Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: curiousessex on April 07, 2013, 10:53:AM
-
In Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano, Jeremy Bamber's then lawyer, admitted 'Nothing really substantively new' had been presented to the CCRC for Jeremy's CCRC application. As such and according to the CCRC guidelines for referral it would appear even Jeremy's lawyer at the time of submision was not surprised at the result of the initial provisional decision.
Since Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano has been charged and recently convicted on a number of counts of fraud and deception. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Giovanni Di Stefano had been successful in historically masterminding the overturning of a number of high profile convictions. Primarily, the overturning of these convictions appear to have been based on identifying some failures in the following of correct due process as opposed to any uncovering or presentation of new evidence.
Since Feb 2011 the CCRC had allowed Jeremy extended time to respond to their provisional decision whilst also allowing the submission of additional content for consideration - Pig skin burn marks etc.
Given Di Stefano's historical successes in exploiting failures in due process and his Feb 2011 admission that nothing substantially new was presented to the CCRC on behalf of Jeremy then maybe time is slowly revealing the CCRC were very lenient in giving Jeremy Bamber the benefit of the doubt when considering his application to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
Maybe there is no surprise the failure of Jeremy's CCRC submission was eventually followed by failure in the Judicial Review to overturn the CCRC decision.
-
Nothing substantially new, no. A man has spent the better part of his life in prison on very flimsy evidence, that is not new, he´s been at it for 28 years.
On that ground alone, the case should be reopened. The whole police misconduct, including the unlawful destruction of all physical evidence in 1996 - right around the time DNA evidence was gaining ground.
The way this case was handled was/is a sham through and through.
-
In Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano, Jeremy Bamber's then lawyer, admitted 'Nothing really substantively new' had been presented to the CCRC for Jeremy's CCRC application. As such and according to the CCRC guidelines for referral it would appear even Jeremy's lawyer at the time of submision was not surprised at the result of the initial provisional decision.
Since Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano has been charged and recently convicted on a number of counts of fraud and deception. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Giovanni Di Stefano had been successful in historically masterminding the overturning of a number of high profile convictions. Primarily, the overturning of these convictions appear to have been based on identifying some failures in the following of correct due process as opposed to any uncovering or presentation of new
evidence.
Since Feb 2011 the CCRC had allowed Jeremy extended time to respond to their provisional decision whilst also allowing the submission of additional content for consideration - Pig skin burn marks etc.
Given Di Stefano's historical successes in exploiting failures in due process and his Feb 2011 admission that nothing substantially new was presented to the CCRC on behalf of Jeremy then maybe time is slowly revealing the CCRC were very lenient in giving Jeremy Bamber the benefit of the doubt when considering his application to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
Maybe there is no surprise the failure of Jeremy's CCRC submission was eventually followed by failure in the Judicial Review to overturn the CCRC decision.
Hi Curiousessex
My personal view, for what it's worth, is that Jeremy was badly let down at trial. Geoffrey Rivlin QC chose to go down the route of the silencer being used and returned to the gun cupboard before Sheila shot herself :(. This, in my humble opinion, was a fatal mistake. I believe the jury should have been presented with the more likely scenario of the silencer not being used in the tragedy and having been contaminated, either innocently or deliberately. The jury then were misled into thinking that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's. They were unaware that the blood type/group found in the silencer matched RB's and around 10% of the population. No audit trail exists from manufacture to FSS. This exhibit would never get near a court today.
Also nothing was made of the freakish stats re the Bamber family ie June mental illness '59 and '82 requiring in-patient psychiatric care. And the same for Sheila '83 and '85. If Jeremy is guilty then imo he must also have been mentally ill/personality disordered. 3/4 members of an adoptive family, ie no genetic component, mentally ill or personality disordered? Statistically unlikely.
As I'm sure you know once a jury return a verdict it is then very, very challenging to overturn. However I remain optimistic that if Jeremy is innocent, as I believe him to be, then justice will eventually be served. Society is far less deferential now than in '86. And this along with the internet ie exchange of information, will I believe pave the way for justice.
There is very liitle information on the internet regarding Geoffrey Rivlin. Perhaps due to him more recently being a judge? However, there's lots about the late Edmund Lawson who I am sure was extremely able despite getting lost en route from Jeremy's trial to the shooting range and missing the opportunity to observe the jurors' questions, responses etc.
I'll add a link later which shows that Mr Lawson is described by his peers in glowing terms "Can turn water to wine", analogies with rock stars, humourous, intelligent etc, etc. I've no doubt this is true but I would prefer to see something measurable eg his success rate compared with peers. A low % of cases referred to ccrc, CoA, miscarriage of justices. It strikes me that QC's and judges are completely unaccountable. A flick through one of the directories and you will see they all big one another up. As far as I'm aware nothing exists that is measurable.
Are QC's monitored? Heart surgeons are now measured against patient outcome? Teachers are monitored against pupil attainment. Investment fund managers are measured against investment returns and peer group etc, etc.
