Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Luminous Wanderer on April 10, 2018, 04:11:AM
-
This is a 'policy' piece, and those who are interested only in discussing the murders and the legal case may wish to skip this thread.
Before I begin, an important caveat is that while I will be making here a highly speculative legal argument, my interest is confined to a conventional understanding of the law (including, as here, novel innovations within existing principles). I have no wish to promote or explore pseudo-legal arguments, such as those advanced by common law movements and other fringe groups.
For the purposes of what I will say here, I am going to adopt the assumption that Jeremy Bamber is actually guilty - though he has not entered a reliable confession, so only he knows this - and I will envision a scenario about 4 or 5 years into the future in which a further application to the CCRC has been made and has failed and Bamber's legal prospects are considered bleak.
At that point, given the state of the law as it is, Bamber would have few options beyond making a confession and hoping that he might be released at some point on compassionate or other legal grounds.
What I would like to tentatively explore is the possibility of an alternative relief, which is rarely used in England but is quite often made use of by prisoners in the United States. Although clearly the USA is a separate jurisdiction, it is widely understood that its laws and norms are an off-shoot of English law. Here I will look specifically at the relief of habeas corpus ad subiciendum - Latin for 'You have the body for examination', usually shortened to habeas corpus.
In basic terms, in most common law jurisdictions (including England & Wales), prisoners (either pro se or through counsel) or third parties ad litem, can apply to the court for a writ of habeas corpus, which requires a custodian (usually a prison governor or manager of a psychiatric unit, or similar) to deliver a prisoner or patient to the court for the purposes of examining the legality of his continued confinement. In English courts, this is known formally as a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Release, and the application is made to the High Court nearest to the prisoner, or when the court is not 'in term', i.e. the judge is not sitting locally, application should be made to the High Court in London.
In England, my impression is that habeas corpus litigation is not used extensively, and when it is used, tends to be restricted to seeking relief for individuals in certain eclectic categories of confinement, some examples being: people who have been 'sectioned', i.e. held in non-custodial psychiatric units pursuant to the Mental Health Act; people who are in immigration detention; and, civil prisoners in ordinary prisons.
In contrast, in the United States, habeas corpus writs are used much more commonly in mainstream criminal justice. The most high-profile application of habeas corpus in American jurisprudence is in cases where a long-term prisoner may have failed to appeal his conviction or sentence, or both, and as a last resort, identifies evidential or procedural flaws in the original trial or the police investigation that may threaten the legality of his detention. Some of you may be familiar with the case of Rubin Carter, a death row inmate in America who had been convicted of murder at the state level and always protested his innocence. Carter's appeals to the state courts failed and his lawyers then decided to seek relief under federal law by applying for a writ of habeas corpus. When the application was heard, Carter's lawyers were able to argue successfully that his original trial breached his legal and constitutional rights and he was released from death row and his conviction was quashed.
Again, here I assume Jeremy Bamber is guilty, and I ask: Is the Jeremy Bamber case an example of why the English courts should make greater use of habeas corpus to relieve prisoners who may even be guilty, but whose rights have been infringed?
I believe so, and would cite the following:
1. First, in my view, Bamber did not receive a fair trial. Some of the points to consider are:
(i). Julie Mugford's evidence was strictly irrelevant, intended only to manipulate the jury, and her statements should not have been admitted into evidence.
(ii). The police failed to undertake a proper criminal investigation, which undermined the presumption of innocence and shifted much of the burden of proof to Bamber himself. The prosecution case was weak in that there was no forensic evidence directly linking Bamber to the crime scene.
(iii). The court failed to inform the jury of key facts and evidence and did not visit White House Farm.
(iv). The trial judge misdirected the jury.
(v). The provenance of the key piece of evidence, the moderator, is highly questionable given that there was a plain motive - and perhaps also an inclination - for some members of the extended family to see Bamber convicted.
(vi). Important evidence was not disclosed to Bamber by Essex Police at trial, or for many years after, and this may have impeded his defence and his ability to appeal his conviction.
2. Second, I think the lawfulness and fairness of Bamber's continued imprisonment is open to question. There is the simple fact that Bamber has now spent 33 years in prison and counting. I believe that is punishment enough. Also, Bamber was handed a 25-year tariff by the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Drake. I appreciate that does not mean he should have been released at the 25-year point, only that he was eligible for parole at that point - a different thing. However, there is no suggestion that Bamber is a public risk, he remains in prison only due to ministerial interference, namely the imposition of a whole life order. Contrary to what is sometimes believed, the European Court of Human Rights did not rule that whole life orders in England are unlawful, but did rule that such orders must be subject to annual reviews, with the possibility of release for prisoners who make progress in their rehabilitation. The fact that Bamber denies these offences does not, in itself, preclude his rehabilitation.
