Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on November 16, 2021, 12:17:PM
-
Three new Commissioners have been appointed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Zahra Ahmed, Joanne Fazakerley, and Nicola Cockburn have been named as the latest additions to the team – and were three of over 700 people who applied. They are set to join the Commission this summer.21 May 2021
-
ZAHRA AHMED
Barrister
Barrister
Self Employed
King's College London, U. of London
London, England, United Kingdom Contact info
500+ connections
Connect
Message
More
Activity
2,830 followers
View Dionne S.’s profile
Dionne S. missing you too! Keep pushing forward
ZAHRA replied to a comment
View Dionne S.’s profile
Stay strong. Its likely that you are paving the way for change and you are being seen as a threat. Keep up the good work.
ZAHRA commented
Sally Challen defence QC leads domestic homicide review
ZAHRA shared this
1 Reaction
See all activity
See all activity
Experience
Self Employed
Barrister
Company NameSelf Employed
Dates EmployedOct 2018 – Present
Employment Duration3 yrs 2 mos
LocationLondon, England, United Kingdom
Barrister with specialist knowledge in regulatory, public law and crime.
Currently instructed by regulatory bodies in relation to public interest and professional disciplinary matters.
My practice covers the full spectrum of immigration law, including judicial review.
Currently instructed as Disclosure Counsel to the Serious Fraud Office.
Other current appointments: Criminal Cases Review Commission
Previous appointments: Junior Junior Counsel to a Public Inquiry (October 2018- October 2020)
-
Three new Commissioners have been appointed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Zahra Ahmed, Joanne Fazakerley, and Nicola Cockburn have been named as the latest additions to the team – and were three of over 700 people who applied. They are set to join the Commission this summer.21 May 2021
Bamber's case might not even be seen by a commissioner.
-
Supreme Court clarifies the duty of disclosure post-conviction
In a judgment given today the Supreme Court considered whether there was an obligation upon the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to provide evidential material not previously seen to convicted persons seeking to demonstrate innocence on appeal or by way of application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The High Court previously held when hearing this case in 2012, that there was a very narrow set of circumstances where the obligations would apply. Although the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, it today confirmed that there is a duty. Whilst it is a narrow one in order to preserve the finality of the conviction, it is far clearer, and will be easier to satisfy for those wrongfully convicted.
The Criminal Appeals Lawyers’ Association, Innocence Network UK and JUSTICE intervened in the case to highlight the importance of access to material in proving a miscarriage of justice. Our organisations were concerned that the earlier judgment of the High Court would have made it extremely difficult to obtain the evidence necessary to demonstrate innocence and have seen recent examples where applications for material have been refused in reliance upon it.
The Supreme Court has now held that post-conviction disclosure should occur in two ways:
(1) Where material comes to light that casts doubt upon the safety of the conviction, unless there is a good reason not to; and
(2) If there exists a real prospect that further enquiry will reveal something that may affect the safety of the conviction.
In particular, the Court said:
“The police and prosecutors ought to exercise sensible judgment when representations of this kind are made on behalf of convicted persons. If there appears to be a real prospect that further enquiry will uncover something which may affect the safety of the conviction, then there should be co-operation in making it. It is in nobody’s interests to resist all enquiry unless and until the CCRC directs it.” [at 41]
-
Bamber's case might not even be seen by a commissioner.
Says you !!
-
Says you !!
No, says the website !!
-
No, says the website !!
So you had to copy it ::) How childish.
-
So you had to copy it ::) How childish.
No I didn't copy it. You asked a question and I answered it.
-
So you had to copy it ::) How childish.
Lookout I would say that because the case has been highlighted on National TV so much recently I would say the case will be looked at closely by the decision makers considering the huge amount of money spent so far with applications and appeals
-
Lookout I would say that because the case has been highlighted on National TV so much recently I would say the case will be looked at closely by the decision makers considering the huge amount of money spent so far with applications and appeals
Jackie, go on TikTok to hear JB talking about JM. So true.
-
I am interested in 'lurking doubt' and the CCRC surely this would apply to Julie Mugford and the NOTW deal. I would be quite confident that the jury made the wrong decision for many reasons but especially because they were unaware of the deal Mugford made before trial and she did a 'Meghan Markle' and made out she couldnt remember when she did the deal
The CCRC
We must be able to show the appeal court some new information, that was used at the time of the conviction, or first appeal, and that might have changed the outcome of the case if the jury had known about it.
-
Lookout I would say that because the case has been highlighted on National TV so much recently I would say the case will be looked at closely by the decision makers considering the huge amount of money spent so far with applications and appeals
I doubt you had the attention span to listen to all four episodes so you might well have overlooked the fact that appeal court judge Justice Henriques put in an appearance. He said the more he and the other judges looked at Bamber's 2002 appeal the more convinced they were that the jury got it right. He also said the key point for him was the state of Sheila ie clean and free from injury vs Mr Bamber's injuries. He could not see how Sheila could overpower her father. If the review commission listened to the programme they might well have taken on board his comments.
-
I doubt you had the attention span to listen to all four episodes so you might well have overlooked the fact that appeal court judge Justice Henriques put in an appearance. He said the more he and the other judges looked at Bamber's 2002 appeal the more convinced they were that the jury got it right. He also said the key point for him was the state of Sheila ie clean and free from injury vs Mr Bamber's injuries. He could not see how Sheila could overpower her father. If the review commission listened to the programme they might well have taken on board his comments.
That will cut no ice with JackieD.
Julie committed minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby. A year before the massacre. Therefore he must be innocent.
-
That will cut no ice with JackieD.
Julie committed minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby. A year before the massacre. Therefore he must be innocent.
You honestly need the patience of a saint to deal with all the idiocy here.
-
You honestly need the patience of a saint to deal with all the idiocy here.
That's strange, because there was no idiocy until you came along.
-
You honestly need the patience of a saint to deal with all the idiocy here.
You have been sussed by everyone
Close the door on the way out 😊😊😊
-
You have been sussed by everyone
Close the door on the way out 😊😊😊
I'm sure with a resident lawyer on site the doors are fire approved and therefore self-closing ;D
-
You have been sussed by everyone
Close the door on the way out 😊😊😊
Who’s everyone?