Are verdicts that are not unanimous indicative of potential miscarriages of justice?
-
i know a lot of qcs have reputations they don't really deserve
-
Interestingly I note many posters criticise the police, ccrc etc and accuse the relatives and JM of wrongdoing. Some or all of this may be true but imo overall criticism should rest with Geoffrey Rivlin. He had JB's get out of jail card in his pocket and chose not to play it. He picked the wrong card.
I would also go as far as saying his attitude was all wrong. Shortly before the trial, like day before, he and others met with an 'eminent' psychologist. This psychologist said Jeremy showed all the classic signs of psychopathy in that Jeremy was able to push things out his mind. Although it is not clear if the 'eminent' psychologist ever met with Jeremy. Even less clear whether he thought the family stats on mental illness were a liitle of the richter scale, made any reference to adoption psychology or Sheila suffering from an attachment disorder. Geoffrey Rivlin and others then poured whiskies to cheer themselves up. Smacks a little of defeatism.
-
i know a lot of qcs have reputations they don't really deserve
Too right nugnug.
We need something that measures outcomes along with accountability.
I bet no data exists about which QC's/chambers have the highest referrals to ccrc, CoA, and MoJ's.
Do correlations exist between verdicts that are not unanimous and ccrc applications, referrals to CoA and MoJ's? Surely data must be collected?
-
http://www.clothfairchambers.com/members_profiles/edmund_lawson_qc.html
Here is the info regarding the late Mr Lawson who I am sure was a first rate QC but I would just prefer to see something a little more objective and measurable.
-
Bearing in mind that barristers have to comply with the 'cab rank rule', how would you weight any rating system to reflect the fact that a barrister must take on any case in which he is instructed, including those with little or no chance of success?
-
Hi Curiousessex
My personal view, for what it's worth, is that Jeremy was badly let down at trial. Geoffrey Rivlin QC chose to go down the route of the silencer being used and returned to the gun cupboard before Sheila shot herself :(. This, in my humble opinion, was a fatal mistake. I believe the jury should have been presented with the more likely scenario of the silencer not being used in the tragedy and having been contaminated, either innocently or deliberately. The jury then were misled into thinking that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's. They were unaware that the blood type/group found in the silencer matched RB's and around 10% of the population. No audit trail exists from manufacture to FSS. This exhibit would never get near a court today.
Also nothing was made of the freakish stats re the Bamber family ie June mental illness '59 and '82 requiring in-patient psychiatric care. And the same for Sheila '83 and '85. If Jeremy is guilty then imo he must also have been mentally ill/personality disordered. 3/4 members of an adoptive family, ie no genetic component, mentally ill or personality disordered? Statistically unlikely.
As I'm sure you know once a jury return a verdict it is then very, very challenging to overturn. However I remain optimistic that if Jeremy is innocent, as I believe him to be, then justice will eventually be served. Society is far less deferential now than in '86. And this along with the internet ie exchange of information, will I believe pave the way for justice.
There is very liitle information on the internet regarding Geoffrey Rivlin. Perhaps due to him more recently being a judge? However, there's lots about the late Edmund Lawson who I am sure was extremely able despite getting lost en route from Jeremy's trial to the shooting range and missing the opportunity to observe the jurors' questions, responses etc.
I'll add a link later which shows that Mr Lawson is described by his peers in glowing terms "Can turn water to wine", analogies with rock stars, humourous, intelligent etc, etc. I've no doubt this is true but I would prefer to see something measurable eg his success rate compared with peers. A low % of cases referred to ccrc, CoA, miscarriage of justices. It strikes me that QC's and judges are completely unaccountable. A flick through one of the directories and you will see they all big one another up. As far as I'm aware nothing exists that is measurable.
Are QC's monitored? Heart surgeons are now measured against patient outcome? Teachers are monitored against pupil attainment. Investment fund managers are measured against investment returns and peer group etc, etc.
Are verdicts that are not unanimous indicative of potential miscarriages of justice?
NN
As far as I am aware Rivlin was the lawyer who Jeremy appointed in order to put Jeremy's best defence forward on behalf of Jeremy before the jury.
Jeremy was and appears to have been a willingly participant in playing the game that is our legal system.............Jeremy provided the following reply when questioned in the witness box 'That is what you have got to prove...............'
Unfortunately for Jeremy within the game being played the prosecution won before the jury and subsequently proved their case.
Hence, according to the rules of the game that is our legal system Jeremy became the loser and was subsequently found guilty as charged. Jeremy, having been found guilty, was then sentenced by the Judge who had presided over the hearing at the original trial.
So far Jeremy has failed, despite numerous attempts, to have his conviction overturned.
The game that is our legal system is still being played and Jeremy still appears to be a willing participant with various historical legal actions and CCRC submissions.
-
In Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano, Jeremy Bamber's then lawyer, admitted 'Nothing really substantively new' had been presented to the CCRC for Jeremy's CCRC application. As such and according to the CCRC guidelines for referral it would appear even Jeremy's lawyer at the time of submision was not surprised at the result of the initial provisional decision.
