Allegedly biased summing up by the judge

[Steve_uk]

Bamber was guilty, and there was no bias in the summing up.

That was the view of Lord Lane in 1989, Mr. Justice Caulfield having dismissed his application to appeal the previous year. I do think there may have been unconscious bias, to quote the woke jargon of the 21st century. It would also have helped the prosecution that Mr. Justice Drake was a former RAF pilot, as was Nevill.

[Rob_]

Bamber was guilty, and there was no bias in the summing up.

I was not referring to Drakes summing up, but his answer to the jury when they asked for clarification about the blood in the silencer during their deliberations. 20 minutes latter they convicted.

[Hardy Boy]

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

The application for leave to appeal 155. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his convictions on grounds drawn by those who represented him at trial. The grounds upon which leave was sought related to the judge's summing up, alleging (a) that he had inaccurately assessed significant aspects of the prosecution case and omitted to refer to crucial aspects of the defence case, and (b) that he had with persistence and strength expressed opinions adverse to the defence.

156. Following rejection of the grounds by the single judge, the matter was heard by the full court. The Court rejected the criticisms of the summing up and refused leave. Lord Lane, LCJ giving the judgment observed:

"What is sometimes overlooked is that a direction to the jury reflects the sort of case with which the Judge was dealing. A strong prosecution case will inevitably result in what may be strong comments. Exactly the same with a strong defence case, that may justify strong comments."

157. It seems clear from the judgment as a whole, that the Court were of the opinion that this was a strong prosecution case that merited the comments about which complaint was made. The court, therefore, rejected the proposed grounds and concluded that there was "nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction",

158. With one exception, none of the grounds raised before us relate in any way to the matters put before the court on the earlier occasion. The one exception relates to the fact that stories emanating from Julie Mugford had appeared in the press shortly after the trial. This was despite the fact that the prosecution had informed the defence, following discussion with the witness, that she had not sold her story to the press nor was it her intention so to do. One of the grounds relates to the same matter and we will deal with it further when we come to consider that ground. In every other respect, the application for leave to appeal has no relevance to the issues we have to determine.

Events after refusal of permission to appeal 159. At the trial, with justification, Drake J. was critical of the thoroughness of the police investigation in its early stages, when on the jury's verdicts, the police had too readily accepted that this was murder by Sheila Caffell and her subsequent suicide, when the true picture was very different. The Essex Police held an internal police inquiry to look into these criticisms. This was conducted by an officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson, who subsequently reported to his Chief Constable on the matter. It is alleged that that report reveals evidence that was suppressed by the police, or which, at the very least, was not known to the defence at trial.

[Hardy Boy]

Julie Mugford gave evidence to the jury about the visit to the bank. She said that she had gone to the bank to explain what had happened and she said that this was not on the advice of the police.

344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.

In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."

[Hardy Boy]

Freemason Justice Drake, wasn’t without controversy he had to stand down once in a trial because of his Mason links, he was also blamed for his summing up in the Bridgewater trial, by misleading the jury…… The judge's summing-up in the original trial of the four men accused of killing newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater was unbalanced, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

The judge, Mr Justice Drake, also "wrongly" told the jury that he had naturally formed his own views as to where the truth lay in the case, Patrick O'Connor QC, counsel for James Robinson, one of the accused, said.


So yes, I do think he would have been biased in the summing up in the  Bamber trial, the notion it was a strong prosecution case reflecting the comments he made doesn’t wash with me, it was a close call, this was shown by the Jury reaching the Majority verdict lowest threshold,  Julie Mugford should have been charged for the cheque book fraud and charged for her involvement and knowledge of the murders and drug abuse supplying drugs for Bamber.  She got off lightly in my view.

Rivlin should have really gone to Town on this woman in cross examination, if Bamber was guilty, she was as well in my view.


https://archive.org/stream/328735-mugford-charge-burglary-withdrawn/328735-mugford-charge-burglary-withdrawn_djvu.txt

[ngb1066]

Julie Mugford gave evidence to the jury about the visit to the bank. She said that she had gone to the bank to explain what had happened and she said that this was not on the advice of the police.

