Missing crime scene photograph 101...
Extracts taken from the failed 2002 appeal hearing:-
R V JEREMY BAMBER
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 Case No: 20011745 S1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) REFERENCE BY THE CRIMINAL CASE REVIEW COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1995
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 12th December 2002
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KAY MR JUSTICE WRIGHT and MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES ____________________ Between: R Respondent - and -
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER Appellant
____________________
Mr M. Turner QC and Mr M Duck instructed for the Appellant Mr Victor Temple QC, Mr J Laidlaw and Ms A. Darlow instructed for the Respondent Hearing dates : 17th October 2002 to 1st November 2002 ____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT : APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS) ____________________
Crown Copyright ©
---------------------------
Photograph 101 - "I HATE THIS FUCKING PLACE"...
393. On the 16 April 1986 Messrs Kingsley Napley wrote to the DPP asking for a full set of photographs taken at the farm. By letter dated 18 April 1986 they were told that the only complete set of photographs was held by the police. On the 8 July 1986 Messrs Kingsley Napley wrote to say, "we and Counsel have now taken the opportunity to consider the "master bundle" of photographs". On the 23 September they wrote asking for 2 sets of 25 specific photographs contained within the master bundle. The numbers proximate to photograph 101 were 65, 66, 107, 108, 109.
394. We are asked to deduce that photograph 101 must have been removed from the bundle when the "master bundle" was shown to the defence team. The submission is that this was a deliberate act of withholding evidence motivated by an improper purpose namely to prevent the defence seeing evidence capable of assisting them. We unhesitatingly reject that submission. The photographs in the master bundle were numbered sequentially. Had photograph 101 been removed its absence would necessarily have been obvious to the defence team as Mr Terzeon, the appellant's solicitor at trial, conceded in cross-examination before us. It is obvious from the terms of Kingsley Napley's letter of the 23 September 1986 that the "master bundle" was scrutinised with great care and we are quite sure that if number 101 had been missing its absence would have been noted by the defence team. We have examined the "master bundle" which bears the reference number A124/85 and is date stamped 25 September 1985. It contains photograph 101 and we dismiss as fanciful the suggestion that the photograph was removed for the purposes of deliberate non-disclosure. We are not altogether surprised that the defence team sixteen years after the event are not able to remember each and every photograph in a bundle containing 215 photographs. Further the defence team visited the farmhouse on 4 occasions and had every opportunity to see the carving themselves.
395. The suggestion that a corrupt police officer might see this photograph as having such a significance as to be motivated to withhold it is another of the submissions made to us that does not seem to us to have any relationship to reality. The prosecution had disclosed a great deal of material that clearly demonstrated Sheila Caffell's disturbed state of mind. The idea that this relatively unimportant additional fact might be thought so significant as to merit the taking of measures to conceal it is manifestly wrong. Any such officer would appreciate that removal of one of a numbered series of photographs would almost inevitably be commented on and would know that the carving was still in place to be seen by anyone who visited the farmhouse as inevitably the defence team would.
396. We are quite satisfied that the photograph was disclosed and that by reason of its minimal relevance has been forgotten. Further it is inconceivable that even in the event of non-disclosure the safeness of the conviction is adversely affected. Even if authorship of the carving could be established, and we were of the opinion that Sheila Caffell is the most likely author, we are unable to see that any issue in the trial would be materially affected. The carving could not be dated and we cannot see that even if written by Sheila Caffell any different picture of her state of mind would have emerged.
