Jeremy Bamber: Sheila Caffell and Cannabis

Sheila Caffell's Mental Health and the Use of Illegal Drugs

Not enough credence is given to the link between Sheila Caffell’s mental illness and her use of Cannabis and other illegal drugs. For instance 30-40% of diagnosed schizophrenics attempt suicide and the use of cannabis can prolong and exacerbate the symptoms of mental illness. Medical assessments showed Sheila Caffell displayed“textbook” delusions associated with schizophrenia, yet her state of mind and its role in the murders was constantly overlooked. Advances over the years have shown the link not only exists but also that it is wholly destructive - this comprehensive review reveals the devastating detail.

The Case of Sheila Caffell: The Effects of Illegal Drugs on People with Schizophrenia. Last updated 20.01.13

Original material T Whitefoot; additions by L Lake; J Martin-Adams; Poppy Ann Miller

In the early hours of 7 August 1985, five people were shot to death at White House Farm: Sheila Caffell, her twin six year old boys, and her adoptive parents, June and Nevill Bamber. Initially, Essex police believed that Sheila carried out the shootings and then committed suicide[1]. However, in the weeks that followed, that view changed and Jeremy Bamber, Sheila’s brother (also adopted, but no blood relation), was arrested and later convicted for the murders of Sheila, Nevill, June and the twins. He has since served twenty-seven years in prison for a crime which he did not commit. The purpose of this article is to explain the link between schizophrenia and cannabis and to show how Sheila Caffell’s collapsing mental health caused her to suffer a psychotic episode which resulted in the murder of her family.

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterised by a disintegration of the thought process, and a breakdown of emotional responses[2]. Most commonly, the disorder manifests itself in the form of paranoid or bizarre delusions, auditory hallucinations and/or disorganised, incoherent speech and thinking. It is believed that genetics can sometimes play a role in predisposing a person to develop the illness, but other causal factors, such as a history of mental illness and/or abuse of drugs and alcohol, have also been discussed[3]. There is no laboratory test to determine schizophrenia[4]; a diagnosis is made based on the patient’s self- reported symptoms, and a clinical assessment. It has been recorded that approximately 30-40% of diagnosed schizophrenics attempt suicide at some point during their lifetime and one in ten of these will succeed in taking their own lives[5]. It has also been established that people between the ages of 16-30 are more vulnerable to developing psychosis[6]. It is also within this age range that people are more likely to use cannabis[7].

Sheila also used Cocaine

In recent years, a great deal of research has been conducted[8]in order establish a link between schizophrenia and the effects of cannabis and other recreational drugs. Over thirty clinical studies have taken place over the past twenty years, mostly in the UK, Sweden and Australia. It is now widely believed that using cannabis can prolong the symptoms of mental illness and impede a patient’s chances of recovering from a psychotic episode[9]. If a patient has already developed schizophrenic symptoms, the continuing use of cannabis and other substances, such as alcohol or amphetamines, is believed to have a detrimental effect on their illness[10]. Set out below are two examples of the research that has been conducted so far.

1. The authors of a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in May 2010 conducted a study over a period of ten years. Patients were examined during the initial first period of psychiatric hospitalisation and then six months later, and then two years, four years and, finally, ten years later. At each assessment patients were rated on their psychiatric symptoms and their use of cannabis. The study concluded that cannabis use is associated with an adverse course of psychotic symptoms found in schizophrenia sufferers[11].

2. In a study conducted at the Zucker Hillside Hospital in New York, researchers used a special kind of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) known as Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) to measure the motion of water molecules which can indicate microscopic abnormalities in the brain. The test group included adolescents with and without schizophrenia, and adolescent users and non-users of cannabis. The MRI imaging revealed that heavy users of cannabis were found to have the type of abnormalities found in certain areas of the brain which are also found in the brains of subjects with schizophrenia[12]. These abnormalities were most pronounced in subjects with schizophrenia who were also regular users of cannabis[13]. The abnormalities occur in a pathway of the brain which is related to auditory and language functions which undergoes development during adolescence. The research suggested that if an adolescent is genetically predisposed to develop schizophrenia, the use of cannabis can cause the same type of damage to the brain’s pathway that is caused by schizophrenia Put more simply, regular and prolonged use of cannabis could kick-start the development of schizophrenia where it might otherwise not have developed at all, or cause an earlier onset of the illness, and/or cause the condition to worsen [14].

Sheila Caffell’s mental health issues probably surfaced initially in 1981 when social workers reported injuries to her twin sons, and she was described as forgetful and disorganized.[15]She was referred for psychiatric treatment to Dr Ferguson in 1983, but she had been suffering from depression for eighteen months or so previously[16]. She was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia[17]. In addition to cannabis, she was also reported to have used other recreational drugs on occasion, such as cocaine and amphetamine[18]. Having divorced her husband Colin Caffell twelve months earlier, she was believed to have acquired considerable debts in support of her drug addiction[19].

St Andrew Mental Health Hospital

Sheila was admitted as an in-patient to St. Andrews Hospital, Northampton in August 1983 following an acute breakdown[20]. During the course of her treatment, she was observed to display a number of classic ‘textbook’ delusions associated with paranoid schizophrenia, Dr Ferguson detailed that she had been in state of acute psychosis and had been for about two weeks[21]. These included religious delusions about being given the responsibility of ridding the world of evil, delusions about her children being ‘the devil’s children‘, and references to incestuous sex with her son's whom she described as 'the devil's children.'[22].

When she was discharged one month later, having made only a partial recovery[23], Sheila had been prescribed Stelazine[24], an anti-psychotic drug which is typically the first line of defence in the treatment of schizophrenia[25]. People with schizophrenia are usually found to have high levels of dopamine activity[26]. Stelazine works by blocking dopamine receptors in the brain, thus alleviating or minimising schizophrenic symptoms of delusions, hallucinations and disorganised thought or speech. Common side effects of Stelazine are nausea, headaches, dizziness, menstrual irregularities and agitation. Major side effects are lowered life span, dyskinisia and akathisia (see glossary below).