Is a habeas corpus argument at all viable or realistic?
I cannot say. I merely open the idea up for honest discussion. I call this a 'revival' of habeas corpus because although the relief is firmly entrenched and used regularly in the English courts, it is not used to its full potential. A professional lawyer or judge will immediately scoff at my argument. That's not necessarily a commentary on its validity, rather it's because practitioners and jurists in the legal system must be conservative - for obvious reasons, they will not stray too far from established practices. This is a novel point - albeit within existing laws and principles - and, for the moment, more appropriate for consideration by the academic lawyer.
One of the points that distinguishes the two major Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions is that the English, due to our natural informality, have retained a great reverence for juries. This permeates even discussion of criminal cases in society. We sometimes hear ordinary people say: 'He was convicted by a jury'. Lawyers in court even sometimes say the same thing when a criminal conviction is mentioned or brought into question. (A Treasury counsel once cross-examined me in a Customs & Excise case in which I was the defendant, and at one point he said in reference to a previous case: 'You were convicted by a jury!'. I felt like saying, 'Yeah, so what?', but resisted the urge). It is believed the jury's verdict is sacrosanct and it is that deep psychic attachment to the wisdom and common-sense of the layman that sometimes inhibits a proper, science-based review of judicial decisions.
Our American cousins, in contrast, are more ready to override juries, and early on in their history, having faced down the Crown in a violent rebellion and established a civil Republic, took up the incipient constitutionalism of the English Parliamentarians and gave it full expression in a written constitution and rigid legal protections for criminal defendants that allow educated judges to upturn the decisions of juries with ease, even on very technical grounds. Hence the case of Rubin Carter and many similar others.
Rubin Carter may well have been guilty, but that is not what matters to an American judge. It's not the point. The point is that Carter's rights were infringed and so he had to be granted relief and released. It's not that American courts want to help murderers, rather it's that due to America's history, the American judiciary and wider society understands the vital importance of procedural integrity in criminal proceedings for the protection of fundamental liberties. The point being - if they can frame a bad person, they can frame a good person too. There has to be something standing in the way - that something is law.
-
I have looked into Habeas Corpus. I don't think this can be of any help.
You would have to argue that his imprisonment is (from a point of law) illegal. From a legal point of view he was represented by defending councel infront of a jury and the jury found him guilty. Thus Jeremy is legally guilty. Whether the trial is fair or not is down to the appeal court. The appeal court makes it clear it is not thier job to decide if the jury got it right but if they were mislead in reaching their decision.
My favorite example of Habeas Corpus is the case of Youell Swinney. The authorities suspected that Swinney was serial killer responcible for five murders but they didnt have any evidence. In 1941 he was arrested and found guilty of auto theft and counterfieting. But because they believed he was a serial killer they extended his sentence and would keep doing so to keep him inside. His imprisonment was illegal because he had served beyond the maxium possible sentence to what he was convicted for in the first place.
"We cannot agree with the trial court that the writ should be denied. This decision is not hastily reached. The question is obviously a close one. However, we feel that petitioner has sufficiently sustained his burden in attacking the 1941 conviction.
Having so concluded, the maximum possible punishment now becomes 10 years' confinement. Article 62, V.A.P.C.; Article 1421, V.A.P.C.; Smith v. State, 486 S.W.2d 374 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Petitioner has been incarcerated on this charge since 1947. He has clearly served in excess of this maximum. Therefore, his immediate release from the Texas Department of Corrections is in order."
I dont think Jeremys conviction is illegal as such to use Habeas Corpus.
There are two other avenues IMO that would be more suitable if all avenues for appeal get exausted.
appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel or apply for the royal perogative of mercy.
-
I have looked into Habeas Corpus. I don't think this can be of any help.
You would have to argue that his imprisonment is (from a point of law) illegal. From a legal point of view he was represented by defending councel infront of a jury and the jury found him guilty. Thus Jeremy is legally guilty. Whether the trial is fair or not is down to the appeal court. The appeal court makes it clear it is not thier job to decide if the jury got it right but if they were mislead in reaching their decision.
Yes, but I already know all that. My point is that this is not how habeas corpus is applied in the United States and other common law jurisdictions, and while obviously that is no guide or precedent for the English courts, it does indicate that the principle could be expanded.