Since Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano has been charged and recently convicted on a number of counts of fraud and deception. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Giovanni Di Stefano had been successful in historically masterminding the overturning of a number of high profile convictions. Primarily, the overturning of these convictions appear to have been based on identifying some failures in the following of correct due process as opposed to any uncovering or presentation of new evidence.
Since Feb 2011 the CCRC had allowed Jeremy extended time to respond to their provisional decision whilst also allowing the submission of additional content for consideration - Pig skin burn marks etc.
Given Di Stefano's historical successes in exploiting failures in due process and his Feb 2011 admission that nothing substantially new was presented to the CCRC on behalf of Jeremy then maybe time is slowly revealing the CCRC were very lenient in giving Jeremy Bamber the benefit of the doubt when considering his application to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
Maybe there is no surprise the failure of Jeremy's CCRC submission was eventually followed by failure in the Judicial Review to overturn the CCRC decision.
What a good sense posting! Apparently he was 'genius', GDS....
-
In Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano, Jeremy Bamber's then lawyer, admitted 'Nothing really substantively new' had been presented to the CCRC for Jeremy's CCRC application. As such and according to the CCRC guidelines for referral it would appear even Jeremy's lawyer at the time of submision was not surprised at the result of the initial provisional decision.
Since Feb 2011 Giovanni Di Stefano has been charged and recently convicted on a number of counts of fraud and deception. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Giovanni Di Stefano had been successful in historically masterminding the overturning of a number of high profile convictions. Primarily, the overturning of these convictions appear to have been based on identifying some failures in the following of correct due process as opposed to any uncovering or presentation of new evidence.
Since Feb 2011 the CCRC had allowed Jeremy extended time to respond to their provisional decision whilst also allowing the submission of additional content for consideration - Pig skin burn marks etc.
Given Di Stefano's historical successes in exploiting failures in due process and his Feb 2011 admission that nothing substantially new was presented to the CCRC on behalf of Jeremy then maybe time is slowly revealing the CCRC were very lenient in giving Jeremy Bamber the benefit of the doubt when considering his application to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
Maybe there is no surprise the failure of Jeremy's CCRC submission was eventually followed by failure in the Judicial Review to overturn the CCRC decision.
Well its a good thing JB had the good sense to see this before anyone else isn't it and sacked him.
-
Bearing in mind that barristers have to comply with the 'cab rank rule', how would you weight any rating system to reflect the fact that a barrister must take on any case in which he is instructed, including those with little or no chance of success?
Yes I appreciate it would need some thinking about :-\
Still have difficulty that one man or woman can potentially get it wrong and an individual's liberty is at stake! This then goes largely undetected unlike say a surgeon who cocks up. For example I believe Geoffrey Rivlin's strategy re the silencer being used and returned to the gun cupboard too far fetched. Geoffrey Rivlin was a prosecutor rather than defense counsel. Had say George Carmen QC taken the case on (JB's first choice but didn't take on legal aid work) he may have taken a different approach eg the silencer not being used but contaminated either deliberatley or innocently and the trial outcome MAY have been different.
-
NN
As far as I am aware Rivlin was the lawyer who Jeremy appointed in order to put Jeremy's best defence forward on behalf of Jeremy before the jury.
Jeremy was and appears to have been a willingly participant in playing the game that is our legal system.............Jeremy provided the following reply when questioned in the witness box 'That is what you have got to prove...............'
Unfortunately for Jeremy within the game being played the prosecution won before the jury and subsequently proved their case.
Hence, according to the rules of the game that is our legal system Jeremy became the loser and was subsequently found guilty as charged. Jeremy, having been found guilty, was then sentenced by the Judge who had presided over the hearing at the original trial.
So far Jeremy has failed, despite numerous attempts, to have his conviction overturned.
The game that is our legal system is still being played and Jeremy still appears to be a willing participant with various historical legal actions and CCRC submissions.
Hi Curiousessex
Please see my previous post to Bridget.
I agree Jeremy saying "That's what you've got to prove" or similar was a silly thing to say.
But had I have been 24 yoa I may well have said similar had I have been innocent. If Jeremy is innocent, as I believe him to be, then I am sure he would have been somewhat bemused by the whole trial process, putting aside the tradgedy. Jeremy thought all you had to be was innocent to be found innocent and I would probably have thought the same. Bearing in mind also there were far fewer well publicised MoJ's around that time too.
Wrongdoing often takes years, decades even, to eventually come to light eg Hillsborough, financial crisis, Stephen Lawrence, Jimmy Savill, IRA MoJ's, child abuse, Irish Launderies, child abuse within church etc, etc. As Nevill said "It will all come out in the wash" and I believe this to be true with what on at WHF on 6th/7th Aug '85.