In March 1985, Sheila was again admitted to St Andrews Hospital following a severe psychotic episode[27]. She had suffered violent outbursts, one of which was witnessed by a friend who was left traumatised by the event[28]. During a stay of only three weeks, Sheila admitted to having used cocaine frequently[29]. It appears that Dr Ferguson did not raise the issues about Sheila harming her children because of client confidentiality. Despite the fact that Nevill was paying for the treatment, Sheila was the patient. It is also important to remember that Sheila was an 'informal' patient; that is, she was not subject to a 'section' under the Mental Health Act 1983. Therefore she was advised about her treatment but could not be legally required to comply. This undoubtedly had far reaching implications.[29a] At this time, Sheila was prescribed three kinds of medication: [30].

Anafranil- is a brand name of the chemical called Clomipramine. A tri-cyclic anti-depressant used a lot in the 1980s

when it was considered to be very successful in treatment depression. It typically takes 2 – 3 weeks to become effective. Caution is always required as suicide is always possible for a depressed or a disturbed patient. Side effects include confusion, agitation, insomnia and nightmares[31];


Haloperidol is the chemical name which is typically branded as Serance in the UK- a very strong anti-psychotic drug with sedative qualities. It is noted as being the most common neuroleptic associated with extra-pyramidal symptoms[32]. Clinical trials have shown that a medium to high dose of Haloperidol for a two-week period dramatically increased the dopamine activity up to 98%[33]. Long term effect is not known, but severe dyskinesia is indicated, and long-term, high-dose treatment may result in depression severe enough to result in suicide[34];

Procyclidine -often branded as Kemodrin used to counteract the effects of anti-psychotic medications. Known side effects include agitation, confusion and insomnia[35].

Additionally, there is the issue of non-compliance. It is well known that patients who are required to self-medicate will often fail to take prescribed medication for two main reasons: one is that they do not believe they are ill and therefore believe the medication is un-necessary; the second is the result of the side-effects which many individuals find to be so extreme that they would prefer to tolerate their symptoms.[35a]


In July 1985, Sheila requested that her dose of Haloperidol be reduced. Her GP, Dr Angeloglou, contacted Dr Ferguson to discuss this for reasons unknown, but it is possible that Sheila had experienced some of the aforementioned side effects. The reduction of her dose from 200mg to 100 mg is the kind of sudden reduction which is potentially very dangerous as it may have caused severe withdrawal symptoms or even a return of the original condition, in addition to this because she was due another injection any side effects would have completely diminished[36].

Sheila Caffell

At the family dinner which took place at White House Farm on the night of the murders, the subject of Sheila’s twin boys being put into foster care was raised[37]. Sheila’s psychiatrist stated that the effect of this news would have been‘catastrophic’, and may well have been the trigger for a psychotic episode[38]. Her post-mortem results showed no trace of Anafranil, but cannabis and Haloperidol were found[39]. Failure to take some of her medication would have been exacerbated by the ingestion of cannabis and also the sudden reduction of her Haliperidol - could have caused her already fragile mental health to crumble completely.

In 1985, the public and the police were perhaps reluctant to believe that a young mother could murder her own family with such brutality. In the twenty-first century, reports of women committing violent crime, including murdering one's own children before suicide, or attempted suicide - are well documented in the media. The outcome of Jeremy Bamber’s trial may well have been different had it taken place more recently, and if the jury been made aware of research into the links between cannabis and schizophrenia. In fact, highly likely that Sheila Caffell’s life would have been saved had the advances made in understanding schizophrenia and its treatment been available in 1985.

It is also a debatable point as to whether her treatment would have been very different if Care in the Community had not been in the process of being phased in during the 1980s. Prior to this development, it had been standard for all patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia to be admitted to hospital for long-term care which usually translated into life-long inpatient care.

Jeremy's website is administered by his Campaign Team. Visit for more information plus evidence of his innocence: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/


Glossary of Medical Terms:

Akathisia– characterised by sensation of ‘inner restlessness’ or inability to remain motionless or to sit still[40].

Dystonia – characterised by contraction of muscle groups that cause repetitive or twisting movements or abnormal postures[41].

Tardive Dyskinesia – characterised by repetitive, involuntary movements of the body, commonly associated with anti-psychotic drugs such as Haloperidol[42].

Psuedo-Parkinsons – characterised by the symptoms of Parkinsons disease[43].

Notes:

[1]D.Sup Ainsley (6/9/1985) Interview with Metropolitan Police Stokenchurch [on-line] Available at: http://twitpic.com/8dbhmj[Accessed 11 January 2013].

The Mirror (8/8/1985) Mother Shoots Twin Sons and Parents [on-line] Available at:http://twitpic.com/7d1a3u[Accessed 11 January2013].

Dr Vanezis, Pathology report DI Dickinson Enquiry, November, 1986, retrospectively states that he was satisfied that it was a suicide and four murders.


