CCRC Power to Obtain Documents

[Paul]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/17

[tut tut]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/17

True, all documents and photos under the PII can been seen by the CCRC so there is no cover up as some like to put it.

good point!!

[Roch]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/17

True, all documents and photos under the PII can been seen by the CCRC so there is no cover up as some like to put it.

good point!!

So we keep hearing.  But in my experience of how different departments work in this country, the 'British' way of doing things is to be tactful when discussing partner agencies, departments, external services etc..  "Essex Police are cooperating".  It's a neat little, bland statement.  There could be raging arguments going on behind that statement.  CCRC or EP are not going to announce that they have had raging arguments are they?  NO.  Stick to the official, tactful line.  Dont air any dirty washing in public.  If senior elements of an organisation like EP had a vested interest in hiding something, then that something may have already vanished, perhaps long ago.  It may have not.  I'm not stating facts here, simply a view. 

[tut tut]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/17

True, all documents and photos under the PII can been seen by the CCRC so there is no cover up as some like to put it.

good point!!

So we keep hearing.  But in my experience of how different departments work in this country, the 'British' way of doing things is to be tactful when discussing partner agencies, departments, external services etc..  "Essex Police are cooperating".  It's a neat little, bland statement.  There could be raging arguments going on behind that statement.  CCRC or EP are not going to announce that they have had raging arguments are they?  NO.  Stick to the official, tactful line.  Dont air any dirty washing in public.  If senior elements of an organisation like EP had a vested interest in hiding something, then that something may have already vanished, perhaps long ago.  It may have not.  I'm not stating facts here, simply a view.

So it should all be on the lines of cooperating, where has Bambers blurting out to the Public got him, like voices in building etc when all this was explained in the 2002 enquiry, why try and make something out of nothing? Only makes you look desperate. Do you have any evidence of any raging arguments, if so show them?

[Roch]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/17

True, all documents and photos under the PII can been seen by the CCRC so there is no cover up as some like to put it.

good point!!

I have no evidence and dont pretend to have any.  I'm merely suggesting that tact and diplomacy are given a lot of weight in this country between services / authorities etc.  However, unless Bamber's legal team are able to misuse or misrepresent the involvement in his case of the Freedom of Information Ombudsman, then EP's willingness to cooperate doesn't appear to be that willing.  The CCRC can have all the powers it likes, 'cooperation' in this case requires the willingness of EP to cooperate.  Not appear to cooperate.  Not officially cooperate.  But fully cooperate.

What also puzzles me is, if there's nothing controversial in PII stuff which could aid in proving Bamber's innocence then why attempt to withhold it from his defence team in the first place?  If the PII stuff only contains info which would undermine public confidence in the police but doesn't warrent any importance re Bamber's appeal then i suppose that could be the answer.  But why is a renouned photographic expert suggesting that 211 photographs are missing? What could 211 photographs have to do with undermining public confidence in the police?

Bamber's actions could be interpreted as somebody trying to piece together what happened.

[Paul]

A good post RDP. I have no argument with the PII stuff - no idea/justification for withholding from the defence.

As for the EP co-operation, whatever form that has taken it seems to be enough to persuade the CCRC commissioners to issue their provisional decision not to refer, so EP must have provided 'adequate' co-operation (whatever that means) to deal with Bamber's 50 or so reasons.

[Roch]

A good post RDP. I have no argument with the PII stuff - no idea/justification for withholding from the defence.

As for the EP co-operation, whatever form that has taken it seems to be enough to persuade the CCRC commissioners to issue their provisional decision not to refer, so EP must have provided 'adequate' co-operation (whatever that means) to deal with Bamber's 50 or so reasons.

Thanks Paul,  I'm no expert on CCRC or their legal processes.  I understand they are a small team and cannot get my head around how they could possibly cope with the sheer volume of work that must be fed to them.  Bamber's submission seemed to take an eternity to process.  I'm aware that Mike T and Bamber's defence team are not in agreement on certain things.  And that the allegations of subterfuge and decpetion on the part of Essex Police seem to come from Mike T.  If I take that line of approach, paranoid and far-fetched as it may seem to many, I just wonder whether EP have been given enough time and space to somehow out-manouvre the CCRC?

I wonder also, when I read about alleged, different sized and different weighted amunition, what on earth is going on here?  Could there be something which just cant be let out of the bag at any cost? 

[Paul]

I wonder also, when I read about alleged, different sized and different weighted amunition, what on earth is going on here?  Could there be something which just cant be let out of the bag at any cost? 

If Mike knows about the ammunition and has for some time, then so must Jeremy and his team and surely they must have submitted this to the CCRC, if they have then there must be some kind of response. If they haven't submitted it, then why not? I understand what you mean RDP, it is a bit of a glarer either way - if the inconsistencies are there then it should be part of the CCRC submission.