My favorite example of Habeas Corpus is the case of Youell Swinney. The authorities suspected that Swinney was serial killer responcible for five murders but they didnt have any evidence. In 1941 he was arrested and found guilty of auto theft and counterfieting. But because they believed he was a serial killer they extended his sentence and would keep doing so to keep him inside. His imprisonment was illegal because he had served beyond the maxium possible sentence to what he was convicted for in the first place.
"We cannot agree with the trial court that the writ should be denied. This decision is not hastily reached. The question is obviously a close one. However, we feel that petitioner has sufficiently sustained his burden in attacking the 1941 conviction.
Having so concluded, the maximum possible punishment now becomes 10 years' confinement. Article 62, V.A.P.C.; Article 1421, V.A.P.C.; Smith v. State, 486 S.W.2d 374 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Petitioner has been incarcerated on this charge since 1947. He has clearly served in excess of this maximum. Therefore, his immediate release from the Texas Department of Corrections is in order."
If you stop and think about it, the example of Youell Swinney backs up my argument. You've just helped me make my case, albeit that in the matter of Bamber, the Crown would presumably contest a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that Bamber's sentence is 'legal': but that then begs the question.
I dont think Jeremys conviction is illegal as such to use Habeas Corpus.
That in itself is the issue. I'm not pretending that, as matters stand, habeas corpus is the correct route or would be a strong avenue, I simply raise the possibility for further discussion.
There are two other avenues IMO that would be more suitable if all avenues for appeal get exausted.
appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel or apply for the royal perogative of mercy.
In my view, ineffective assistance of counsel will not work as a ground of appeal for two reasons: first, he has already had ample opportunity to make that argument, it's now far too late; second, his counsel was not 'ineffective' in the sense understood by the courts (I do agree that his defence let him down, but that is not the same point). Defendants charged with homicide offences and reliant on legal aid are normally granted representation by experienced QCs, or at the least, very 'senior' junior counsel, and one of the reasons for this is to close-off a potential ground of appeal.
With regard to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, as you will be aware, that is in practice a ministerial prerogative, so you are relying on a politician to grant this relief and that will likely only happen if Bamber confesses or he has reached very old age and is infirm or terminally-ill (if the latter, normally the Prison Service would just release him anyway as long as he is old).
-
In 1996, solicitor's based in Worksop, UK, acting in my best interests applied to the high Court for a writ of habeas corpus, to try to compel the Home Office to give me the benefit of 10 months worth of time I had spent on remand in custody awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice, which overlapped a separate term of imprisonment that I was also serving! This 10 month period of remand was only once taken into account when the Home Office calculated my (earliest date of release) EDR, which they then extended by this same 10 month period delaying my EDR by 10 months!
This case was brought about because those representing my interests, believed that I had not received the entitlement or benefit of having a 10 month period on remand in custody taken into account against what was by then a single term of imprisonment, involving multiple sentences, with a single term EDR, where the new rules took into account periods of remand spent in custody in relation to each sentence that had been imposed, and that during the transitional period involving where these new rules came into force, some prisoners already serving terms of imprisonment prior to the date when the new rules came into force, where multiple sentences attracted Thier own EDR's, might benefit and be released much sooner than they ordinarily would have been under the old rules. In a nutshell, all sentences had to be calculated as a single term, producing only one earliest date of release!
Anyway, the circumstances of my case, were such that I did not physically benefit by the new rules, because between July 1991 and May 1992, I was on bail to the court of appeal matters, but on remand for a separate matter! In May 1992, the court of appeal revoked bail in connection with the appeal,! This had the effect of producing an anomaly when it came down to the Home Office calculating my single terms earliest release date (EDR) because although it was brought forward by the relevant 10 month period, but it was then extended again retrospectively so that the same 10 month period was taken back from me, so that I didn't benefit at all for having spent 10 months on remand!
I therefore spent 10 months in custody longer than I should have, and did not get released from prison until December 1995!
The writ of habeas corpus taken out by my solicitors ('Give us the body'), served to make the treasury solicitors to offer me £42,000 in compensation, which was accepted, and the matter put to bed!
Use of a writ of habeas corpus, therefore, can in the right circumstances, compel one party or another, to take a particular course of action! It can be a very powerful tool to use, when one party, or another, refuses to comply, and a person's entitlements have in someway been infringed upon, etc, etc, etc...