[2]See me, Schizophrenia (2008) What is it? Signs and symptoms [on-line] Available at:http://www.seemescotland.org.uk/findoutmore/aboutmentalhealthproblemsandstigma/schizophrenia[Accessed 7 January 2013]


NHS Choices (2012) Schizophrenia Diagnosis. ‘Diagnosing Schizophrenia’[on-line] Available at:http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Schizophrenia/Pages/Diagnosis.aspx[Accessed 7 January 2013]


[3]Schizophrenia Research (1999) ‘Dual Diagnosis of Substance Abuse in schizophrenia: prevalence and impact on outcomes’ [on-line] Available at:http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964(98)00161-3/abstract[Accessed 6 January 2013]

Schizophrenia.com (1996-2004)‘Hereditary and the Genetics of Schizophrenia. Family statistics’[on-line] Available at:http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/hereditygen.htm[Accessed 13 January 2013]


[4]Schizophrenia.com (2010) ‘How is Schizophrenia Diagnosed? Symptom of Schizophrenia and Schizophrenia Diagnosis’ [on-line] Available at: http://www.schizophrenia.com/diag.php#diagnosis[Accessed 9 January 2013]


[5]Spokeane Mental Health (2010) ‘Schizophrenia. Facts about Schizophrenia. Suicide Attempts.’ 'About 1 in 4 schizophrenics attempts suicide; 1 in 10 succeed' [on-line] Available at:http://www.smhca.org/schizophrenia.aspx[Accessed 9 January 2013]

Annals of General Psychiatry (2007)‘Suicide risk in schizophrenia: learning from the past to change the future. Background’ [on-line] Available at:http://www.annals-general-psychiatry.com/content/6/1/10[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[6]Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (2013) ‘Psychosis onset usually occurring in young people’ (80%, aged 16-30) [on-line] Available at:http://www.berkshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/page.asp?fldArea=2&fldMenu=4&fldSubMenu=14&fldKey=1105[Accessed 10 January 2013]

Here to Help, (2006) What’s going on with me? Signs & Symptons of Psychosis. [First experiences with psychosis are more common in people aged 16-30.] Available athttp://heretohelp.bc.ca/factsheet/whats-going-on-with-me-signs-and-symptoms-of-psychosis[Accessed 18 January 2013]


[7]The Guardian ( 2012) DATA BLOG [on-line] Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/drug-use-age-popular-cannabis[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[8]Schizophrenia.com (1996-2010) ‘Street Drugs and Schizophrenia’[on-line] Available at:http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html[Accessed 9 January 2013]


[9]Pubmed.gov (2009) ‘US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Cannabis and psychosis: search of a causal link through a critical and systematic review.’ [on-line] Available at:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748375[Accessed 10 January 2013]

Psych Central (2012)‘Schizophrenia and Psychosis. Delusions & Hallucinations are Common in Schizophrenia’ Para6 [on-line] Available at:http://psychcentral.com/disorders/schizophrenia/[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[10]Everyday Health (2009) ‘Can Drug Use Cause Schizophrenia?’ Some evidence points to a link between illicit drug use especially marijuana and schizophrenia [on-line] Available at:http://www.everydayhealth.com/schizophrenia/drug-use-and-schizophrenia.aspx[Accessed 10 January 2013]

Health athealth.com (2002)‘Disorders and conditions. Co-Occurring Alcohol Use Disorder and Schizophrenia.’ [on-line] Available at:http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/disorders/schizophreniaalcohol.html[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[11]The American Journal of Psychiatry (2010) ‘Cannabis Use and the Course of Schizophrenia: 10-Year Follow-Up After First Hospitalization.’ [on-line] Available at:http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=102388[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[12]Zucker Hillside Hospital http://www.northshorelij.com/NSLIJ/zhh


[13] Ibid


[14]The Lancet (2007) ‘Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review’ [on-line] Available at:http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61162-3/abstract[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[15]The Official Web Site of Jeremy Bamber, 2013.http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it, End notes 7-10, regarding the statements of social workers and Doctors who treated Sheila.

[16]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 9 January 2013]

'Mind' Understanding Depression [on-line] Available at:http://www.mind.org.uk/mental_health_a-z/7980_understanding_depression?gclid=CKbS-b6y4LQCFU3HtAod9WcAAQ[Accessed 9 January 2013]


[17] Medical News Today, MNT. (2010) What Is Paranoid Schizophrenia? What Causes Paranoid Schizophrenia? [on-line] Available at:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/192621.php[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[18]'FRANK' COCAINE, THE RISKS [on-line] Available at:http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/cocaine[Accessed 10 January 2013]

Dr Ferguson, Handwritten Statement, 30th September 1986. Details her use of Cannabis, Cocaine and Amphetamine.

Colin Caffell, Statements handwritten, 11th September, 1985, he states that Dr Ferguson had contacted him by telephone concerned that Sheila had been taking cocaine through her involvement with Farhad Emami.


[19]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 9 January 2013]


[20]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 10 January 2013]


[21]Mayo Clinic (2010) Paranoid schizophrenia, signs and symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia [on-line] Available at:http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/paranoid-schizophrenia/DS00862/DSECTION=symptoms[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[22]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 9 January 2013]


Dr Ferguson, Statement, 8th August, 1985, details her behaviour, his diagnosis.

[24]eMedicineHealth, Medications and drugs, Stelazine (trifluoperazine) [on-line] Available at:http://www.emedicinehealth.com/drug-trifluoperazine/article_em.htm[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[25]eMedtv (2008) Stelazine is a prescription medicine...treatment of schizophrenia...[on-line] Available at:http://schizophrenia.emedtv.com/stelazine/stelazine-p2.html[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[26]Oxford Journal (2009) Schizophrenia Bulletin Howes, Kapur The Dopamine Hypothesis of Schizophrenia: Version III—The Final Common Pathway [on-line] Available at:http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3/549.abstract[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[27]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[28]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 11 January 2013]

Dr Ferguson Statement Op cit, n 22

Farhad Emami (Freddie) (1985) statement: [on-line] Available at: http://twitpic.com/8xxria[Accessed 11 January 2013]

Pathologist Views: Professor Peter Vanezis [on-line] Available at:http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/pathologist-s-views[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[29]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 11 January 2013]

[29a] How and Why Sheila Did ithttp://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it

[30] 12.09.85 & 20.09.85 Dr Angeloglou Statement, 09.10.85 Dr Wilkinson, Statement, collective statements of Dr Ferguson regarding medication and its impact on Sheila and her erratic attendance to have medication and appointments.