-
Yes I appreciate it would need some thinking about :-\
Still have difficulty that one man or woman can potentially get it wrong and an individual's liberty is at stake! This then goes largely undetected unlike say a surgeon who cocks up. For example I believe Geoffrey Rivlin's strategy re the silencer being used and returned to the gun cupboard too far fetched. Geoffrey Rivlin was a prosecutor rather than defense counsel. Had say George Carmen QC taken the case on (JB's first choice but didn't take on legal aid work) he may have taken a different approach eg the silencer not being used but contaminated either deliberatley or innocently and the trial outcome MAY have been different.
Don't forget that whatever strategy Rivlin used, he was using it on JBs instruction. I'm not sure what the likely consequences would be for the defence had they have alleged deliberate contamination without evidence to support the allegation, maybe one of the lawyers here could comment. As for accidental contamination, I'm struggling to think of a credible explanation for how it would have happened.
-
Don't forget that whatever strategy Rivlin used, he was using it on JBs instruction. I'm not sure what the likely consequences would be for the defence had they have alleged deliberate contamination without evidence to support the allegation, maybe one of the lawyers here could comment. As for accidental contamination, I'm struggling to think of a credible explanation for how it would have happened.
A very foolish move but protected by absolute priviledge in terms of libel.
Loss of credibility in the eyes of the judge and jury.
-
Don't forget that whatever strategy Rivlin used, he was using it on JBs instruction. I'm not sure what the likely consequences would be for the defence had they have alleged deliberate contamination without evidence to support the allegation, maybe one of the lawyers here could comment. As for accidental contamination, I'm struggling to think of a credible explanation for how it would have happened.
no he wasn't necarsrly following Jeremys instructions very people instruct there lawyers they just assume the lawyer knows what he is doing this often has tragic consequences.
-
no he wasn't necarsrly following Jeremys instructions very people instruct there lawyers they just assume the lawyer knows what he is doing this often has tragic consequences.
Rivlin will of course have offered guidance as to strategy, and will have discussed and agreed this with JB. No doubt if JB had suggested alleging deliberate contamination Rivlin would have advised against it.
A very foolish move but protected by absolute priviledge in terms of libel.
Loss of credibility in the eyes of the judge and jury.
Thank you Petey, yes, I was thinking of consequences within the context of the trial rather than anything wider.
-
no he might well not have asked jbs agreement to do anything he might well of said this is what im going to do if you dont like it you'll have to sack me.
-
no he might well not have asked jbs agreement to do anything he might well of said this is what im going to do if you dont like it you'll have to sack me.
I suppose there may well have been a conversation of that nature if JB had insisted on Rivlin making allegations of a dishonest or criminal nature against a witness without evidence or proper grounds (he's prevented from doing so by the Bar Standards Board code of conduct). But we don't know that he did, so it's pure speculation.
-
I suppose there may well have been a conversation of that nature if JB had insisted on Rivlin making allegations of a dishonest or criminal nature against a witness without evidence or proper grounds (he's prevented from doing so by the Bar Standards Board code of conduct). But we don't know that he did, so it's pure speculation.
JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.
-
JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.
What evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer was there?
-
What evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer was there?
There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.
-
There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered.
I don't believe anyone used a razor blade to scrape blood. That is a misinterpretation of something said by DB when describing the size and shape of the blood spot he saw. In any case, none of that amounts to credible evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer. Whether Rivlin rejected that strategy on the grounds of admissibility of just poor strategy probably isn't important. The jury were aware of the handling of the silencer, and of the clothes, and of the relatives' potential to benefit from JBs conviction, and a direct accusation against them without more wouldn't have done JB any favours IMO.
-
they had no reason to touch the silencer its called tampering with evidence witch is a crime in itself.
-
they had no reason to touch the silencer its called tampering with evidence witch is a crime in itself.
The house and all of it's contents had been handed back to them. They could touch whatever they liked. With hindsight I'm sure they wish they hadn't handled it as much as they did.
-
no if you find a silencer witch you think is conected to a murder you dont touch it it you take it to the police.
-
I don't believe anyone used a razor blade to scrape blood. That is a misinterpretation of something said by DB when describing the size and shape of the blood spot he saw. In any case, none of that amounts to credible evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer. Whether Rivlin rejected that strategy on the grounds of admissibility of just poor strategy probably isn't important. The jury were aware of the handling of the silencer, and of the clothes, and of the relatives' potential to benefit from JBs conviction, and a direct accusation against them without more wouldn't have done JB any favours IMO.
You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct. There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong. Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty. Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB.
-
What evidence of deliberate contamination of the silencer was there?
Am I missing something here? I can't see the word "deliberate" in ngb's post? I have read the word "possibility". Must be my age again in missing words as I read.
-
they had no reason to touch the silencer its called tampering with evidence witch is a crime in itself.
I agree. I am not saying that something was done to the silencer by the relatives, I have no idea, but the mere fact that it was NOT found by the EP, but by a relative who had something to gain by a conviction of Jeremy, and that they had it in their possession (why did they not leave it where they found it, and immediately inform the police about it, so a crime scene technician could handle it from that point?)
By the sound of the statements it was fidgeted with by numerous hands until it came into possession of the EP.
