Sheila Bled Blood, in between photographs and Crime Scene Video was taken!

[QCChevalier]

So the commissioner in question would not be allowed any input into the case even though he had previously spoken in depth with JB about his case and come to the conclusion he was not guilty.

This is dealt with in sections 9 to 11 of Annex 5 of the CCRC Code of Conduct:

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2015/01/CCRC-_1873036-v2-Code_of_Conduct_April_2016_.pdf

My reading of the situation is that there is no bar to a legally-qualified Commissioner reviewing a case in which he had past involvement provided there is no conflict of interest, but he should consider whether his past involvement may also give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest, and if so, he should decline to participate in the review or, if already assigned, recuse himself from the reviewing committee.

In practice, I would be surprised if a CCRC commissioner who has previously had involvement in a particular case were to take part in reviewing that same case, even many years later, as I should have thought there is a clear basis for a perception of conflict that could undermine confidence in any decision taken.

I am not sure what the position would be about him bringing influence into discussions about a case, which is a different thing.  Cases are reviewed by a Single Commissioner or reviewing committee of three Commissioners, who are named when the decision is issued, and I assume they must base their decisions on representations from the parties and any facts, information and evidence collected by the CCRC.  Could evidence collected by the CCRC include facts, information and evidence within the cognisance of other commissioners?  Or are commissioners expected to recuse themselves from fact-finding and evidence-collection by the CCRC, even when not participating in decisions? 

I'm not sure of the answer to that, or even if there is a clear answer, but I suspect the answer is that a commissioner could render assistance to a CCRC investigation and a reviewing committee, even though he is not appointed himself.  He would be doing so outside his strict capacity as a commissioner and subject to any continuing professional duties, especially confidentiality to the relevant client.  In those circumstances, it would be considered down to the investigators, case officer and ultimately, the reviewing commissioners to bring everything together and exercise judgement about the various sources of information.

[JackieD]

Thank you for that lengthy reply. We are obviously never going to know what went on behind closed doors but as I understand it the situation when the person in question stopped representing JB was dealt with quite badly.

[QCChevalier]

Thank you for that lengthy reply. We are obviously never going to know what went on behind closed doors but as I understand it the situation when the person in question stopped representing JB was dealt with quite badly.

What did he do?

[mike tesko]

This is dealt with in sections 9 to 11 of Annex 5 of the CCRC Code of Conduct:

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/ccrc-prod-storage-1jdn5d1f6iq1l/uploads/2015/01/CCRC-_1873036-v2-Code_of_Conduct_April_2016_.pdf

My reading of the situation is that there is no bar to a legally-qualified Commissioner reviewing a case in which he had past involvement provided there is no conflict of interest, but he should consider whether his past involvement may also give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest, and if so, he should decline to participate in the review or, if already assigned, recuse himself from the reviewing committee.

In practice, I would be surprised if a CCRC commissioner who has previously had involvement in a particular case were to take part in reviewing that same case, even many years later, as I should have thought there is a clear basis for a perception of conflict that could undermine confidence in any decision taken.

I am not sure what the position would be about him bringing influence into discussions about a case, which is a different thing.  Cases are reviewed by a Single Commissioner or reviewing committee of three Commissioners, who are named when the decision is issued, and I assume they must base their decisions on representations from the parties and any facts, information and evidence collected by the CCRC.  Could evidence collected by the CCRC include facts, information and evidence within the cognisance of other commissioners?  Or are commissioners expected to recuse themselves from fact-finding and evidence-collection by the CCRC, even when not participating in decisions? 

I'm not sure of the answer to that, or even if there is a clear answer, but I suspect the answer is that a commissioner could render assistance to a CCRC investigation and a reviewing committee, even though he is not appointed himself.  He would be doing so outside his strict capacity as a commissioner and subject to any continuing professional duties, especially confidentiality to the relevant client.  In those circumstances, it would be considered down to the investigators, case officer and ultimately, the reviewing commissioners to bring everything together and exercise judgement about the various sources of information.

Who do you refer to, is it Ewen Smith? Giovanni De Stefano? Or Rivlin QC?