Suzette Ford Interview (1986) [on-line] Available at: http://twitpic.com/8zv8ja[Accessed 11 January 2013]

Helena Grimster (1986) statement [on-line] Available at: http://twitpic.com/7fgjm7[Accessed 11 January 2013]


[31]Drug Lib.com (2007) Anafranil (Clomipramine Hydrochloride) Warnings and Precautions. Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk [on-line] Available at:http://www.druglib.com/druginfo/anafranil/warnings_precautions/[Accessed 12 January 2013]


[32]Psychiatric Nursing (2012) Neuroleptic-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms [on-line] Available at:http://nursingplanet.com/psychopharmacology/extrapyramidal_symptoms.html[Accessed January 13 2013]


[33]Wikipedia (2013) Haloperidol, Adverse Effects 'increase dopamine activity, up to 98%' [on-line] Available at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haloperidol#Adverse_effects[Accessed January 12 2013]


[34]Drugcite (2013) Haloperidol and Suicide Attempt...'Suicide attempt has been reported to the FDA a total of 229 times for Haloperidol' [on-line] Available at:http://www.drugcite.com/indi/?q=HALOPERIDOL&s=&a=&i=SUICIDE+ATTEMPT[Accessed 12 January 2013]


[35]Medline Plus (2010) Procyclidine. What side effects can this medication cause? [on-line] Available at:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a605037.html#side-effects[Accessed 12 January 2013]

[35a] Op Cit n 30, Sheila's reluctance to take medication and reliability to keep appointments.

Why don't patient's take their Medicine (2007) Available athttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/13/5/336.full[Accessed 20.01.13]

[36]EMC Medicine guides (2012) Haloperidol. Stopping your medicine. Withdrawal symptoms [on-line] Available at:http://www.medicines.org.uk/guides/haloperidol/aggression,%20restlessness%20and%20agitation[Accessed 12 January 2013]

Medications, Op Cit, n29 Sheila’s medication

[37] Statement of Jeremy Bamber, Statement, 7th and 8th August 1985.

Colin Caffell, Over the Rainbow, details that Caffell had told Sheila he intended to go for custody of the children, he advised Sheila as he drove her and the children to white house farm shortly before their deaths.

[38]Jeremy Bamber (2010) Sheila Caffell's Mental Health [on-line] Available at:http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1193239485/sheila-caffells-mental-health[Accessed 11 January 2013]

Health athealth.com (2010) Expert Consensus Treatment Guidelines for Schizophrenia: A Guide for Patients and Families [on-line] Available at:http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/disorders/schizophreniaguide.html[Accessed 12 January 2013]

BMC Psychiatry (2011) 1. Background. Self-esteem is associated with premorbid adjustment and positive psychotic symptoms in early psychosis [on-line] Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/11/136[Accessed 12 January 2013]

[39]04.10.85 Alexander Allan, Toxicologist, Statement

[40]Clinical Trials.Gov. (2005) Akathesia, (Restless Leg Syndrome) in People With Schizophrenia and Mental Retardation [on-line] Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00065286[Accessed 7 January 2013]


[41]Distonia Medical Research Foundation (2010) Drug induced [on-line] Available at:http://www.dystonia-foundation.org/pages/more_info/76.php[Accessed 7 January 2013]


[42]Mind (2012) Understanding Tardive Diskinesia [on-line] Available at:http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/tardive_dyskinesia[Accessed 8 January 2013]


[43]Parkinson's UK (2008) Parkinson's Disease Society. Drug-Induced Parkinsonism, Information Sheet [on-line] Available at:http://www.parkinsons.org.uk/PDF/FS38_druginducedparkinsonism.pdf[Accessed 8 January 2013]

Jeremy Bamber: An Overview

By M, Wall. Last updated 11.02.13   If you’ve only recently come to know Jeremy’s name, you may be looking for more information on who he is and why the Campaign is so important.   Jeremy Bamber, from Tollesunt D’arcy, Essex, England, led an ordinary farming life, and benefited from the warmth of a loving family. His mother, June was active in the local church whilst his father, Nevill, was a local Magistrate. Jeremy’s sister, Sheila, who was four years his senior, became a fashion model before marrying and having children. Sheila, June and Jeremy   Sadly this life was taken from Jeremy and completely destroyed when, in August 1985, Sheila – who had developed schizophrenia in adult life – took the lives of both her parents and her own two young children in a psychotic episode before killing herself. Police and a pathologist ruled the case of four murders and one suicide as 24 year old Jeremy Bamber was left to mourn the loss of his entire family. White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex   In what has become one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in the history of British law, however, it was Jeremy himself who, just over a year later, would be jailed for carrying out all five murders. Inexplicably, Jeremy was convicted despite the fact that there has, to this day, never been any forensic evidence to link him to such crimes; while the sheer load of documents and evidence supporting his innocence continues to swell some 27 years later. Jeremy’s case is currently being re-submitted to the troubled and underfunded Criminal Cases Review Commission with further supporting evidence. Jeremy is one of only 42 prisoners currently serving a whole life tariff, never to be released.   The official site of the Jeremy Bamber, is run by an organization set up to bring Jeremy to freedom, it collates and explains all of the evidence in great detail. In exploring the site, and the other official online resources of Jeremy and the case, you will be able to see for yourself how an innocent man continues to serve time for crimes he did not commit.   As you read through the evidence you will be stunned by the facts of the case that you didn’t know and further surprised that material which has been publicized is factually inaccurate. All of the material on the site is drawn from case documents and claims are fully supported by evidence. The site is in the process of being updated to include the exact references inserted via footnotes so check back regularly to find out more. Thanks for supporting Jeremy       Attrib:http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/who-is-jeremy

Jeremy Bamber: ECHR Decision was NOT unanimous

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

Jeremy Bamber to Continue Fight for Freedom in the Grand Chamber

Jeremy Bamber will take the appeal against his whole life tariff to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. There is more about the ruling below which was voted 4 to three that there had been no breach of article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.

