Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on January 18, 2012, 12:00:PM
-
With the clock now ticking faster than the one at 1985 Witham police station... I'd like to ask you both the following...
(1) Without giving too much away, is it possible to get a cautious assessment from you both regarding the state of play?
(2) If Jeremy is not afforded an opportunity to overturn his convictions via appeal, as a result of these final submissions to the CCRC... where to next?
(3) If an appeal is granted, is there any way (this time) that the appeals process can be rigged, manipulated or influenced, by any agency seeking to impede the convictions from being overturned?
-
With the clock now ticking faster than the one at 1985 Witham police station... I'd like to ask you both the following...
(1) Without giving too much away, is it possible to get a cautious assessment from you both regarding the state of play?
(2) If Jeremy is not afforded an opportunity to overturn his convictions via appeal, as a result of these final submissions to the CCRC... where to next?
(3) If an appeal is granted, is there any way (this time) that the appeals process can be rigged, manipulated or influenced, by any agency seeking to impede the convictions from being overturned?
David - I will do my best to answer your questions.
1) Significant progress has been made since Simon McKay became Jeremy's solicitor. New expert evidence is being obtained which will be a key part of the submissions to be made to the CCRC by the end of this month. I now believe that Jeremy has good prospects of his case being referred to the Court of Appeal.
2) If the CCRC's final decision is not to refer the case, other options will be considered. One such option would be proceedings for Judicial Review of the CCRC's decisions, partly in relation to the exercise of their Section 17 powers to obtain evidence and also in relation to their final decision itself. It would not be the end of the road for Jeremy but he would have a tough battle. He really needs to win the referral.
3) If the case is referred to the Court of Appeal the prosecution (essentially the DPP rather than Essex Police) will have to decide whether or not to oppose the appeal. If they do not oppose it the result should be a formality. If they oppose it they will have to counter, with their own expert evidence where appropriate, each of the grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of Jeremy. The appeal process cannot be rigged as such but much depends upon the judges allocated to the case.
-
Neil, thanks for your responses.
1) Significant progress has been made since Simon McKay became Jeremy's solicitor. New expert evidence is being obtained which will be a key part of the submissions to be made to the CCRC by the end of this month. I now believe that Jeremy has good prospects of his case being referred to the Court of Appeal.
In my view, it's a disgrace that this work has had to be carried out around the CCRC's pathetic dithering regarding obtaining the documents requested by Jeremy and the FSS. Do you think we would be allowed to reveal any of the response by the CCRC on this forum, in relation one of Jeremy's requests?
The appeal process cannot be rigged as such but much depends upon the judges allocated to the case.
Neil that does worry me. Not wishing to preempt a decision either way regarding the likely success of these final submissions, could you please still provide some info on exactly how judges are selected for particular cases? Do you have any concerns about any kind of external influence in to this process?
-
Neil, thanks for your responses.
In my view, it's a disgrace that this work has had to be carried out around the CCRC's pathetic dithering regarding obtaining the documents requested by Jeremy and the FSS. Do you think we would be allowed to reveal any of the response by the CCRC on this forum, in relation one of Jeremy's requests?
You can get my response to it any day.
-
Neil, thanks for your responses.
In my view, it's a disgrace that this work has had to be carried out around the CCRC's pathetic dithering regarding obtaining the documents requested by Jeremy and the FSS. Do you think we would be allowed to reveal any of the response by the CCRC on this forum, in relation one of Jeremy's requests?
Jeremy's official website and blog has dealt with the difficulties and obstruction the defence have experienced. The most recent example is the originals of the event logs, requested by the defence to enable scientific examination to be made of them. It beats me why the CCRC would drag their feet on something like this.
Neil that does worry me. Not wishing to preempt a decision either way regarding the likely success of these final submissions, could you please still provide some info on exactly how judges are selected for particular cases? Do you have any concerns about any kind of external influence in to this process?
The judges are meant to be selected for a particular case from the available pool based solely upon administrative convenience. There should not be any influence on this choice, for example by the prosecution to secure a more "pro police" bench of judges. I have little doubt however that this does happen, with subtle influences brought to bear. The judges selected can make a difference, but if the appeal points are strong enough even a pro prosecution bench will feel forced to allow the appeal.
-
Thanks, for providing your opinions Neil. I have pm'd you about a related matter.
-
Neil, can I ask, if the CCRC decide to refer the case, I take it that means there would be a re trial?
