District Court judgment reveals ex-MP Troy Bell was ‘abandoned’ just before trial by top barrister Marie Shaw KC without explanation
A judge has criticised one of SA’s top barristers for abandoning convicted fraudster and ex-MP Troy Bell without explanation just weeks before his scheduled trial.
One of SA’s top barristers “abandoned” disgraced former Mount Gambier MP and convicted fraudster Troy Bell when she “unilaterally withdrew” from his case without explanation, a judge says.
A newly-published judgment says Marie Shaw KC left Bell “without representation”, without his agreement and “without the court’s leave to do so”, just weeks before his scheduled four-month jury trial.
It also says “no explanation was ever provided” by Ms Shaw for her actions, despite her being “perfectly capable” of doing so without any breach of legal privilege.
The judgment was handed down by Judge Simon Stretton in September 2023 but was only published on legal websites, including Austlii and BarNet, this month.
Its publication comes almost two months after Bell, 52, began his five-year prison term for stealing more than $400,000 intended for underprivileged youths.
In the judgment, explaining why he ordered a further adjournment of the trial, Judge Stretton says he was scheduled to preside over Bell’s trial starting on March 14, 2023.
That was, he says, the trial’s “fifth listing since 2019”, and he instead spent five months hearing “defence pre-trial applications and further adjournments at the request of the defence”.
He said “extreme lateness” accompanied some applications, for which Ms Shaw apologised saying “I’m not necessarily the smartest chick in the room and I don’t pretend to be”.
In the lead-up to July 2023, he said, Ms Shaw “raised the issue of whether she was funded to continue to represent” Bell, and that independent counsel had been engaged on the issue.
The Legal Services Commission, he said, “confirmed that funding had been granted to enable the matter to continue”.
On August 7, however, Mr Shaw told the court “an issue has arisen” about representation, and that she needed an adjournment to resolve it.
“Mrs Shaw KC refused to provide any further details, indicating she was instructed not to appear further,” he said.
“(She) would not provide further information as it was subject to legal professional privilege, which she was not going to waive or break.”
Judge Stretton said that, over the following days, Ms Shaw refused his request that the pre-trial argument continue while “declining to explain the issue”.
She said she had been advised by senior counsel that “the court ought not seek and is not entitled to any further details”.
Ms Shaw also expressed concern that another barrister, Grant Algie KC, was present and indicated that he was prepared to appear on a contingent basis, without fee and as a friend of the court, should it be required.
“I consider the conduct this morning of essentially being ambushed by another counsel coming to court without notice demonstrates that I cannot continue to act for Mr Bell,” she said, for reasons Judge Stretton described as “unclear”.
He said that, on August 15, Ms Shaw “informed the court that she was unilaterally withdrawing as counsel from the case”.
“She said she had a conflict of interest, which she would not explain … citing her own legal professional privilege in relation to advice she said she had obtained from another senior counsel.
“It being her own privilege to waive, she was perfectly capable of providing a full explanation, had she been prepared to … she refused.
“She then left the courtroom, leaving the accused without trial counsel … she did not seek or receive the court’s leave to do so … she gave no indication that she had sought her client’s consent.”
He said that, a month later, the solicitors instructing Ms Shaw – her daughter, Rachael Shaw, and her then-partner Joseph Henderson – also withdrew from the case.
Four weeks later, he said, Bell’s new counsel who explained their client “did not terminate his instructions with Shaw and Henderson, they terminated (their) relationship with him”.
“(Bell) had been simply summonsed to the solicitors’ office and told the relationship … had broken down and that they were now terminating his instructions,” Judge Stretton said.
“He wasn’t given any choice in the matter, or asked whether he agreed, he was just informed of it.
“Nor was he given any indication, hint, or idea as to what the claimed ‘breakdown’ was, or why Shaw and Henderson were taking such an attitude.
“Nor was the accused aware of anything that it could be related to … Bell had racked his brain … and had been unable to think of anything that would have caused it.”
Judge Stretton said the new counsel had asked for a further adjournment of the trial, which he granted given it was not Bell’s fault he had been “abandoned”.
“(This judgment) raised the potential for adverse comment or findings as to the actions of the accused’s prior solicitors and prior senior counsel,” he said.
“(They) were sent the transcript of proceedings … and offered the opportunity to put anything they wished to put … there was no response.”