Below is an extract from MOJO UK Miscarriages of Justice Organization UK which gives wrongly convicted prisoners a voice and provides a prison newsletter.

Jeremy Bamber ECHR Decision was not Unanimous

'For the reasons we have set out we would find, in respect of all the applicants, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3'. Judges Garlicki, David Thór Björgvinsson and Nicolaou

There were three dissenting opinions (judges Garlicki, David Thór Björgvinsson and Nicolaou) of the seven judges who determined the case. This was a very narrow decision!

Bamber, Vintner and Moore, have the option of requesting that the case is referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court and they should do so.

'If such a request is made, a panel of five judges would consider whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.'

The actual decision of the court on the matter before them was as follows:

3. Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vinter;
4. Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Bamber;
5. Holds, by four votes to three, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Moore.

Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion Of Judges Garlicki, David Thór Björgvinsson And Nicolaou

We fully share the majority view that there has been no violation of Articles 5 § 4, 6 and 7 of the Convention. However, on the Article 3 issue of inhuman or degrading treatment we conclude that there was a procedural infringement by reason of the absence of some mechanism that would remove the hopelessness inherent in a sentence of life imprisonment from which, independently of the circumstances, there is no possibility whatsoever of release while the prisoner is still well enough to have any sort of life outside prison.

Like the majority we see no problem in so far as the substantive aspect of Article 3 is concerned. A wholly unjustified or grossly disproportionate sentence could, at the time it is imposed, fall foul of Article 3. But the test is a strict one. It was described in the Canadian case of R v. Latimer [2001] 1 SCR 3 as "stringent and demanding"; and in United States v. Burns [2001] SCR 283 it was added, in an extradition context, that it must lead to the conclusion that the sentence would "shock the conscience" or violate principles of fundamental justice. As the Court pointed out in Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 97, ECHR 2008-..., a sentence of life imprisonment "is not in itself prohibited by or incompatible with Article 3". It made no difference that it was a mandatory rather than a discretionary sentence. Both may, at the time they are imposed, reflect the need for punishment and deterrence for the crimes committed and there would be no Article 3 issue on that score. The Court would, quite obviously, accord a large measure of deference to a judicial determination of sentence but both mandatory and discretionary life sentences are subject to the same overriding principle that they should not be wholly unjustified or grossly disproportionate. It should be noted, however, that in the present case nothing turns on this, for the applicants have not shown that the whole life orders imposed on them did not accord with principle.

It was made clear in Kafkaris that even in the case of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment the whole of that sentence may be served without infringing Article 3. At the same time Kafkaris underlined that in a particular case circumstances may eventually arise that make it appropriate for domestic authorities to consider, in some way, whether continued detention would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The present United Kingdom provisions for compassionate leave which, subject to various conditions apply to prisoners who are terminally ill and about to die as also to prisoners who, being very severely incapacitated, are paralysed or bedridden with not much life to live outside prison walls, do not meet the procedural requirement referred to in Kafkaris. In the light of what the Court said in Kafkaris, the House of Lords accepted in R (Wellington) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 72 that a time may come when even a discretionary whole life order may have to be looked at again to see whether the prisoner's circumstances have so changed as to render further detention inhuman and degrading.

The real point at issue in the present case lies in whether the need for a possibility of revisiting a whole life order requires that there should already be in place a suitable mechanism in the domestic system, so as to lend credence to the existence of such possibility, and thus afford a measure of hope to the convicted person; or whether, as stated in paragraphs 92-94 of the judgment, once it is accepted that the sentence was appropriate at the time it was passed, nothing remains to be said unless and until such time, if ever, as the prisoner is in a position to show that continued detention would be in breach of Article 3, whereupon the existence of such procedural mechanism may, for the first time, become relevant. Our preference is for the first alternative and it is, essentially, on this that we differ from the majority.

The majority view echoes what Lord Phillips CJ had said in R v Bieber [2008] EWCA Crim 1601, and cited with approval in R(Wellington). The following passage is from the opinion of Lord Brown (at § 82):

"Article 3 is violated only when the prisoner's further imprisonment can no longer be justified. In this I agree entirely with the view expressed by Lord Phillips in Bieber at para 43:


'Can the imposition of an irreducible life sentence itself constitute a violation of article 3, or will the potential violation only occur once the offender has been detained beyond the period that can be justified on the ground of punishment and deterrence? In other words, is it the sentence or the consequent detention that is capable of violating article 3? We believe it is the latter. We think that this is implicit from the passage of the judgment [in Kafkaris at para 107, cited at para 70 above]. As we have recorded it was the detention itself that the applicant in Kafkaris contended amounted to a violation of article 3.'

In my judgment it cannot be contended that the mere passing of a mandatory life sentence, even in circumstances where no satisfactory laws or procedures exist for thereafter reviewing the case on an individual basis to determine the actual period to be served, violates article 3."