-
In 1996, solicitor's based in Worksop, UK, acting in my best interests applied to the high Court for a writ of habeas corpus, to try to compel the Home Office to give me the benefit of 10 months worth of time I had spent on remand in custody awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the Royal Courts of Justice, which overlapped a separate term of imprisonment that I was also serving! This 10 month period of remand was only once taken into account when the Home Office calculated my (earliest date of release) EDR, which they then extended by this same 10 month period delaying my EDR by 10 months!
This case was brought about because those representing my interests, believed that I had not received the entitlement or benefit of having a 10 month period on remand in custody taken into account against what was by then a single term of imprisonment, involving multiple sentences, with a single term EDR, where the new rules took into account periods of remand spent in custody in relation to each sentence that had been imposed, and that during the transitional period involving where these new rules came into force, some prisoners already serving terms of imprisonment prior to the date when the new rules came into force, where multiple sentences attracted Thier own EDR's, might benefit and be released much sooner than they ordinarily would have been under the old rules. In a nutshell, all sentences had to be calculated as a single term, producing only one earliest date of release!
Anyway, the circumstances of my case, were such that I did not physically benefit by the new rules, because between July 1991 and May 1992, I was on bail to the court of appeal matters, but on remand for a separate matter! In May 1992, the court of appeal revoked bail in connection with the appeal,! This had the effect of producing an anomaly when it came down to the Home Office calculating my single terms earliest release date (EDR) because although it was brought forward by the relevant 10 month period, but it was then extended again retrospectively so that the same 10 month period was taken back from me, so that I didn't benefit at all for having spent 10 months on remand!
I therefore spent 10 months in custody longer than I should have, and did not get released from prison until December 1995!
The writ of habeas corpus taken out by my solicitors ('Give us the body'), served to make the treasury solicitors to offer me £42,000 in compensation, which was accepted, and the matter put to bed!
Use of a writ of habeas corpus, therefore, can in the right circumstances, compel one party or another, to take a particular course of action! It can be a very powerful tool to use, when one party, or another, refuses to comply, and a person's entitlements have in someway been infringed upon, etc, etc, etc...
I was officially, therefore, falsely imprisoned for a period of 10 months, which the treasury solicitors valued at £4,200 per month...
-
This is a 'policy' piece, and those who are interested only in discussing the murders and the legal case may wish to skip this thread.
Before I begin, an important caveat is that while I will be making here a highly speculative legal argument, my interest is confined to a conventional understanding of the law (including, as here, novel innovations within existing principles). I have no wish to promote or explore pseudo-legal arguments, such as those advanced by common law movements and other fringe groups.
For the purposes of what I will say here, I am going to adopt the assumption that Jeremy Bamber is actually guilty - though he has not entered a reliable confession, so only he knows this - and I will envision a scenario about 4 or 5 years into the future in which a further application to the CCRC has been made and has failed and Bamber's legal prospects are considered bleak.
At that point, given the state of the law as it is, Bamber would have few options beyond making a confession and hoping that he might be released at some point on compassionate or other legal grounds.
What I would like to tentatively explore is the possibility of an alternative relief, which is rarely used in England but is quite often made use of by prisoners in the United States. Although clearly the USA is a separate jurisdiction, it is widely understood that its laws and norms are an off-shoot of English law. Here I will look specifically at the relief of habeas corpus ad subiciendum - Latin for 'You have the body for examination', usually shortened to habeas corpus.
In basic terms, in most common law jurisdictions (including England & Wales), prisoners (either pro se or through counsel) or third parties ad litem, can apply to the court for a writ of habeas corpus, which requires a custodian (usually a prison governor or manager of a psychiatric unit, or similar) to deliver a prisoner or patient to the court for the purposes of examining the legality of his continued confinement. In English courts, this is known formally as a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Release, and the application is made to the High Court nearest to the prisoner, or when the court is not 'in term', i.e. the judge is not sitting locally, application should be made to the High Court in London.
In England, my impression is that habeas corpus litigation is not used extensively, and when it is used, tends to be restricted to seeking relief for individuals in certain eclectic categories of confinement, some examples being: people who have been 'sectioned', i.e. held in non-custodial psychiatric units pursuant to the Mental Health Act; people who are in immigration detention; and, civil prisoners in ordinary prisons.
