A lot of material could have been obtained by the CCRC using their powers but they have appeared very reluctant to use those powers.
Now can anyone offer a reasonable explanation as to why the CCRC didn't use their powers to obtain this information? It is an open question for anyone on the forum.
What information do you think was not obtained by the CCRC? What evidence do you think is being concealed by PII?
I suppose you could include that as part of my question? Just what is held under PII? But in any case it is evident that some documents are being held under PII and what I want to know is, why is anything to do with this case being kept secret if the CCRC are interested in real justice?
Here's part of the answer to your question, Grahame: Bamber case on 9/2 2005. The forum has a transcript of the full debate, as does Jeremy Bamber's web site.
Andrew Hunter MP.
"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence...The points that I have made—I could make many others if we had more time—give rise to grave concern about Bamber's conviction.
Their common theme is the non-disclosure of evidence by the police.
Nearly 16 years after the White House farm murders, the defence first saw the second bundle of photographs. After nearly 19 years, the defence team discovered that there was a full radio log, a telephone log and an incident report, of which it had previously been unaware. It is the understatement of all understatements to say that such non-disclosure is deeply worrying. Even worse, it is still going on.
Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first,
the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly,
the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly,
the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the
audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the
video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly,
the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not.
I understand that many other documents are withheld. There is also the further issue that some documents which have been - very slowly and painfully - obtained by the defence have been provided in an edited form, with pages missing from these.