[mike tesko]

I had a 'hands on' opportunity to witness the awful deception to which Essex police, the CPS and Bambers legal team (and trial judge, Mr justice Drake), pulled off in the presence of Bambers trial!

Part of this/that deception focussed around the existence in total of how many photographs were taken with regard to the crime Scene, during the autopsy, or elsewhere?

Just to recap - the contents of a series of photographs known or referred to,  as 'THE MASTER COPY ALBUM' (consisting of 223 photographs), rather than the 581 photographs the police had actually taken during the same investigations ('SC/688/85' and 'SC/786/85'), which served to create a significant imbalance, totalling 358 undisclosed photographs to Bambers legal team, and the jury which tried the case!

[QCChevalier]

Who do you refer to, is it Ewen Smith? Giovanni De Stefano? Or Rivlin QC?

I'm actually answering a question from JackieD.  I am going to assume that she is referring to Ewen Smith, as he is the one who served in the CCRC and also once represented Jeremy.

[JackieD]

Yes QC.  I’m not sure of the facts but I believe he accepted the job with the CCRC without telling Jeremy. I don’t know the timings but I would like to know more.

[QCChevalier]

Yes QC.  I’m not sure of the facts but I believe he accepted the job with the CCRC without telling Jeremy. I don’t know the timings but I would like to know more.

He probably wasn't under any specific obligation to inform Jeremy, it's more about making full disclosure to the CCRC about his work and background and any potential conflicts before accepting the appointment; though I agree it would have been courteous to tell Jeremy if he was still acting for him at the time.

[JackieD]

QC the other question I wanted to ask is regarding Mark Williams Thomas. Around the time of the badly researched docu drama Mark spoke out again in support of JB but said something regarding not being able to visit or interview Jeremy ?? Do you know if this is fact ??

[QCChevalier]

QC the other question I wanted to ask is regarding Mark Williams Thomas. Around the time of the badly researched docu drama Mark spoke out again in support of JB but said something regarding not being able to visit or interview Jeremy ?? Do you know if this is fact ??

I really don't know.  What does Jeremy say about it?  It does sound plausible because special procedures apply to the admission to a prison of any journalist as a visitor, even as a social visitor for a prisoner the journalist knows personally.

Jeremy is still a high security prisoner, so it will be especially difficult because Jeremy can't just issue a visiting order to anybody, even for social visits, never mind journalists and media people.  All potential visitors have to be vetted and probably he will have a restricted list of people approved as visitors.

You may be interested in reading PSI 37/2010 Prisoners’ Access to the Media, a copy of which I am attaching here (see link below).  Despite having an expiry date in 2014, the PSI remains extant.

Consider in particular the following extracts from that document, noting that these are the minimum standards applied to all prisoners, not just those like Jeremy who are in high security prisons:

[pp. 3/4]:

Visits – prisoners must apply in writing to the Governor if they wish to receive a visit from a member of the media and copies of such requests must be passed immediately to Press Office under cover of the form at Annex F.  Decisions on such requests will now, once the Governor has given his or her view, be made centrally on behalf of the Secretary of State.  Press Office who will consult Ministers where appropriate.

Visits by the media will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, where there is a need for a face to face interview because:

(i)   the prisoner claims a miscarriage of justice and requires the assistance of a journalist to challenge the safety of their conviction or sentence;

or

(ii)   there is some other sufficiently strong public interest in the issue sought to be raised during the visit and the assistance of a particular journalist is needed.  See Section 4.4 – 4.16 for guidance on how these criteria may be met.

Governors must consider written applications on their merits taking account of the criteria set out in the PSI and advice of Press Office should be sought if it is unclear whether the prisoner fulfils the listed criteria.  In all applications involving requests for face-to face interviews the Governor will have to provide Press Office with any relevant information and their view on whether the interview should take place so that the decision can be made centrally on behalf of the Secretary of State – details are set out in Section 4.

1.3   Governors must ensure that systems are in place to alert prisoners to this policy on communication with the media and to ensure they are aware that a breach of these rules may lead to disciplinary proceedings.  Where possible, establishments should consider incorporating this information in to induction procedures, for example informing prisoners of the telephone restrictions by including this within the Pinphone Compact signed by prisoners.

