Its normal for police to put someone in the frame...

[bb2010]

What you have to do, is gather up all the available evidence, about the silencer, and apply to the high court, for a Writ of Habeous Corpus - which means in legal jargon, "give us the body", which should secure the relevant parts of the original file, SC/688/85, necessary to prove or establish that the silencer was not found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, because no record exists in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove it...

The way forward more likely is a Judicial Review of the CCRC decision (if it is not in Jeremy's favour).
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/documents/JUDICIAL_REVIEW_OF_THE_COMMISSION_S_DECISIONS.pdf

Edit: In my opinion.

[mb1]

It is not normal, to have a second file, into which any evidence, or information, or photographs, that the police, or the DPP, do not want a defendant to see, or to know about, where the intentiion is not to disclose any of it...

It is procedure to create a new file if different charges are applied.

If a person is seriously assaulted, the investigating officers open a file.
If the person subsequently died from their injuries, a new case file would be started. And yes, officers do use it as an opportunity to sort out the wheat from the chaff. 

[mike tesko]

It is not normal, to have a second file, into which any evidence, or information, or photographs, that the police, or the DPP, do not want a defendant to see, or to know about, where the intentiion is not to disclose any of it...

It is procedure to create a new file if different charges are applied.

If a person is seriously assaulted, the investigating officers open a file.
If the person subsequently died from their injuries, a new case file would be started. And yes, officers do use it as an opportunity to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

------------------------------------------

But the rules of evidence state that where a witness statement is edited, the original should be made available to show which parts have been edited out...

If you have original statements contained in one file, and the edited versions in another, it allows the police and the CPS to withhold the original version of a statement, so that the edited version appears to be the original - which amounts to a deception...

This practice is not lawful...

In my opinion...

[mb1]

It is not normal, to have a second file, into which any evidence, or information, or photographs, that the police, or the DPP, do not want a defendant to see, or to know about, where the intentiion is not to disclose any of it...

It is procedure to create a new file if different charges are applied.

If a person is seriously assaulted, the investigating officers open a file.
If the person subsequently died from their injuries, a new case file would be started. And yes, officers do use it as an opportunity to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

------------------------------------------

But the rules of evidence state that where a witness statement is edited, the original should be made available to show which parts have been edited out...

If you have original statements contained in one file, and the edited versions in another, it allows the police and the CPS to withhold the original version of a statement, so that the edited version appears to be the original - which amounts to a deception...

This practice is not lawful...

In my opinion...

When I said wheat from chaff, I meant that at that stage they remove 'irrelevancies' if they are in a position to begin streamlining the focus of the enquiry.

[mike tesko]

It is not normal, to have a second file, into which any evidence, or information, or photographs, that the police, or the DPP, do not want a defendant to see, or to know about, where the intentiion is not to disclose any of it...

It is procedure to create a new file if different charges are applied.

If a person is seriously assaulted, the investigating officers open a file.
If the person subsequently died from their injuries, a new case file would be started. And yes, officers do use it as an opportunity to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

------------------------------------------

But the rules of evidence state that where a witness statement is edited, the original should be made available to show which parts have been edited out...

If you have original statements contained in one file, and the edited versions in another, it allows the police and the CPS to withhold the original version of a statement, so that the edited version appears to be the original - which amounts to a deception...

This practice is not lawful...

In my opinion...

When I said wheat from chaff, I meant that at that stage they remove 'irrelevancies' if they are in a position to begin streamlining the focus of the enquiry.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I understood what you meant, but this process normally takes place within the file, and some material might not be disclosed under say pii rules, for obvious reasons to do with national security, or the detection of serious crime, and to protect informants, but to name a few reasons, etc...

But when the edited material is in one file, and the original documents are in another, that is not to be disclosed, I think it amounts to an abuse of process, and which could lead to a mistake being made at court...

[Reader]

SC/688/85 - the original file, in existence from 7th August 1985, to 6th September 1985. This file contains no information at all, about alleged find of silencer in gun cupboard on 10th August 1985...

Since the old file hasn't been disclosed, how do you know that's so?

[mike tesko]

SC/688/85 - the original file, in existence from 7th August 1985, to 6th September 1985. This file contains no information at all, about alleged find of silencer in gun cupboard on 10th August 1985...

Since the old file hasn't been disclosed, how do you know that's so?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because there is no record, dated, pre:- 11th September 1985, to indicate, or show that the silencer (DRB/1)  was found in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, prior to 11th September 1985...

A silencer could not have been sent to the Lab' and accepted, if there had not been a report of the alleged find before 13th August 1985. Furthermore, the Lab' would have rejected any silencer that arrived there, if it was not correctly packaged, and bagged...

There is no Independent police record to show that a silencer found by the relatives in the gun cupboard was ever in the possession of Essex police, before 11th September 1985, and by that stage the new file (SC/786/85) had already been created, into which was placed, that silencer evidence...