I am not sure such evidence could be used in a trial today.
-
JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong.
Totally agree, it seems he had only one strategy and no back up plan if the mood of the court seemed to be against them. However, it does indicate how little Riviln thought about the strength of the case against Bamber.
-
I agree. I am not saying that something was done to the silencer by the relatives, I have no idea, but the mere fact that it was NOT found by the EP, but by a relative who had something to gain by a conviction of Jeremy, and that they had it in their possession (why did they not leave it where they found it, and immediately inform the police about it, so a crime scene technician could handle it from that point?)
By the sound of the statements it was fidgeted with by numerous hands until it came into possession of the EP.
I am not sure such evidence could be used in a trial today.
Also the date when it was found is in question and one of the relatives owned the exact same silencer!! There would be no way that it would be admissible today!!
-
You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct. There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong. Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty. Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB.
I don't think I do at all, I'm not talking about accidental contamination, I'm talking about deliberate contamination for which there was no evidence. I also think he did go down the route of accidental contamination otherwise why was he asking RB whether or not he cut his finger. I think the reason he didn't go further down that route was because there was no credible explanation for it (or, to pay respect the various later theories, there was no credible explanation at the time). The flake which was tested was not the only blood in the silencer, there was also what was described as a large volume around the first few baffles. Much of the blood found was described as stains or smears, and so can only have got there when wet. It's hard to see how that could get there accidentally.
-
a lot of lawers dont seem to understand that reasonable doubt isn't good enough to win anymore.
-
Am I missing something here? I can't see the word "deliberate" in ngb's post? I have read the word "possibility". Must be my age again in missing words as I read.
Well if he's not talking about deliberate contamination then he must be arguing with someone other than me but quoting my posts.
-
why exactly did they want to take the silencer to bits in the first place for what reason.
-
Conduct in Court
708. A barrister when conducting proceedings in Court:
(a) is personally responsible for the conduct and presentation of his case and must exercise personal judgement upon the substance and purpose of statements made and questions asked;
(b) must not unless invited to do so by the Court or when appearing before a tribunal where it is his duty to do so assert a personal opinion of the facts or the law;
(c) must ensure that the Court is informed of all relevant decisions and legislative provisions of which he is aware whether the effect is favourable or unfavourable towards the contention for which he argues;
(d) must bring any procedural irregularity to the attention of the Court during the hearing and not reserve such matter to be raised on appeal;
(e) must not adduce evidence obtained otherwise than from or through the client or devise facts which will assist in advancing the lay client's case;
(f) must not make a submission which he does not consider to be properly arguable;
(g) must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify insult or annoy either a witness or some other person;
(h) must if possible avoid the naming in open Court of third parties whose character would thereby be impugned;
(i) must not by assertion in a speech impugn a witness whom he has had an opportunity to cross-examine unless in cross-examination he has given the witness an opportunity to answer the allegation;
(j) must not suggest that a victim, witness or other person is guilty of crime, fraud or misconduct or make any defamatory aspersion on the conduct of any other person or attribute to another person the crime or conduct of which his lay client is accused unless such allegations go to a matter in issue (including the credibility of the witness) which is material to the lay client's case and appear to him to be supported by reasonable grounds.
-
I don't think I do at all, I'm not talking about accidental contamination, I'm talking about deliberate contamination for which there was no evidence. I also think he did go down the route of accidental contamination otherwise why was he asking RB whether or not he cut his finger. I think the reason he didn't go further down that route was because there was no credible explanation for it (or, to pay respect the various later theories, there was no credible explanation at the time). The flake which was tested was not the only blood in the silencer, there was also what was described as a large volume around the first few baffles. Much of the blood found was described as stains or smears, and so can only have got there when wet. It's hard to see how that could get there accidentally.
With respect you do misunderstand. There does not need to be any direct evidence to support a defence proposition. The defence are entitled to present whatever arguments they like, however unlikely they may appear. The only limitation on this is that if the defence want to suggest that a prosecution witness has lied or is guilty of interfering with evidence that witness must be given an opportunity to answer the allegation, i.e. defence counsel has an obligation to put the suggestion to the witness in cross examination.
-
Conduct in Court
708. A barrister when conducting proceedings in Court:
(a) is personally responsible for the conduct and presentation of his case and must exercise personal judgement upon the substance and purpose of statements made and questions asked;
(b) must not unless invited to do so by the Court or when appearing before a tribunal where it is his duty to do so assert a personal opinion of the facts or the law;
(c) must ensure that the Court is informed of all relevant decisions and legislative provisions of which he is aware whether the effect is favourable or unfavourable towards the contention for which he argues;
(d) must bring any procedural irregularity to the attention of the Court during the hearing and not reserve such matter to be raised on appeal;
(e) must not adduce evidence obtained otherwise than from or through the client or devise facts which will assist in advancing the lay client's case;
(f) must not make a submission which he does not consider to be properly arguable;
(g) must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify insult or annoy either a witness or some other person;
(h) must if possible avoid the naming in open Court of third parties whose character would thereby be impugned;
(i) must not by assertion in a speech impugn a witness whom he has had an opportunity to cross-examine unless in cross-examination he has given the witness an opportunity to answer the allegation;
(j) must not suggest that a victim, witness or other person is guilty of crime, fraud or misconduct or make any defamatory aspersion on the conduct of any other person or attribute to another person the crime or conduct of which his lay client is accused unless such allegations go to a matter in issue (including the credibility of the witness) which is material to the lay client's case and appear to him to be supported by reasonable grounds.