[pp. 7/8]:

4.3   Prisoners must identify one journalist/media outlet which they consider will best suit their needs in investigating or publicising their particular miscarriage of justice or issue/matter which it is felt should be brought to the attention of the public as outlined in paragraph 1.2 of this PSI.  It is the responsibility of the prisoner to satisfy him/herself that the journalist they request to see is appropriate for this role.  NOMS has no responsibility for the content of any article or programme.

Criteria

4.4   Approval for a visit by a journalist will normally only be granted where the prisoner fulfils the criteria below.

4.5   The criteria are that:

(i)    the matter relates to an alleged miscarriage of justice where the sole purpose of the visit is to allow a prisoner the opportunity to highlight an alleged miscarriage of justice in their own case;

and

   the prisoner has exhausted all appeals and, in relation to those appeals, has no further access to publicly funded legal assistance (exceptionally, a visit may be permitted where all appeals have not been exhausted, but where the Criminal Cases Review Commission has agreed to accept an application from the prisoner, or where the Criminal Cases Review Commission has made the decision to refer the case to the Crown Court or Court of Appeal);

   or

(ii)    there is some other sufficiently strong public interest in the issue sought to be raised during the visit and the assistance of that journalist is needed.  It is not possible to define all the factors that may have to be taken into account to determine what the public interest is in a matter raised by a prisoner and how strong that public interest is.  (The circumstances in which the “sufficiently strong public interest” test might be met are, for example, where the prisoner intends to make serious representations about matters of legitimate public interest that affect prisoners or prisons or the processes of justice or the penal system; or the prisoner claims they have information relating to allegations of torture).  However, consideration should always be given to the possible impact on the victim, or the victim’s family, of the publication of an interview with the prisoner and the need for confidence in the criminal justice system.

4.6   In respect of either reason for a visit mentioned above the Secretary of State must also be satisfied that:

(i)    a visit is the only suitable method of communication; and the journalist and prisoner have previously communicated by written correspondence, which has proved to be inadequate;

   and

(ii)    the journalist intends a serious attempt to investigate or bring to public attention the prisoner’s case or the other issue with a sufficiently strong public interest raised by the prisoner;

and

(iii)    permitting the visit will not pose a threat to security, or to good order or discipline    (this will include a consideration of the prisoner’s behaviour in prison).

[pp. 9/10]:

4.11   In deciding whether the request fulfils the criteria identified in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6, the following will be considered:

(i)    whether the journalist and prisoner have already established a relationship through written correspondence and telephone conversations but which has proved insufficient for the purposes of investigation and makes a face-to-face interview essential.  Consideration may be given to circumstances such as:

(a) where the case concerns an alleged miscarriage of justice, that the journalist needs to come to a view on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner in order to fully back his/her case based on his/her direct impressions of the prisoner or, where there is some other sufficiently strong public interest in the issue sought to be raised during the visit by the prisoner, there is a need to substantiate what the prisoner has to say;

(b) where the case involves complex legal or evidential issues the detail of which makes correspondence impossible

(c) where the prisoner has poor literacy that inhibits his/her ability to correspond by letter, or in the case of a foreign national prisoner who is unable to correspond in English.

and

(ii)    whether the journalist has demonstrated serious intent to investigate the alleged miscarriage of justice or other matter of sufficiently strong public interest and some research has been undertaken.  In the case of a miscarriage of justice, journalists should be expected to have established contact with the prisoner’s solicitors where relevant and had permission from the prisoner to gain access to the details of the case;

and

(iii)    where a prisoner has a website dedicated to their alleged miscarriage of justice or the matter of strong public interest that they wish to raise, operated on their behalf, whether this provides adequate public coverage and attention, and negates the need for the resources of the journalist.

[JackieD]

Thank you QC


I would have thought JB would qualify for visits from journos considering the way withheld material has had vital information drip fed to him

Example JM and the NOTW deal




Visits by the media will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, where there is a need for a face to face interview because:

(i)   the prisoner claims a miscarriage of justice and requires the assistance of a journalist to challenge the safety of their conviction or sentence;

[mike tesko]

I'm actually answering a question from JackieD.  I am going to assume that she is referring to Ewen Smith, as he is the one who served in the CCRC and also once represented Jeremy.