344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.

In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."

This is a problem for several reasons.  A relatively minor point is that Mugford was not in fact even given a police caution which would have been on her record and an admission of guilt.  She was given complete immunity on all charges on the authority of the DPP.  The much more important point is that Drake based this part of the summing up upon the evidence he had heard, but it was false in material respects.  The police instigated the approach to the bank and attended with Mugford.  They persuaded the bank not to press charges, contrary to their standard policy.  This gave the jury a much more favourable view of Mugford than was justified.  In addition, Mugford lied about her News of the World deal and the jury therefore did not know that she have a massive financial incentive for Jeremy Bamber to be convicted.

[Hardy Boy]

This is a problem for several reasons.  A relatively minor point is that Mugford was not in fact even given a police caution which would have been on her record and an admission of guilt.  She was given complete immunity on all charges on the authority of the DPP.  The much more important point is that Drake based this part of the summing up upon the evidence he had heard, but it was false in material respects.  The police instigated the approach to the bank and attended with Mugford.  They persuaded the bank not to press charges, contrary to their standard policy.  This gave the jury a much more favourable view of Mugford than was justified.  In addition, Mugford lied about her News of the World deal and the jury therefore did not know that she have a massive financial incentive for Jeremy Bamber to be convicted.

I can remember you saying about the Caution NGB, it’s a point I was going to raise for your opinion.   I totally agree about the Bank as well, without this agreement from the Bank Mugford  and Battersby would have had some sort of conviction.

[BarefootDanC]

I can remember you saying about the Caution NGB, it’s a point I was going to raise for your opinion.   I totally agree about the Bank as well, without this agreement from the Bank Mugford  and Battersby would have had some sort of conviction.

This was dealt with in the 2002 appeal.

[Roch]

It was a bloke from the legal profession who expressed it was biased. It's on the Theroux program.

[Hardy Boy]

This was dealt with in the 2002 appeal.

I know what was dealt with in the 2002 appeal Dan, I’ve read it enough times over the 15 years  I’ve been with the forum.  I still think Julie Mugford should have been charged, and today I think she would have been. She was as bad as Bamber, she knew what he planned to do,  she also knew what he had done,   but she chose to cover up for him. She helped him sell drugs and she helped him rob the caravan park, she also committed fraud with the cheque book saga, no one can tell me she was a little sweet innocent young manipulated girl, she was as evil as him.

[BarefootDanC]

I know what was dealt with in the 2002 appeal Dan, I’ve read it enough times over the 15 years  I’ve been with the forum.  I still think Julie Mugford should have been charged, and today I think she would have been. She was as bad as Bamber, she knew what he planned to do,  she also knew what he had done,   but she chose to cover up for him. She helped him sell drugs and she helped him rob the caravan park, she also committed fraud with the cheque book saga, no one can tell me she was a little sweet innocent young manipulated girl, she was as evil as him.

I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.

[Adam]

I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.

The cheque book fraud was discovered after she had completed her 8/9/85 WS. Of which she would have to testify on.

Don't believe her being charged would have effected the trial. Likely she would have got a caution.

SJ probably told the bank she was an inportant witness in a murder charge & would prefer it if she was not distracted by an unrelated crime.

The bank agreed not to press charges providing the money was paid back.

[Adam]

Doubt Julie knew anything about the caravan break in until Bamber drove her there and told her to be a look out.

Bamber didn't know it was going ahead until an unexpected opportunity arose a few hours earlier. After persuading Nevill to leave a larger than usual amount of money there.

He would have gone ahead with or without Julie.

[ILB]

Drake did give a speech after the guilty verdict - 'evil almost beyond belief' etc.  That is what they always do before giving the sentence.

Wilkes's book does not say Drake said he agreed with the jury.

Its in CALs book.

[ILB]

I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.

Would have been interesting had Jeremy confessed.