Exactly what I have been saying. You have misinterpreted the Code of Conduct.
-
With respect you do misunderstand. There does not need to be any direct evidence to support a defence proposition. The defence are entitled to present whatever arguments they like, however unlikely they may appear. The only limitation on this is that if the defence want to suggest that a prosecution witness has lied or is guilty of interfering with evidence that witness must be given an opportunity to answer the allegation, i.e. defence counsel has an obligation to put the suggestion to the witness in cross examination.
In the absence of evidence, what reasonable ground to assert deliberate contamination do you think Rivlin would have had? If it simply an idea in his client's head there would be little point in having the rule.
-
This is what I said earlier:
I suppose there may well have been a conversation of that nature if JB had insisted on Rivlin making allegations of a dishonest or criminal nature against a witness without evidence or proper grounds (he's prevented from doing so by the Bar Standards Board code of conduct). But we don't know that he did, so it's pure speculation.
So what grounds would there be?
We are not disagreeing on the interpretation of the rule, but on the subjective nature of 'reasonable grounds'.
-
defense barristers regularly attack the character of prosecution witness. and there hardly ever pulled up for it.
-
I rest my case.
If you were ever unfortunate enough to find yourself standing in the dock accused of a murder you did not commit, you would not be provided access to the world wide web in order for you to google & prepare your arguments.
You would not be given the time to 'nit pick' and 'theorise' - you'd be on the ground running.
Running scared probably imo, because real life criminal justice is nothing like how you appear to have misinterpreted it.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but pointless to an MOJ victim.
It's funny how whenever I get into a discussion with anyone you pop up with your own particular brand of nonsensical twaddle.
But you make a good point about hindsight. It's easy to say with hindsight that Rivlin should have handled things differently. But I'm wondering whether if he had, we'd now be having a discussion about how unbelievably foolish he was to turn the jury against his client by making unfounded accusations against the relatives of the 5 victims of an horrific crime.
-
how did he have turned the jury against his client be a pointing the obvious fact that one of the main prosecution witness had tampered with the evidence.
if the jury heard that the man who was next inline for inheritience had done this i cant see them turning agianst jeremy over it.
-
In the absence of evidence, what reasonable ground to assert deliberate contamination do you think Rivlin would have had? If it simply an idea in his client's head there would be little point in having the rule.
Bridget, you are really digging a deeper hole for yourself now. A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.
There was a high profile case in the 1970s, an IRA bomb trial at the Old Bailey. The head of my chambers was appearing for one of the accused. The evidence against him was that his fingerprints had been discovered on a timer found at the address used by the bombers. The defendant's instructions were i) that he was not involved in the bombing, ii) that he had never seen the timer and had certainly not touched it and had never been at the address where the timer was found. There was no doubt that the fingerprints were a perfect match for the defendant. In the light of those instructions the only basis upon which defence counsel could challenge the prosecution case was by directly alleging that the police had planted the figerprints. He demonstrated that it was possible to take a lift of a finerprint on a glass using sellotape, then deposit it on another surface. The deendant was not surprisingly convicted but counsel had done what he was obliged to deo. The trial judge was the notorious Mr Justice Melford Stephenson. He was of a similar view to Bridget in that he claimed that defence counsel who had pursued this defence had done so without reasonable grounds. He directed that their fees be cut and he reported them to the Bar Counsel. Defence counsel appealed the fees order and sought a ruling from the Bar Counsel. The Bar Counsel robustly supported the position of defence counsel, in a blistering criticism of the judge. The fees reduction was also overturned.
The above example is of a case where the evidential basis for the defence presented was far lower than existed in JB's case in relation to the possibilty of contamination of the silencer.
I do know what I am talking about Bridget, trust me! ;D
-
Bridget, you are really digging a deeper hole for yourself now. A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.
There was a high profile case in the 1970s, an IRA bomb trial at the Old Bailey. The head of my chambers was appearing for one of the accused. The evidence against him was that his fingerprints had been discovered on a timer found at the address used by the bombers. The defendant's instructions were i) that he was not involved in the bombing, ii) that he had never seen the timer and had certainly not touched it and had never been at the address where the timer was found. There was no doubt that the fingerprints were a perfect match for the defendant. In the light of those instructions the only basis upon which defence counsel could challenge the prosecution case was by directly alleging that the police had planted the figerprints. He demonstrated that it was possible to take a lift of a finerprint on a glass using sellotape, then deposit it on another surface. The deendant was not surprisingly convicted but counsel had done what he was obliged to deo. The trial judge was the notorious Mr Justice Melford Stephenson. He was of a similar view to Bridget in that he claimed that defence counsel who had pursued this defence had done so without reasonable grounds. He directed that their fees be cut and he reported them to the Bar Counsel. Defence counsel appealed the fees order and sought a ruling from the Bar Counsel. The Bar Counsel robustly supported the position of defence counsel, in a blistering criticism of the judge. The fees reduction was also overturned.
