Jeremy Bamber: CCRC & Court of Appeal

Until I became a supporter of Jeremy Bamber I did not understand the process of court appeals and I am still far from an expert but...

I had originally thought that at an appeal the same evidence is re-tried and I used to wonder why someone would keep providing the same information, having had it dismissed by the court previously; since then I have learnt that the appellant has to provide 'new' evidence.  How an innocent person is expected to find new evidence whilst in prison, is another story.

Before an appeal can be heard by a judge it has to be submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), a body set-up precisely to deal with miscarriages of justice.  The CCRC then decide whether the case stands a chance of being heard by the Court of Appeal.
Justice Committee discussion on CCRC

A major factor in Jeremy Bamber's case is that in the original investigation Essex Police believed there was sufficient evidence to support the fact that Sheila Caffell, suffering from schizophrenia, having just been released from a mental health unit after a psychotic episode, had killed the family then turned the gun on herself.  But by the time the case went to trial, this had all changed and now Essex Police and the Crown Prosecution (CPS) were maintaining that Jeremy Bamber committed the murders.  Jeremy had told Essex Police that when he left his family home that evening, there was tension; his parents had been speaking to Sheila about having her, seven year old, twin sons fostered again.  The police and prosecution denied this but now there is the evidence to show that foster carers and social service staff had been interviewed
 

As I understand it, much of the original case notes and police logs, citing Sheila, were given a different case number and withheld from the defence also from the jury at Jeremy's trial.  Although Jeremy's team now have access to some of this original information, I think I am correct in stating that, as far as the CCRC is concerned, it is not considered new evidence. No consideration appears to be given to how the defence could possibly know what had been withheld from them!

 

Jeremy has always maintained his innocence and his story of the events of that night has never changed and now he has documented evidence to support that.  Let us hope that sanity prevails and that the law is not the ass it is so often accused of being.