If you need 1,000 pages (assuming they're A4) to convince others of something I would say those trying to do the convincing are on a hiding to nothing. It would appear they're going for quantity over quality! Throw enough shite at the wall in the hope that some will stick. The CoA judges in 2002 got thoroughly pi**ed off with this:
522. In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.
Exactly, following a referral from the CCRC in 2001 on one single ground, Bamber's lawyers submitted around 15 additional grounds which the Court of Appeal had to go through in detail.
Then between 2004 - 2011, Bamber's supporters submitted about 50 grounds to the CCRC and when this was finally rejected, they took this to the High Court for a judicial review (twice) and lost.
Then, the Campaign Team submit a 1,000+ dossier in March 2021 followed by two other submissions.
When this finally gets rejected, will Cambridge Cutie and David want to submit their own submissions?Will this go on forever?
Recent Posts