Thank you for your reply!

Furthermore, for your information, I can add that during the periods that I personally acted as Jeremy Bambers, 'Mckensie man', that 'Ewen Smith' (solicitor) always acted and responded to input from me, concerning his clients case. Ewen Smith did not abandon Jeremy in his plight to get his convictions for these murders overturned. He did everything and more, to try to get to the truth, concerning Sheila's culpability, and to try and prove, that Bambers sister, had not shot and killed herself, but rather, that Sheila was shot and killed by some other person, and that she could not have been responsible for shooting herself by way of a second bullet entry wound to her neck, once her body had become transferred, from (a) originally having been reported as violent and  dangerous (downstairs in the main kitchen), to Jeremy by Neville Bamber (around 3.25am) and then to the police,  by ' Neville Bamber' at around 3.26(am); (b)when her body ended up collapsed on top of the bed in the main bedroom with only a single bullet entry wound to her neck, no rifle on the bed, or on her body, no bible restring on her chest, and an absence of significant bloodstaining on her face, neck or her nightdress: (c) her body lifted from the bed and placed on the bedroom floor by the side of the bed, and a rifle brought to her body by police...

[QCChevalier]

Thank you for your reply!

Furthermore, for your information, I can add that during the periods that I personally acted as Jeremy Bambers, 'Mckensie man', that 'Ewen Smith' (solicitor) always acted and responded to input from me, concerning his clients case. Ewen Smith did not abandon Jeremy in his plight to get his convictions for these murders overturned. He did everything and more, to try to get to the truth, concerning Sheila's culpability, and to try and prove, that Bambers sister, had not shot and killed herself, but rather, that Sheila was shot and killed by some other person, and that she could not have been responsible for shooting herself by way of a second bullet entry wound to her neck, once her body had become transfered, from (a) originally having been reported as violent and  dangerous (downstairs in the main kitchen), to Jeremy (around 3.25am) and then to the police,  by ' Neville Bamber' at around 3.26(am), (b)when her body end....

Just to be abundantly clear, my posts above are in reply to another poster's general questions.  I take no view on Ewen Smith and I am not suggesting or implying anything about him, one way or another.

[QCChevalier]

Thank you QC


I would have thought JB would qualify for visits from journos considering the way withheld material has had vital information drip fed to him

Example JM and the NOTW deal




Visits by the media will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances, where there is a need for a face to face interview because:

(i)   the prisoner claims a miscarriage of justice and requires the assistance of a journalist to challenge the safety of their conviction or sentence;

I must stress that I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but having re-read the relevant extracts from the PSI above in light of your comments, I agree in that if it can be shown there has been a consistent failure to disclose and this has impeded appeals, then that could - on its face - be grounds on its own to grant media access, even if there is an extant appeal or CCRC application in process or being prepared.

Again stressing the caveat that I am not a legal expert or lawyer, having read through the PSI above, my own view is that probably the most opportune time for Jeremy to ask a prison governor for media access would be when an appeal or CCRC application has been rejected, especially if rejection/refusal was on some obviously dubious basis that is ripe for public discussion.  This is because at that stage all legal avenues are apparently closed and under those circumstances he can legitimately appeal to the 'court of public opinion', as a last resort.  I say this because if you read the PSI all the way through, you will immediately gather that the prison authorities in this country regard media and press access as a privilege rather than a civil right, but additionally, you may also pick up - as I have - a general sense that the prison authorities also see media and press access as a 'forum of last resort' or platform for the wronged and desperate among prisoners, rather than a platform of ordinary recourse that it is in many other civilised jurisdictions, including parts of the United States.

It could be that one reason Mark Williams-Thomas had issues accessing Jeremy is that in around 2010/11 - which I think you mentioned is when this happened - Jeremy had his CCRC application in train.  When you consider the basic principle I have just outlined, you can then appreciate the difficulty that may have been encountered.  The prison may have concluded that since there was a viable CCRC application about to be made or already submitted, there was no further justification for media access.