The High Court has refused to grant a disbarred barrister right of audience to act as an advocate for a litigant in person in prison - saying it risked bypassing regulatory regimes and protections.

Mr Justice Fordham was asked to grant Michael Shrimpton, who was disbarred in 2018, rights of audience in habeas corpus and bail proceedings for the applicant.

The judgment states that Shrimpton was disbarred due to criminal convictions which were now ‘spent’. Shrimpton maintains his innocence and is pursuing avenues through the Criminal Cases Review Commission and a pardon.

Shrimpton was previously given permission to act as an advocate in earlier proceedings. However, Fordham concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant Shrimpton rights of audience for the substantive hearings.

He said: ‘If the courts are to embrace granting “ad hoc” advocacy rights to an individual who has been disbarred as a barrister (or suspended or struck off as a solicitor advocate), there is a real and substantial risk of a systemic bypass of the regulatory regime and the regulatory protections emphasised in the authorities. The consequence would be that a disbarred barrister or suspended/struck-off solicitor advocate would, in effect, be able to operate (by offering lower rates), without regulatory underpinning, and without insurance, by pointing to the constituency of litigants who can be assisted in that way.’

Fordham said he was only able to interrogate previous examples where Shrimpton has appeared in court to a limited extent.

The judgment states that the applicant was afforded assistance by a law firm, through an administrative assistant, that acted pro bono as a ‘postbox’ in the interests of justice.

Invited by the court to make observations, the Law Society raised concerns about the arrangements.

The Society said: ‘As to acting as a “post box” but not going on the record, the Society is concerned that acting as a “post box” but not using the same address for service and not going on the record is a potentially confusing arrangement that contributes to uncertainty in legal proceedings contrary to the rule of law. It might also be said to contribute to a risk of [the applicant] not being put on notice of some material development in the litigation, which would be contrary to his best interests. Finally, if a solicitor is not on the record, the defendant may not be on notice that he is at risk on costs.’

Fordham said it was right to record the Society's points and he did not read Chancery Lane as arriving at any informed adverse conclusion.