This approach seems to us to be due, at least in part, to the guarded language used by the Court, particularly in the Grand Chamber case of Kafkaris (§ 97), when speaking about the impact of Article 3 on irreducible life sentences. It repeated that, as it had held, an irreducible life sentence "may" raise an Article 3 issue. It did not say in terms that such an issue will inevitably arise and this has been taken to mean that the Court has accepted the possibility that an irreducible sentence will pose no problem under Article 3, either substantive or procedural: see, indicatively, the opinion of Baroness Hale (at § 49) and that of Lord Brown (at § 71) in R (Wellington). The Court explained the difference between a reducible and an irreducible sentence by saying that where there was a possibility of review, by which de jure and de facto the prisoner was not deprived of any prospect or hope of release, the sentence could not be regarded as irreducible; and it did not become so merely by the fact that it may be served in full. By using the word "may" in connection with irreducible sentences and by classifying sentences as reducible where there is a de jure and de facto mechanism for revisiting them, the Court left a question mark in respect of the former. Was it contemplating a real possibility that a truly irreducible sentence could be compatible with Article 3? In what circumstances might that be conceivable when it emphasised so strongly the importance of a revisiting mechanism? In fact the Court has never held that an irreducible life sentence did not breach Article 3.

It seems to us that the Court used the word "may" in order to avoid a categorical general statement which went beyond the needs of the case when previous cases, to which it referred, had gone no further than that. We are, respectfully, unable to accept the view expressed in R v Bieber and R (Wellington), and shared here by the majority, that an irreducible life sentence can be upheld as compatible with Article 3. We are therefore also unable to accept the corollary of that view, namely that the absence of an Article 3 problem justifies the present lack of a suitable release mechanism. In our opinion it is necessary to have a suitable review mechanism in place right from the beginning. The Article 3 problem does not consist merely in keeping the prisoner in detention longer than would be justified, as suggested in the domestic judgments that we have cited. Kafkaris shows that it consists, equally importantly, of depriving him of any hope for the future, however tenuous that hope may be.

For the reasons we have set out we would find, in respect of all the applicants, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3.

Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Attrib: http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jeremy-bamber-to-continue-fight-for.html
http://www.mojuk.org.uk/

Justice4Jeremy: CCRC Applications

by A, Stringer last updated 06.02.13 Attrib:http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ccrc-applications On the 29th of November 2012, Jeremy Bamber's lawyer, Simon McKay, made an oral submission to the High Court in a bid for a Judicial Review of the The Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision not to refer his case for appeal. The application for Judicial Review was refused. The role of the CCRC is politically valuable and the judiciary are also keen to see the institution maintained. To read the judgement which makes reference to the weakest part of the applications to support its case click this link. To read the latest academic work on the CCRC buy Michael Naughton's Innocence project which Jeremy is not directly involved in please click this link. The CCRC has been under public scrutiny for some years now with 96% of applications being rejected.[1] You only have to surf the web for a few minutes to see campaigns from all areas – even former Commissioners like David Jessel[2] are speaking out about its shortcomings. This is a serious issue and the CCRC are under pressure to perform, but they are underfunded and mismanaged. Jeremy Bamber, one of the UK's highest profile prisoners, convicted for the murder of his family back in 1986, had his latest bid for an appeal, rejected by the CCRC back in April, after waiting a 8 years for the final decision. The forensic evidence submitted was strong with reports by some of the worlds leading forensic scientists. The material fitted all of the CCRC's criteria, sitting within of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. If Jeremy Bamber had won his Judicial Review of the CCRC decision, it would have meant that their competency, veracity and integrity would be brought into question. Moreover, handling of all the cases they have rejected (and possibly those they have put through to appeal) could have even required review. The wider implications of the Judicial Review, were within the level of public interest as the CCRC is not fully independent as it claims, but it is a Government body or ‘quango’ – publicly funded, and reporting directly to the Justice Minister – it is politically controlled, nothing like a Non Governmental Organization (NGO). Curiously coinciding with this case was the CCRC’s Triennial Review and the Government were calling for applicants to share their experiences directly with the review board.[5] Alternatives are already being suggested by campaigners, and The Centre for Criminal Appeals is a worthy contender.[6] There are other suggestions particularly from Bamber himself that the process should be shifted from political control back to judicial hands, for example, preliminary appeal submissions should be heard by a single judge and submitted formally by a lawyer. It is unlikely that the government will change the structure of the appeals process without significant public pressure. There has to be a serious and high profile reason for the Government to act, for example if Jeremy Bamber had won the JR, but with grounds for Judicial Review being pulled tighter by new Justice Secretary, Christ Grayling, hope for others fighting for their freedom could be lost. Dr Michael Naughton, Director of the Innocence Network and Senior Lecturer at Bristol University has written a book on the problems of the CCRC.[3] Naughton provides statistics, showing that Miscarriage of Justice cases being overturned each year, are in their thousands and at an average of 18 per day, the Government can no longer insist this is a rare ‘phenomenon.’ Back in 2005, Andrew Hunter MP, raised the matter of non-disclosure of documents in Parliament, he was told that the CCRC was 'nobody's patsy' and still, 7 years later there is no disclosure of the material Hunter was referring to. [4] Campaigners are concerned that now, and in the future, the Government require political control of the process of overturning convictions, simply because we will end up with a situation where large numbers of convictions could be overturned, owing to the level of police corruption from the 1970’s and 1980’s on wards. This would be similar to the phenomenon seen in the early 1990’s,[7] where the overturned convictions of the Birmingham Six, and Guildford Four, brought the justice system into disrepute, undermining confidence in the judicial process at a time when the integrity of the entire judiciary is being brought into question. It is highly likely that none of these high profile cases would have made it to the appeal court via the CCRC and were referred to the court under its predecessor, the Home Office section C3 department. The CCRC is proven time and time again, to ignore or give un-plausible explanations for instances of police corruption without formally responding, or addressing the evidence in any way and this is prevalent in many cases including those of Susan May and Eddie Gilfoyle to name just two.[8] Issues of funding, and the quality of the work by CCRC ‘case managers’ is also in question, with the Commission needlessly ‘sitting on cases’ for up to 10 years. All of our fears might be realized when Bamber’s conviction is eventually overturned in the court of appeal. It is a worrying concern for more victims of 'the system' is that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will continue to flout the law, and cover police corruption unhindered by the wheels of justice. When will we ever learn that Justice is for the judiciary and politics has no part in it? At the High Court Simon McKay addressed how the Commission ignored new forensic evidence by leading experts in the United States, and will also mention that 'New evidence continues to emerge from additional investigative work, most recently that telephone logs which formed a critical plank of the Crown’s case, have demonstrably been “manipulated” by Essex Police.' As Bamber lost his application for Judicial Review he has to make new submissions to the CCRC, they are known to take up to 9 months to allocate a case manager and in the meantime and innocent man's life ebbs away in prison at the cost of £80,000 to the tax payer each year. Notes [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/27/criminal-cases-review-commission-reform-campaign [2] http://www.davidjessel.co.uk/index.php?/Articles/article/campaigners_and_the_commission/ [3] Naughton, M The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent? 2012 ed.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/11/neil-hurley [4] Andrew Hunter MP tabled a question in Parliament in 2005 asking why the CCRC had not obtained disclosure of documents from Essex Police, he was told the CCRC was nobody’s patsy and that if required documents would be obtained. There is still not full disclosure. Download a transcript here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/in-parliament [5] https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/ccrc-triennial-review/consult_view [6] http://www.criminalappeals.org.uk/ [7] Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater three, Cardiff Three and more. [8] Unrelated to CCRC but more broadly see corruption where 8 officers were acquitted is the Cardiff Three.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15981541