The above example is of a case where the evidential basis for the defence presented was far lower than existed in JB's case in relation to the possibilty of contamination of the silencer.
I do know what I am talking about Bridget, trust me! ;D
I know you do, and thank you for the explanation. :)
-
Your interpretation = "nonsensical twaddle"
My interpretation = Real life!
"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"
Bridget I could attempt to take you seriously if you were able to tell me the truth in relation to the forfeiture notice.. I know I'm going slightly off topic by raising this issue again but so far you have avoided answering the question.
I think you were unbelievably foolish to have sent the forfeiture notice without taking proper sound legal advice - you could have saved yourself a small fortune and saved face too.
Are you still in denial and is that why you try to divert attention from yourself by hiding behind the company name? How many 'victims' do you have on your books?
You appear to re-hash the same arguments, not really going anywhere with it, round and round, the same theme - and still you refuse to answer a simple question... Did you screw up? Did you misinterpret the law?
Have you any idea how boring you are? I'll say it again in very small words. I have never in my life sent anyone a forfeiture notice.
-
I'll say it again in the language you think you understand?!
Did you not instigate the process of sending a section 146 with view to issuing a forfeiture notice?
Thank you for your opinion of me but another bit of advice to you - don't judge a book by it's cover.
Whilst your integrity remains in question, I will always find if difficult to take you seriously.
Well, at the risk of boring everyone else with a lecture on leasehold property management, once a landlord has obtained a judgement from a court or LVT that a sum of money is owing in respect of service charges or other debt it has two choices. It can either transfer the claim to court (if it's not already there) for enforcement by bailiffs, attachment of earnings, charging orders etc, or (if the debt meets required criteria) the landlord can issue s146 notices of forfeiture to both the debtor and their mortgagee. Most landlords prefer the latter route because it almost invariably results in payment of the debt in full and immediately by the mortgagee in order to protect their security. I have, on many occasions, after having been instructed to do so by my landlord clients, instructed solicitors to issue s146 notices on behalf of those clients on the basis of the judgment already obtained. In every case the judgment debt has been paid in full by the mortgagee.
Thank you for your interest.
-
So are you finally admitting that you have indeed been telling porky pies and you have previously been instrumental in instigating s146 notices with view to forfeiture of properties?
You aren't a lawyer Bridget and therefore your use of language can be very misleading to your unsuspecting clients.
I know I bore Bridget but I think of people like Giovanni Di Stefano when I think of people like you.
I have no idea what you're on about. You asked me whether I regretted having personally sent out notices without having first sought legal advice. I told you I've never sent any.
-
Oh my god, how could I refuse an invitation like that...
-
There could be something new tomorrow according to Jeremys' blogs,,so we'll await more case news.
-
i think there will be.
-
i think there will be.
Jeremy appears to be quite uplifted by it,nugs. Let's face it,,he hasn't been campaigning all these years for nothing. I notice all his past friends are now coming forward with their testimonies.! The same people were scared to say that he hadn't committed the murders in case they,themselves lost friends. It just shows you what hypocrites folk are. I'd be telling them to get lost if that was me.
-
well there the officail campaign i dont think they would want to make fools of themselves.
-
well there the officail campaign i dont think they would want to make fools of themselves.
That's right,nugs.
-
That's right,nugs.
I wonder if S,Makay is about to receive the outcome from the European courts on his whole life tariff....surely this is imminent. :) :) :) :)
-
i hope its got more to do with the case than that but we will see.
-
i hope its got more to do with the case than that but we will see.
Thanks Nugs. ;) :D :D :D
-
Sorry ngb, I have more questions if you could assist...
Paragraph 704 of the Code of Conduct:
Drafting documents
704. A barrister must not devise facts which will assist in advancing the lay client's case and must not draft any statement of case, witness statement, affidavit, notice of appeal or other document containing:
(a) any statement of fact or contention which is not supported by the lay client or by his instructions;
(b) any contention which he does not consider to be properly arguable;
(c) any allegation of fraud unless he has clear instructions to make such allegation and has before him reasonably credible material which as it stands establishes a prima facie case of fraud;
(d) in the case of a witness statement or affidavit any statement of fact other than the evidence which in substance according to his instructions the barrister reasonably believes the witness would give if the evidence contained in the witness statement or affidavit were being given in oral examination;
provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a barrister drafting a document containing specific factual statements or contentions included by the barrister subject to confirmation of their accuracy by the lay client or witness.
