1989 Appeal Judgment

[David1819]

Does anyone have the appeal judgment from Bambers 1989 appeal? I have never been able to find it.


I have only seen the 2002 appeal

[scipio_usmc]

It used to be online I read it a year ago. I don't know what site had it.  It had nothing all that significant though.

[Steve_uk]

Does anyone have the appeal judgment from Bambers 1989 appeal? I have never been able to find it.


I have only seen the 2002 appeal

Yes it is strange there's almost no reference to it. 

Leave to appeal refused,1989 and 1994

He first sought leave to appeal in June 1987, arguing that the judge's summing up had omitted material important to the defence and that the judge had himself expressed strong views. It was heard and dismissed by a single judge, and then heard again by a full court, and leave to appeal was refused on 20 March 1989 by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane.

Because of the criticism of the police investigation by the trial judge, Essex police held an internal inquiry, conducted by Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson. Bamber alleged this report confirmed that evidence had been suppressed by the police, so he made a formal complaint, which was investigated in 1991 by the City of London Police at the request of the Home Office. This process uncovered more documentation, which Bamber used to petition the Home Secretary in September 1993 for a referral back to the Court of Appeal, which was refused in July 1994. During this process, the Home Office had declined to give Bamber expert evidence that it had obtained, and so Bamber applied for judicial review of that decision in November 1994; this resulted in the Home Office handing over its expert evidence, but at that point Bamber made no further petition. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without informing Bamber or his lawyers. The officer who did it said he had not been aware that the case was on-going.

[Adam]

Jeremy's a trier.

Has there ever been a prisoner that had fought so hard to reverse a guilty verdict. Unsuccessfully ?

[scipio_usmc]

Yes it is strange there's almost no reference to it. 

Leave to appeal refused,1989 and 1994

He first sought leave to appeal in June 1987, arguing that the judge's summing up had omitted material important to the defence and that the judge had himself expressed strong views. It was heard and dismissed by a single judge, and then heard again by a full court, and leave to appeal was refused on 20 March 1989 by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane.

Because of the criticism of the police investigation by the trial judge, Essex police held an internal inquiry, conducted by Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson. Bamber alleged this report confirmed that evidence had been suppressed by the police, so he made a formal complaint, which was investigated in 1991 by the City of London Police at the request of the Home Office. This process uncovered more documentation, which Bamber used to petition the Home Secretary in September 1993 for a referral back to the Court of Appeal, which was refused in July 1994. During this process, the Home Office had declined to give Bamber expert evidence that it had obtained, and so Bamber applied for judicial review of that decision in November 1994; this resulted in the Home Office handing over its expert evidence, but at that point Bamber made no further petition. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without informing Bamber or his lawyers. The officer who did it said he had not been aware that the case was on-going.

Not strange really the online court files only go back to 1996.  I never saw anything from 1994 but a non legal website did have the 1989 one posted.  I don't remember where I saw it there was nothing of much interest.  It complained about Julie's NOTW deal  (the court said they had no proof that she signed the deal before she testified) and I recall complaints that the Judge didn't properly summarize the expert trial testimony which were rejected.  Other claims were of similar ilk I can't specifically recall them. It didn't seem very noteworthy so I didn't bother copying the link and it is far too long now to recall where I used to read a lot of pro Bamber sites at first to try to understand the pro Jeremy arguments.

It might have been Sleuthing for Justice but their files have since been scrubbed of the Bamber case.

It doesn't really offer much for Jeremy supporters so there is little reason for them to post it. The Julie claims are made without a need to reference the rejection.

[David1819]

Yes it is strange there's almost no reference to it. 

Leave to appeal refused,1989 and 1994

He first sought leave to appeal in June 1987, arguing that the judge's summing up had omitted material important to the defence and that the judge had himself expressed strong views. It was heard and dismissed by a single judge, and then heard again by a full court, and leave to appeal was refused on 20 March 1989 by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane.

Because of the criticism of the police investigation by the trial judge, Essex police held an internal inquiry, conducted by Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson. Bamber alleged this report confirmed that evidence had been suppressed by the police, so he made a formal complaint, which was investigated in 1991 by the City of London Police at the request of the Home Office. This process uncovered more documentation, which Bamber used to petition the Home Secretary in September 1993 for a referral back to the Court of Appeal, which was refused in July 1994. During this process, the Home Office had declined to give Bamber expert evidence that it had obtained, and so Bamber applied for judicial review of that decision in November 1994; this resulted in the Home Office handing over its expert evidence, but at that point Bamber made no further petition. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without informing Bamber or his lawyers. The officer who did it said he had not been aware that the case was on-going.

I have read what you have posted thanks, I wonder why its hardly mentioned or seen? I can access the 2002 appeal easily

[Steve_uk]

I have read what you have posted thanks, I wonder why its hardly mentioned or seen? I can access the 2002 appeal easily

I know. The suspicion will be that the arguments contained therein were unconvincing and they had to do a better job in 2002.

[jaymo132]

Jeremy's a trier.

Has there ever been a prisoner that had fought so hard to reverse a guilty verdict. Unsuccessfully ?

The Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4  fought for 17 and 15 years respectively. They were unsuccessful till the day of their release. But due to the perseverance of M.P Chris Mullin and Lawyer Gareth Pierce, discrepancies and mistakes were found and the cases crumbled.
Keep searching Mike

[Adam]

The Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4  fought for 17 and 15 years respectively. They were unsuccessful till the day of their release. But due to the perseverance of M.P Chris Mullin and Lawyer Gareth Pierce, discrepancies and mistakes were found and the cases crumbled.
Keep searching Mike

I have no doubt that Mike will keep searching.
 

[scipio_usmc]

I know. The suspicion will be that the arguments contained therein were unconvincing and they had to do a better job in 2002.

The court archives only post cases as far back as 1996.  That is why there is nothing earlier from the Bamber case- there is nothing earlier for any case.  Since the 1989 appeal was rejected there is little value for Jeremy supporters to actually go through the effort of obtaining a copy to post.  They rarely post copies of any documents anyway they simply claim something is contained in a document and leave it to others to try to find the documents to see if their claims hold up.

They haven't posted the latest unfavorable CCRC decisions why would anyone expect them to post the previous unfavorable rulings?  Someone did post the 1989 but there was nothing of any real interest in it so no one is missing anything.  The arguments were all over what people call "technicalities" and they all were all simply allegations. The most notable being the allegation Julie arranged to sell her story before she testified though they could not provide any evidence to prove it. they wanted to question her about it so they could try to suggest to the jury she made up the story to police in order to sell this mad eup story for money.

Naturally this is nonsense, she didn't make up the story with the intention of selling it to the press. Their speculation was described as such and rejected.  They tried arguing the prosecution intentionally withheld evidence that she signed a deal in order to prevent the defense from pursing this line of inquiry.  They had no proof she signed the deal prior to her testimony even let alone that anyone lied.

The other claims were mundane like claiming the judge didn't correctly summarize the expert testimony but such efforts fell flat as well.