Bambers Legal Team Also Representing Vinter & Moore

[Jackiepreece]

From what I understand, certain interested parties were allegedly more concerned about the Whole Life Tariff issue than they were about an appeal, as they felt to some extent the appeals process was still in the pocket of the authorities.

Rochy why don't you share who the interested parties are with us?

Lately you appear to contact the official campaign team and they feed you whatever and then send you trotting back here like a tame poodle  with cryptic messages

Please do not believe all you are told it is better you trust your own judgement instead of what people decide they want to feed you

What do you think is going to happen with JB s refferal?

[Hartley]

From what I understand, certain interested parties were allegedly more concerned about the Whole Life Tariff issue than they were about an appeal, as they felt to some extent the appeals process was still in the pocket of the authorities.

Strangely enough I would say it's the other way around, more concern would be given to the application to the CCRC. Basically because even if the ECHR came back in favour of Jeremy, it would actually make little difference to his chances of being released any time soon.

[ngb1066]

Strangely enough I would say it's the other way around, more concern would be given to the application to the CCRC. Basically because even if the ECHR came back in favour of Jeremy, it would actually make little difference to his chances of being released any time soon.

This is a rare occasion where I agree with you Hartley.  The CCRC application has always been far more important to Jeremy than the ECHR application.

[grahameb]

Huh, nobody is saying it has anything to do with guilt or innocence, only a fool could be confused by it. I'm just genuinely surprised that the same legal team would act for all parties, it's probably more to do with sharing the cost than anything else.

You seriously need to stop seeing some sort of conspiracy everywhere you look. 

The question of course is why are you surprised?

[Hartley]

How about, because some of us feel we practically live with you, Hartley? As fellow campers here, we're forced to know you so well. Every silly shout of, "I rest my case!", every nuance of your over emoticonned being exudes barely suppressed pleasure at the prospect of Jeremy being denied justice.

How does that song go...?

Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
We've been watching you.

Well that's the thing Chocho, you just come across as being very bitter and confrontational for no particular reason. Fair enough if I was somehow gloating or expressing joy at a particular decision or revelation, but I'm clearly not, so I think that simply highlights elements of your own character.

Every silly shout of 'I rest my case' ? You are clearly on another planet, I've used that particular phrase on a single occasion over the last 12 months (on 19/10/11).

 

You also appear to be somehow making a derisory comment about the amount of time I have been on the forum. Any mirrors in your house? 

You really are a very bitter person and madder than a box of frogs on a hot tin roof. 

Emoticonned being? You are surely making words up now. 

[grahameb]

Result is - whole life tariff is legal.

Legal but unjust if the sentence has already been decided.

[Hartley]

The question of course is why are you surprised?

You've lost me, surprised about what? The same legal team for all three, well because I just haven't heard it revealed before, even when I've asked the direct question of why they are all grouped together in the past.

That's all.

[ngb1066]

You've lost me, surprised about what? The same legal team for all three, well because I just haven't heard it revealed before, even when I've asked the direct question of why they are all grouped together in the past.

That's all.

The same legal team acted for all three because the same legal issue arose in each case.  It is not uncommon for this to happen.

[Hartley]

The same legal team acted for all three because the same legal issue arose in each case.  It is not uncommon for this to happen.

Yes I understand that.

Read my post in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1693.msg52001.html#msg52001
And you will see that it has genuinely perplexed me for some time.

[Newbury1]

Now the Home Secretary no longer has the power to impose full life tarriffs, who has?

Is it just the judge that can do this?

[Hartley]

Now the Home Secretary no longer has the power to impose full life tarriffs, who has?

Is it just the judge that can do this?

Yes, since 2002. Decision rests with the High Court rather than the Home Secretary.

[Hartley]

Yes, since 2002. Decision rests with the High Court rather than the Home Secretary.

The document in this thread may be worth a read regarding the sentences:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,808.msg21294.html#msg21294

[Hartley]

The document in this thread may be worth a read regarding the sentences:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,808.msg21294.html#msg21294

It should be noted that in the document linked to above, it indicates that different legal teams were representing each of the applicants at that time.

[ngb1066]

Yes I understand that.

Read my post in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1693.msg52001.html#msg52001
And you will see that it has genuinely perplexed me for some time.

Sometimes legal representation is shared for cost reasons.  In other cases the court indicates that it wishes to hear several cases together as they each raise the same point of law.  That happens in the UK courts as well as in the ECHR.

[Hartley]

Sometimes legal representation is shared for cost reasons.  In other cases the court indicates that it wishes to hear several cases together as they each raise the same point of law.  That happens in the UK courts as well as in the ECHR.

See my post above, they all had different representatives at one stage.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand it a little bit better.