Justice4Jeremy:Essex Police Still Hiding Evidence...

 

 Attrib: Jeremy Bamber Official Website: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/public-interest-immunity (Edits PAM)

 

Under the cloak of Public Interest Immunity (PII)

In 1989 and again during 1991 there were investigations made into the conduct of Essex Police during the Bamber case. Much of the fruits of these enquiries have been unhelpful to Jeremy Bamber's legal team owing to the statements and documents being protected under Public Interest Immunity.   What could possibly be in the findings of the investigations that would warrant it being in the public interest to withhold statements from Jeremy Bamber's Defence?   Essex Police are still withholding 175 photographs along with 340,000 pages of documents. During August 1985 the Essex coroner was provided with evidence sufficient for him to allow the release of the bodies for burial and cremation. The police had informed him that the investigation was ongoing but on the basis of four murders and a suicide. The documents and evidence to substantiate this were lost. Many of the documents from the 1988 Police enquiry (Dickinson) are under PII - this includes Julie Mugford's interviews and those of her mother Mary Mugford. We suspect that in exchange for Mugford's testimony she was given immunity from prosecution. There are many documents which suggest this. We also suspect that many police officers were given immunity for telling the whole truth about what happened in the house and these documents have never been disclosed. Many of the documents from the 1991 Police Complaints authority investigation carried out by the City of London Police are also under Public Interest Immunity. Also under PII are the Original documents (98%) from when the case was still a suicide and murder case, known as SC68885, this was from 7 August to 8 September. The photographs that police still hold are from pathology and ones taken of the crime scene. Peter Sutherst's report details which photographs are missing. After 8th September a new case number was assigned when they decided it was a murder investigation - SC78685 - these records were released to the defence. When asked about missing files Essex Police state that they have released all of the documents from the case - yes this case - but not from the original investigation!

East Anglian Daily Times Article - Police reject request for documents

David Jessel and CCRC...

Attrib: © DAVID JESSEL 2011 http://www.davidjessel.co.uk/index.php?/Articles/article/campaigners_and_the_commission/

Campaigners and the Commission

The CCRC is not the body we campaigned for. It never was. Most of us who, in the eighties, were concerned with miscarriages of justice had a vision of an independent Court of Last Resort, which could cut through the intransigence shown by the Court of Appeal in cases such as the Birmingham Six and the murder of Carl Bridgewater.
That didn’t happen. Parliament, instead, came up with a formula whereby the CCRC had the power to send a conviction back to the Court of Appeal, while the Court alone had the power to quash it. The linkage lay in the 1995 statute’s provision that the CCRC could refer only when there was a ‘real possibility’ that the Court would quash the conviction.
‘Real possibility’ was the wicked fairy at the christening of the CCRC, and the more sensible critics of the Commission usually end up identifying this baptismal curse as its principal problem, rather than any institutional cowardice, sloth or mutton-headedness. It was a political compromise with a judiciary jealous of their own rights and suspicious of a bunch of amateurs in Birmingham set up to mark their homework.
It would be quixotic – and no service to the CCRC’s applicants - to send up cases where there was no real possibility of a successful outcome. It would be idle, too, to base appeals on a mere belief in innocence, based on the same ‘evidence of innocence’ which a trial jury found implausible – the route apparently favoured by some Innocence projects. But the CCRC’s obligation to second guess the Court of Appeal inevitably puts its judgments at an extra remove from justice and truth, and holds its applicants hostage to the vagaries of a court whose very failings were largely responsible for the crisis that brought forth the CCRC.
The issue of Shaken Baby Syndrome is a case in point. A recent shoulder-shrugging Appeal Court judgment ducked the issue, making it harder for the CCRC to refer such cases in the future. But campaigners know that only constant pressure and sustained challenge forces the court to adapt. The present formula conspires against the need to keep hammering on the door of the Court of Appeal in cases such as Anthony Stock or Eddie Gilfoyle, where the whole landscape of the original prosecution has changed beyond recognition.

