind bars.

While it may be a hard fact to swallow, barrister Paula Rhone-Adrien says the amount of money spent on their case is simply the price of an equitable legal system.

She told Metro.co.uk: ‘When you’re talking about a murder trial, when you’re talking about the amount of man hours… I can tell you from experience, you’re talking about weeks of sleepless nights.

‘This is not a 9-5 job that that you do as a barrister, it would have been months and months of them not getting any sleep to represent these people.

‘The level of barristers that would have been representing these people  – you can’t have a two year court barrister, you would need someone who was very senior or somebody who was a QC.

‘Obviously what makes it so sensitive is that it’s public money so people are concerned when they see figures like that.

‘For those three they would have each had one senior barrister and a junior barrister and then there would be a solicitor as well.’

Ms Rhone-Adrien, who also works in family law, pointed out that many barristers are self-employed and have their own staff to pay as well as overheads including travel expenses.

She added: ‘I’m not suggesting it’s not a lot of money, it is, but what I’m trying to do is explain to people, you don’t just rock up and earn 100 grand.’

After finding out how much taxpayer’s money had been spent defending her husband’s killers, Miss Harper told the Daily Mail: ’It saddens me – but does not surprise me – that so much public money has been and continues to be spent on defending the indefensible.

‘This just doesn’t seem right or fair. Andrew was my whole life. I have had to sit in a courtroom and witness the people who chose to take my husband’s life show no remorse.’

But urging members of the public to try and see the bigger picture, Ms Rhone-Adrien said: ‘What about the fact that I might be innocent? I might not actually have done it.

‘That is the basis of our legal system, that you are innocent until proven guilty.

‘In the UK ‘everyone is on an even footing. If you’re a rich defendant you don’t just simply walk away and get off Scott-free.’

She urged caution against moving further towards an American system, where highly paid ‘celebrity lawyers’ can offer a superior service over underfunded and under-resourced public defenders.

Having represented fathers who have sexually abused their children and have tried fighting for custody following a divorce, Ms Rhone-Adrien says she can understand why the thought of such people getting legal aid could ‘prickle’ certain members of the public.

While her ‘heart bleeds’ for Miss Harper, she is quick to point out that the legal justice you get in court is not always the same as ‘what you and I would recognise as moral justice’.

She added: ‘What we are talking about here is the risk of somebody’s liberty, which is priceless, and secondly you can only have that comment about them getting legal aid and whatever it costs after they have been found guilty.

‘What if they had not been found guilty? What if the 12 jury members decided that they didn’t do it? What then? You would never hear that it cost this amount of money.

‘Perhaps they weren’t nice people, perhaps they had a criminal history, were members of society that people probably wouldn’t miss, but that doesn’t stop them on this occasion having legal representation and on this occasion being able to defend themselves.’

Also weighing in on press coverage of Miss Harper’s remarks was the prominent yet anonymous legal commentator known on Twitter as The Secret Barrister.

They tweeted: ‘£465k sounds like a lot out of context. But the figures are gross, not net. Solicitors’ firms have staff to pay, business costs, rent, insurance, tax etc. Likewise barristers. When all that is broken down, what is the actual *profit* for these professionals?

‘If you are going to run a “news” story decrying the cost of legal aid, you should be able to give full context to show why it’s too much, and what sum would have been reasonable.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.