still time for one last throw of the dice - before CCRC close case...

[mike tesko]

ìf Jeremy lodges a complaint about the way his application has been handled, the CCRC are duty bound to carry out an internal investigation, that could extend dead line for closing the case for up to two or three months...

[mertol22]

It will buy some time at best mike , the in between is something else.

[mike tesko]

It will buy some time at best mike , the in between is something else.

Every avenue needs to be exhausted to stand any chance of suceeding at judicial review..

[mertol22]

In 1997 the CCRC was set up , why were these silencer tests not done before that? jeremy could have been free by now.

[Roch]

Every avenue needs to be exhausted to stand any chance of suceeding at judicial review..

I don't think judicial review should be rushed.  In an ideal world, further tests should be carried out and further articles in the Guardian are needed for the defence to put across, what they were unable to do prior to the deadline imposed by the CCRC.  I believe another documentary is needed, possibly one which is wise to certain machinations / tactics by the opposition.  None of this can be done until the final response from the CCRC is studied in minute detail from all angles.  Quite a tall order.  In my opinion the system is dead set against a referral and so the defence will have to pull off something akin to Agincourt.

[mike tesko]

In 1997 the CCRC was set up , why were these silencer tests not done before that? jeremy could have been free by now.

Certain aspects of evidence were agreed before trial got under way...

[Bridget]

I don't think judicial review should be rushed.  In an ideal world, further tests should be carried out and further articles in the Guardian are needed for the defence to put across, what they were unable to do prior to the deadline imposed by the CCRC.  I believe another documentary is needed, possibly one which is wise to certain machinations / tactics by the opposition.  None of this can be done until the final response from the CCRC is studied in minute detail from all angles.  Quite a tall order.  In my opinion the system is dead set against a referral and so the defence will have to pull off something akin to Agincourt.

Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.

The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.

[Roch]

Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.

The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.

I understand the points you are making but there is a wider game at play here than mere due process, in my opinion.

[ngb1066]

Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.

The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.

I agree with you on this.  The focus now is on the application for JR of the CCRC's final decision.  That application can only be based upon the submissions already made, not upon any further material which has become or may become available to the defence.  If as a result of the JR application the CCRC are ordered to reconsider the application (which would be by different commissioners) and the CCRC then decide to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, further tests will then be carried out in order to strengthen the grounds of appeal.

[G]

Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.

The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.

Are you a lawyer Bridget? I see you know a few legal things.

[Bridget]

I agree with you on this.  The focus now is on the application for JR of the CCRC's final decision.  That application can only be based upon the submissions already made, not upon any further material which has become or may become available to the defence.  If as a result of the JR application the CCRC are ordered to reconsider the application (which would be by different commissioners) and the CCRC then decide to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, further tests will then be carried out in order to strengthen the grounds of appeal.

I've been meaning to ask you about that, surely the further tests are required to strengthen the submissions (i.e. to bolster the Arizona tests), otherwise the CCRC are still going to find them wanting. I don't think the CCRC are going to refer on a ground that does not yet have the weight to impress the Court of Appeal. What is the thinking behind waiting for a referral before undertaking the further tests? I appreciate the financial concerns, but that just seems back to front to me.

[ngb1066]

I've been meaning to ask you about that, surely the further tests are required to strengthen the submissions (i.e. to bolster the Arizona tests), otherwise the CCRC are still going to find them wanting. I don't think the CCRC are going to refer on a ground that does not yet have the weight to impress the Court of Appeal. What is the thinking behind waiting for a referral before undertaking the further tests? I appreciate the financial concerns, but that just seems back to front to me.

I understand the point you are making Bridget and to an extent I agree with it.  The problem is that the CCRC have now closed the case and if further tests are carried out and additional experts' reports are submitted to the CCRC there is no guarantee that they would reopen the case.  It is likely that they would treat the additional evidence submitted as a fresh application, which would have to take its turn in the queue of cases.  That could take a long time.  Simon McKay believes strongly that the final submissions presented to the CCRC on 31st January satisfy the statutory test for referal.  Upon this basis his judgement is that the best course is to stand on those final submissions and seek to overturn the CCRC decision by way of a JR application. 

[Bridget]

I understand the point you are making Bridget and to an extent I agree with it.  The problem is that the CCRC have now closed the case and if further tests are carried out and additional experts' reports are submitted to the CCRC there is no guarantee that they would reopen the case.  It is likely that they would treat the additional evidence submitted as a fresh application, which would have to take its turn in the queue of cases.  That could take a long time.  Simon McKay believes strongly that the final submissions presented to the CCRC on 31st January satisfy the statutory test for referal.  Upon this basis his judgement is that the best course is to stand on those final submissions and seek to overturn the CCRC decision by way of a JR application.

Well he's the one with all the information so is best placed to decide the stategy I suppose.

Was there a request for an extension to undertake the further tests, and was it declined? I seem to recall there was a request but can't remember what it was for.

[ngb1066]

Well he's the one with all the information so is best placed to decide the stategy I suppose.

Was there a request for an extension to undertake the further tests, and was it declined? I seem to recall there was a request but can't remember what it was for.

There was a request for further time which was initially refused at the beginning of December 2011.  The CCRC then relented under pressure from Simon McKay, but they only gave an extension until 31st January and they made it clear that this was the final deadline.

[Bridget]

There was a request for further time which was initially refused at the beginning of December 2011.  The CCRC then relented under pressure from Simon McKay, but they only gave an extension until 31st January and they made it clear that this was the final deadline.

From my admittedly uninformed stance i think I'd be challenging that decision as well  in case the statutory test ground failed. At least the CCRC would then have to accept the further reports as further, rather than new submissions. But as I said, he's best placed to decide.