Jeremy Bamber lawyers challenge refusal of appeal

Criminal Cases Review Commission acted 'unlawfully and overstepped its powers' say lawyers for the convicted murderer

Jeremy Bamber, who was jailed for life in 1986 for the murders of five members of his family, arrives for a court of appeal hearing in 2002. Photograph: Michael Stephens/PA

Attrib.Eric Allison

guardian.co.uk, Mon 7 May 2012 14.41 BST

Lawyers acting for the convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber have issued a legal challenge to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) following itsdecision not to refer his case back to the court of appeal. They say the commission has acted "unlawfully, overstepped its powers and usurped the function of the appeal court".

The CCRC's decision last Thursday came after it considered new evidence, largely relating to a silencer attached to the rifle Bamber was said to have used to kill five members of his family in 1985.

Four eminent ballistic and wounds experts submitted reports suggesting the silencer was not attached to the rifle when the shots that killed Bamber's adoptive parents, June and Nevill, his sister Sheila Caffell and her six-year-old twins, Nicholas and Daniel, were fired.

The silencer was a crucial element of the case against Bamber. The police initially thought Caffell had killed her family before turning the weapon on herself. The rifle was found next to her body, without the silencer, which was discovered later by relatives. The prosecution claimed Caffell did not have the reach to shoot herself with the silencer attached.

The CCRC rejected the new expert submissions, saying they did not give rise to a real possibility that the court of appeal would find Bamber's convictions unsafe. It described the new evidence as "matters of pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations".

In a letter of claim to the CCRC, seen by the Guardian, Bamber's lawyers describe this reference as a "gross misrepresentation of the nature and content of the submissions". They say the commission should not dismiss expert evidence without calling for expert opinion countering it. They accuse the CCRC of "advancing expert opinion which, in the absence of the relevant expertise, it is not equipped to do".

The lawyers say the basis of a judicial review of the CCRC's decision will be that it acted unlawfully in applying the wrong test in determining whether to refer the case back to appeal, and failed to provide reasons why the correct test was not carried out.

Bamber, 51, was jailed for life in 1986. He was ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years but, in 1994, the sentence was increased to whole life by the then home secretary, Michael Howard.

A spokesman for the CCRC said it was considering how to respond to the letter.

Justice for Jeremy

I recently visited my MP, John Whittingdale, to ask for his help in Jeremy Bamber’s Freedom of Information request.  He said he could not help – has no influence and furthermore believed Jeremy Bamber to be guilty; he is also on familiar terms with Jeremy's relatives, David Boutflour and Ann Eaton and has visited White House Farm where Ann Eaton installed her family shortly after Jeremy's imprisonment.
  
I asked John Whittingdale, ‘What would a person do if the very system set up to judge them were corrupt?’  He seemed astounded, said that there is no other way, that he ‘believes in the law’.  I was also astounded, at what I perceived to be his naivety.  The law does not exist in isolation; it is administered by human beings all of whom have their frailties.  Adhering to the principles of law may bring about justice and often does but the law can also mutate into a nightmare of machinations that come into play, totally ignoring common sense, exacerbated by self-interest, and influenced through ‘trial by media.’

The tragic, heinous act of the murders at White House Farm in the early hours of August 7 1985, whetted our collective appetite for justice as well as gratuitous curiosity and released the voyeur in many of us.

When it made sense that only someone of a deranged mind could do such a thing, what was it that made us abandon common sense in favour of a highly unlikely conclusion?  Even if it was an unconscious act, why did Essex Police suddenly collude with the relatives, against Jeremy Bamber?  Why did the general public find it easier to believe that Jeremy Bamber, who had an alibi and has since taken and passed a polygraph (lie) test, was guilty, but that his sister, Sheila Caffell, who was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and who had previously threatened to kill her children, could not have murdered them and her adoptive parents? 

I do not have the answers.  Maybe it is easier to project our anger and repulsion onto a living, young and attractive male, someone maybe of whose status we are envious, than to consider the obscenity of a beautiful young mother killing her own children?  ‘Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people.’ Carl Jung

Jeremy Bamber’s defence and campaign teams have been requesting the release of documentation on his case as much of it has unnecessarily and illegally been filed under Public Interest Immunity (PII).  PII is a principle of common law under which English courts can grant an Order allowing one litigant to keep evidence from the sight of other litigants if they consider disclosure to be damaging to public interest.

In Jeremy Bamber’s case the opposite is true, the public need and have a right to know when the truth is being hidden.  It is vital, in a democratic society, that any corruption of public officers be exposed via the appropriate channels and procedures.  This is not happening.

Jeremy always maintained that it was his sister (Sheila Caffell) who shot and murdered her family and that his father, Neville Bamber, had telephoned the police that night and told them that his daughter had gone berserk and got hold of one of his guns.  Jeremy was not believed as these police logs were not forthcoming at his trial but they have now been uncovered.  

 

Jeremy Bamber also phoned the police and told them that his father had called him asking him to go to the house as his sister has gone crazy with the gun.  Both of these police logs and other documents of evidence may be found on Jeremy's website (s) listed below
 

Jeremy and his team have repeatedly requested further documentation now filed under PII as this could obviously reveal significant information in relation to his innocence.  Jeremy has also written to Essex Police requesting documents and they have refused, saying it will cost too much!  He has filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act as well as asking others to write a letter in support (see below).

 

Jeremy Bamber has been imprisoned unjustly for over half his life-time – he has courageously continued to work through his pain and anger and has never had the freedom to grieve his family; yet he remains a genuinely nice person evidenced by all those who know and support him. 

Jeremy's story here: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/home