The CCRC as a creature of statute presents another problem for campaigners. Concern with miscarriages of justice is an obsessive pursuit. Ludovic Kennedy, Paul Foot, Peter Hill, Tom Sargent, Bob Woffinden and both the Duncan Campbells – these are people whose passion, commitment and anger I recognise. I hope I used to have some of it myself. The creation of the CCRC, however, was seen as the nationalisation of zeal, the taking of fervour into public ownership. There are passionate and committed people at the Commission; but right from the start, the CCRC made it clear that it was not a campaigning organisation. It was a system, a mechanism – and it’s hard to detect the heartbeat in a machine.
That’s perhaps why the CCRC is widely – and unfairly - seen as the institutional villain of the piece, just as in our day we identified the police and the judges as the Forces of Evil. Campaigners need a bit of hate. The CCRC didn’t help itself by maintaining on its website that it was not concerned with guilt or innocence but with the safety of convictions, mistakenly assuming that it would be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than that of a coral sponge that the conviction of an innocent person is by definition unsafe.
The CCRC’s role as the central clearing house of miscarriages further alienates it from more familiar champions of justice. Most campaigns are based on individual cases – Susan May’s, for instance, or Jeremy Bamber’s. As campaigners we didn’t always agree on the merits of each other’s cases – but everyone can cheerfully unite to excoriate the CCRC when it knocks both cases back.
The CCRC rejects 96% of its cases. Just as Dickens’ optimistic Mr Micawber would ‘just wait for something to turn up’, the CCRC was always doomed to be caricatured as a grim institution just waiting for someone to turn down. Internally, too, there’s the danger of miscarriage fatigue when the umpteenth no-hoper of the month thuds onto your desk. Sometimes it can feel as if you began with a concern for asylum seekers, and ended up as an immigration officer. It always struck me as strange, coming from the trebles-all-round world of the telly, that successful referrals were not celebrated in any corporate sense at the CCRC; the management view is that to do so would undervalue the efforts of those whose work tirelessly in producing non-referrals.
Against a background of year-on-year cuts (and heaven knows what fresh hell the Spending Review will bring with it) the pressure for more efficient case closure will intensify. Already, an early exercise in forensic triage rejects roughly half of the intake at an early stage. There’s a perfectly respectable utilitarian justification for heroically scything through what appear to be unpromising applications – it clears the decks for the more deserving cases. But Solomon and Stakhanov do not make easy bedfellows. In all honesty, these early rejects can’t be described as having had the benefit of a thorough review, or any meaningful review at all. Often the applicant’s letter alone forms the basis for rejection, on the grounds that he hasn’t appealed, or that he has furnished no plausible grounds to justify a review. But the innocent applicant often doesn’t know what grounds he can plead – he won’t know that his accuser is a serial liar, for instance – or has obediently followed his barrister’s advice that there’s no prospect of a successful appeal. We know that this can be an inconsistent process, because the occasional reject has re-applied, and has had his case successfully referred.
Managing the mountain of applications has led to a preoccupation with process, targets and performance indicators. But following the trail of a possible miscarriage of justice is an innately inefficient exercise, wandering down unpromising forensic avenues and refusing to take no for an answer. When case closure is one of the criteria in assessing staff performance, where’s the incentive to go the extra mile? Do the very processes necessity has forced on the Commission dampen, dissipate and diminish the passion to identify the wrongly convicted?
A candid reappraisal of what the Commission can and cannot do is overdue – before the CCRC’s enemies seize their opportunity furnished by economics and ideology.
For example, can the CCRC continue to be the universal safety net of criminal justice? Should access to the Commission be restricted to those cases which meet strict public interest criteria, set by Parliament, rather than the Commission? These might include the exclusion of people who are no longer alive, cases which involve minor or even non-custodial sentences, or applicants appealing on the grounds that their five previous offences have no bearing on their sixth. I could argue against all or any of these exclusions, but I’d rather the CCRC concentrated its resources on a nurse wrongly accused of attempted murder, or an elderly music teacher maliciously charged with sexually abusing a pupil, than in seeking to identify irregularities in the latest conviction of a serial drug dealer, or taking up the cause of a prisoner who has never shown any inclination to take it up himself.
The CCRC could abandon its ambition drastically to shorten its waiting lists. We all know about justice delayed being justice denied, but the backlog is the result of matters outside the Commission’s control – its applicants and its funded resources. If the price of thoroughness is delay, the Commission should not have to choose between doing its job right or doing it quickly.
The cab rank principle should also be reassessed; high-profile cases (Sally Clark, Barry George) don’t achieve that status by accident. Cases where positive and credible new work has been achieved by students, journalists, campaigners or other interested parties should be prioritised – a huge and quick win to re-involve the CCRC with the constituency of campaigning concern.
Priority should also be given to cases where the application is based on quickly verifiable grounds, such as the revelation of previous dishonesty by the police, witnesses or complainants, or developments in forensic science.
Applications based on points of law should be hived off to a separate specialist secretariat; the CCRC was not put on earth to pick over deficient judicial directions over inferences from the accused’s silence at interview. Resources should be channelled more to knocking on doors, less to anatomising precedents.
These modest proposals would go some way to rescue the Commission from the burdens which stifle its true mission, impart an honest transparency to its workings, and help it to reconnect with, and maybe refresh public concerns with miscarriages of justice. It would mean that the CCRC spent more of its time on investigating troubling cases, and less in processing the cases of those who have been safely convicted. And why not scrap the ‘real possibility’ formula and take a lesson from the Scottish Commission, who refer on the basis of a belief that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, and that it is in the public interest to send it back to the court? In the name of independence and accountability, a body set up to identify miscarriages of justice should do what it says on the tin - refer cases where it thinks justice has miscarried.
The CCRC could, of course, go on as it is. But it runs the risk of becoming a shadow of what it was set up to be. The CCRC is an inherently good thing, and better than anything else on offer. But it will need help – and the candid advice of campaigners – to survive, and to justify its survival.

© David Jessel 2011