I'm struggling to find definitions of 'fraud' and 'reasonable credible material' within the context of the code. I did find this, which is an extract from the HoL judgment in Medcalf v Weatherill:
22. Paragraph 606(c) lays down an important and salutary principle. The parties to contested actions are often at daggers drawn, and the litigious process serves to exacerbate the hostility between them. Such clients are only too ready to make allegations of the most damaging kind against each other. While counsel should never lend his name to such allegations unless instructed to do so, the receipt of instructions is not of itself enough. Counsel is bound to exercise an objective professional judgment whether it is in all the circumstances proper to lend his name to the allegation. As the rule recognises, counsel could not properly judge it proper to make such an allegation unless he had material before him which he judged to be reasonably credible and which appeared to justify the allegation. At the hearing stage, counsel cannot properly make or persist in an allegation which is unsupported by admissible evidence, since if there is not admissible evidence to support the allegation the court cannot be invited to find that it has been proved, and if the court cannot be invited to find that the allegation has been proved the allegation should not be made or should be withdrawn. I would however agree with Wilson J that at the preparatory stage the requirement is not that counsel should necessarily have before him evidence in admissible form but that he should have material of such a character as to lead responsible counsel to conclude that serious allegations could properly be based upon it. I could not think, for example, that it would be professionally improper for counsel to plead allegations, however serious, based on the documented conclusions of a DTI inspector or a public inquiry, even though counsel had no access to the documents referred to and the findings in question were inadmissible hearsay. On this point I would accept the judgment of Wilson J.
I believe 606 is now 704.
The Medcalf case is obviously civil rather than criminal, so are there different rules in the criminal context, or failing that could you explain how Rivlin would have got around 704?
-
Sorry ngb, I have more questions if you could assist...
Paragraph 704 of the Code of Conduct:
Drafting documents
704. A barrister must not devise facts which will assist in advancing the lay client's case and must not draft any statement of case, witness statement, affidavit, notice of appeal or other document containing:
(a) any statement of fact or contention which is not supported by the lay client or by his instructions;
(b) any contention which he does not consider to be properly arguable;
(c) any allegation of fraud unless he has clear instructions to make such allegation and has before him reasonably credible material which as it stands establishes a prima facie case of fraud;
(d) in the case of a witness statement or affidavit any statement of fact other than the evidence which in substance according to his instructions the barrister reasonably believes the witness would give if the evidence contained in the witness statement or affidavit were being given in oral examination;
provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a barrister drafting a document containing specific factual statements or contentions included by the barrister subject to confirmation of their accuracy by the lay client or witness.
I'm struggling to find definitions of 'fraud' and 'reasonable credible material' within the context of the code. I did find this, which is an extract from the HoL judgment in Medcalf v Weatherill:
22. Paragraph 606(c) lays down an important and salutary principle. The parties to contested actions are often at daggers drawn, and the litigious process serves to exacerbate the hostility between them. Such clients are only too ready to make allegations of the most damaging kind against each other. While counsel should never lend his name to such allegations unless instructed to do so, the receipt of instructions is not of itself enough. Counsel is bound to exercise an objective professional judgment whether it is in all the circumstances proper to lend his name to the allegation. As the rule recognises, counsel could not properly judge it proper to make such an allegation unless he had material before him which he judged to be reasonably credible and which appeared to justify the allegation. At the hearing stage, counsel cannot properly make or persist in an allegation which is unsupported by admissible evidence, since if there is not admissible evidence to support the allegation the court cannot be invited to find that it has been proved, and if the court cannot be invited to find that the allegation has been proved the allegation should not be made or should be withdrawn. I would however agree with Wilson J that at the preparatory stage the requirement is not that counsel should necessarily have before him evidence in admissible form but that he should have material of such a character as to lead responsible counsel to conclude that serious allegations could properly be based upon it. I could not think, for example, that it would be professionally improper for counsel to plead allegations, however serious, based on the documented conclusions of a DTI inspector or a public inquiry, even though counsel had no access to the documents referred to and the findings in question were inadmissible hearsay. On this point I would accept the judgment of Wilson J.
I believe 606 is now 704.
The Medcalf case is obviously civil rather than criminal, so are there different rules in the criminal context, or failing that could you explain how Rivlin would have got around 704?
It only relates to civil cases Bridget. The position in criminal cases is set out in the earlier posts. The reason is that the interests of justice require that a defendant must be free to advance his defence without undue restriction, since liberty is at stake. Counsel in civil cases have to be far more circumspect in making allegations against witnesses for the opposing party.
-
It only relates to civil cases Bridget. The position in criminal cases is set out in the earlier posts. The reason is that the interests of justice require that a defendant must be free to advance his defence without undue restriction, since liberty is at stake. Counsel in civil cases have to be far more circumspect in making allegations against witnesses for the opposing party.
Thank you :)
-
Speaking of 'liberty' & 'defence cases,' ;D
We heard from the CCRC today - in particular to the recent 'clarification' made by Simon re the burglary.
Their review is ongoing, with hope, in the right direction..
oh good a step in the right direction.