-
The judges are meant to be selected for a particular case from the available pool based solely upon administrative convenience. There should not be any influence on this choice, for example by the prosecution to secure a more "pro police" bench of judges. I have little doubt however that this does happen, with subtle influences brought to bear. The judges selected can make a difference, but if the appeal points are strong enough even a pro prosecution bench will feel forced to allow the appeal.
Of course it happens and in all walks of life................. Look at Tony Blair and the selection of persons leading the first enquiry into the Iraq war. No establishment is going to willingly and easily expose its own corruptions and shortfalls.
-
Neil, can I ask, if the CCRC decide to refer the case, I take it that means there would be a re trial?
If an appeal against conviction is allowed by the Court of Appeal, either a retrial is ordered or verdicts of not guilty are recorded without a retrial. In this case although a retrial is possible (and is what Jeremy has said he would like), in my view it is very unlikely. After over 26 years many witnesses would no longer be available and some key exhibits have been destroyed. I therefore believe that if the Court of Appeal overturn the convictions Jeremy will be released immediately without a criminal record.
-
Neil, can I ask, if the CCRC decide to refer the case, I take it that means there would be a re trial?
No, all that would happen is that it would go to the Court of Appeal where the defence can put their arguments forward. The appeal Judges could order a retrial, but it is debatable whether the Crown would actually contest. If a retrial was ordered I think it is likely that the conviction would simply be quashed.
I typed this before NGB replied above.
-
No, all that would happen is that it would go to the Court of Appeal where the defence can put their arguments forward. The appeal Judges could order a retrial, but it is debatable whether the Crown would actually contest. If a retrial was ordered I think it is likely that the conviction would simply be quashed.
I typed this before NGB replied above.
Hartley, what makes you think a re-trial would result in quashing of the convictions?
-
Hartley, what makes you think a re-trial would result in quashing of the convictions?
Well I've probably used the wrong terminology, but for the same reasons that NGB has given above, which he indicates that Jeremy would likely be released rather than sent for a retrial.
-
Well I've probably used the wrong terminology, but for the same reasons that NGB has given above, which he indicates that Jeremy would likely be released rather than sent for a retrial.
For a moment there, I thought you were going to talk us through a win for JB via re-trial :D
-
For a moment there, I thought you were going to talk us through a win for JB via re-trial :D
With Hartley as defence counsel! ;D
-
With Hartley as defence counsel! ;D
That would be a sight indeed. The funny thing is... I would expect him to pull it off.
-
With Hartley as defence counsel! ;D
Neil, have you ever defended someone you believed to be guilty?
-
Neil, have you ever defended someone you believed to be guilty?
The short answer is yes, but that needs some explanation. I imagine you are referring to defendants who plead not guilty. A significant proportion of defendants plead guilty and defence counsel's role is then to present a plea in mitigation, i.e. to present to the court the facts and evidence that support a more lenient sentence.
With those defendants who plead not guilty counsel's job is to challenge the prosecution evidence based upon the client's instructions, and then to present the defence case. It is not for counsel to form a view of the guilt or innocence of his client; anyone is entitled to have the case against him tested and to have his own evidence presented properly. It is then for the jury to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
You have to remember that barristers, unlike solicitors, do not pick and choose their clients. A barrister is obliged to accept a brief if he is available and the case is within his area of expertise.
-
If leave to appeal is granted, Simon Mckay, would then need to instruct a barrister with appropriate expertise.
-
If leave to appeal is granted, Simon Mckay, would then need to instruct a barrister with appropriate expertise.
If the CCRC do refer the case legal aid will be granted and that will cover two barristers as well as Simon McKay. It would also cover the cost of expert witnesses.
-
You have to remember that barristers, unlike solicitors, do not pick and choose their clients. A barrister is obliged to accept a brief if he is available and the case is within his area of expertise.
Is the only time that the above would be incorrect, if instruction came directly from a member of the public rather than certain professionals?
-
Is the only time that the above would be incorrect, if instruction came directly from a member of the public rather than certain professionals?
It used to be the case that a barrister could only accept instructions through a solicitor. That has been progressively relaxed, initially allowing other professionals (e.g. accountants) to instruct in certain circumstances and currently allowing much wider direct access. I am not up to speed on the current direct access rules but I think it is unlikely that it is possible to instruct counsel directly in a criminal case. I am not sure if the "cab rank principle" applies in direct access cases - I seem to recall that a barrister has a discretion in any such case whether or not to accept instructions. The rules are probably on the Bar Council website.