If it comes through in time, it might take the CCRC even longer to reject Bamber's submission.
I can't see what is wrong with a "real possibility" test. If there is no "real possibility" of success at the CoA, it is a bit silly to refer the case to the CoA!
From the CCRC article referred to by Roch;
"I too wrote to Helen Pitcher in May 2022, several times actually and she wrote back, twice, but to no avail ...I begged her to use her humanity and not their "real possibility test",
I lay out all the rock solid reasons why this case should be given the chance of going back before the CofA and explain just how many experts all agree there is MASSIVE doubt over this conviction, (There is male DNA,but none of Robin`s!) and e v e r y single person who has looked into this case agrees it MUST go back to the CofA, everyone that is EXCEPT the CCRC! Here is a small quote from my first letter to her-
"So, the burning question is: how come the end of the line decision makers, the gatekeepers of the only route back to the Court of Appeal, don`t see what we all see and what ALL the experts see?!" That, "in a nutshell" is what is wrong with the "real possibility test". It is a subjective call made by gatekeepers. It is a vague meaningless term open to subjective interpretation.
Nobody is suggesting that cases with no real possibility of being overturned should be referred back. That is a straw man argument.
Full article below;
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/open-email-from-jane-metcalfe-to-shabana-mahmood-robin-garbutt-and-the-reform-or-abolition-of-the-r
