Should Roman Polanski have been allowed to bring his libel suit?

Over at Discourse, Prof. Froomkin has a really interesting post about the Roman Polanski libel suit.   The short of it is that Polanski, director of movies like "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown," decided to sue Vanity Fair for libel because of an article that falsely stated he had groped a model shortly after the death of his second wife (actress Sharon Tate, who was killed by Charles Manson's followers).  What made the case noteworthy is that (a) Polanski sued in the UK under British law (which is more libel friendly -- no First Amendment and all); and (b) Polanski testified by video from France.

Why?  Because in the early 1970s, Polanski was convicted of child molestation for sleeping with a 13-year-old girl(!).  He fled the U.S. before sentencing and returned to his birth nation of France, which refuses to extradite him.  However, if he set forth in England, he would be arrested and shipped straight over to the U.S. to serve his sentence.

So, the British judge decided to allow Polanski to testify by video from France.  Prof. Froomkin sees this as a tough call but on balance approves:

But idea that the courts should be open to do justice even in the exceptional case where the plaintiff cannot risk being in the jurisdiction has its admirable qualities too.

One of Prof. Froomkin's commenters wholeheartedly agrees:

This is an interesting question, having fled punishment should he be unprotected by the law? Which outlaws should we treat as outlaws?

Maybe I'm just less sympathetic, but I have a hard time seeing why this result was just or admirable.  Certainly, if the question is framed simply as, should a "bad guy" have the right to avail himself of the justice system when he has been wronged?, then I would agree that bad guys should be able as much as good guys to sue for libel and, if successful, to be vindicated.

But this is no mere "bad guy" we are talking about.  It is someone who has flouted the very justice system that he now seeks to avail himself of.  As another of Prof. Froomkin's commmenters notes, there is a common fugitive-disentitlement rule in American law, whereby someone who flees during the pendency of his appeal will have his appeal dismissed, on the theory that you can't use the justice system to your advantage when you have disregarded it yourself.

If Polanski has been libeled, he deserves to be vindicated.  But he also deserves to serve his sentence.  So a truly just result would have had him testify by video -- because he was in one of our prisons.