In contrast, in the United States, habeas corpus writs are used much more commonly in mainstream criminal justice. The most high-profile application of habeas corpus in American jurisprudence is in cases where a long-term prisoner may have failed to appeal his conviction or sentence, or both, and as a last resort, identifies evidential or procedural flaws in the original trial or the police investigation that may threaten the legality of his detention. Some of you may be familiar with the case of Rubin Carter, a death row inmate in America who had been convicted of murder at the state level and always protested his innocence. Carter's appeals to the state courts failed and his lawyers then decided to seek relief under federal law by applying for a writ of habeas corpus. When the application was heard, Carter's lawyers were able to argue successfully that his original trial breached his legal and constitutional rights and he was released from death row and his conviction was quashed.
Again, here I assume Jeremy Bamber is guilty, and I ask: Is the Jeremy Bamber case an example of why the English courts should make greater use of habeas corpus to relieve prisoners who may even be guilty, but whose rights have been infringed?
I believe so, and would cite the following:
1. First, in my view, Bamber did not receive a fair trial. Some of the points to consider are:
(i). Julie Mugford's evidence was strictly irrelevant, intended only to manipulate the jury, and her statements should not have been admitted into evidence.
(ii). The police failed to undertake a proper criminal investigation, which undermined the presumption of innocence and shifted much of the burden of proof to Bamber himself. The prosecution case was weak in that there was no forensic evidence directly linking Bamber to the crime scene.
(iii). The court failed to inform the jury of key facts and evidence and did not visit White House Farm.
(iv). The trial judge misdirected the jury.
(v). The provenance of the key piece of evidence, the moderator, is highly questionable given that there was a plain motive - and perhaps also an inclination - for some members of the extended family to see Bamber convicted.
(vi). Important evidence was not disclosed to Bamber by Essex Police at trial, or for many years after, and this may have impeded his defence and his ability to appeal his conviction.
2. Second, I think the lawfulness and fairness of Bamber's continued imprisonment is open to question. There is the simple fact that Bamber has now spent 33 years in prison and counting. I believe that is punishment enough. Also, Bamber was handed a 25-year tariff by the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Drake. I appreciate that does not mean he should have been released at the 25-year point, only that he was eligible for parole at that point - a different thing. However, there is no suggestion that Bamber is a public risk, he remains in prison only due to ministerial interference, namely the imposition of a whole life order. Contrary to what is sometimes believed, the European Court of Human Rights did not rule that whole life orders in England are unlawful, but did rule that such orders must be subject to annual reviews, with the possibility of release for prisoners who make progress in their rehabilitation. The fact that Bamber denies these offences does not, in itself, preclude his rehabilitation.
Is a habeas corpus argument at all viable or realistic?
I cannot say. I merely open the idea up for honest discussion. I call this a 'revival' of habeas corpus because although the relief is firmly entrenched and used regularly in the English courts, it is not used to its full potential. A professional lawyer or judge will immediately scoff at my argument. That's not necessarily a commentary on its validity, rather it's because practitioners and jurists in the legal system must be conservative - for obvious reasons, they will not stray too far from established practices. This is a novel point - albeit within existing laws and principles - and, for the moment, more appropriate for consideration by the academic lawyer.
One of the points that distinguishes the two major Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions is that the English, due to our natural informality, have retained a great reverence for juries. This permeates even discussion of criminal cases in society. We sometimes hear ordinary people say: 'He was convicted by a jury'. Lawyers in court even sometimes say the same thing when a criminal conviction is mentioned or brought into question. (A Treasury counsel once cross-examined me in a Customs & Excise case in which I was the defendant, and at one point he said in reference to a previous case: 'You were convicted by a jury!'. I felt like saying, 'Yeah, so what?', but resisted the urge). It is believed the jury's verdict is sacrosanct and it is that deep psychic attachment to the wisdom and common-sense of the layman that sometimes inhibits a proper, science-based review of judicial decisions.
Our American cousins, in contrast, are more ready to override juries, and early on in their history, having faced down the Crown in a violent rebellion and established a civil Republic, took up the incipient constitutionalism of the English Parliamentarians and gave it full expression in a written constitution and rigid legal protections for criminal defendants that allow educated judges to upturn the decisions of juries with ease, even on very technical grounds. Hence the case of Rubin Carter and many similar others.
Rubin Carter may well have been guilty, but that is not what matters to an American judge. It's not the point. The point is that Carter's rights were infringed and so he had to be granted relief and released. It's not that American courts want to help murderers, rather it's that due to America's history, the American judiciary and wider society understands the vital importance of procedural integrity in criminal proceedings for the protection of fundamental liberties. The point being - if they can frame a bad person, they can frame a good person too. There has to be something standing in the way - that something is law.
It could get him the publicity he craves I suppose. We can all surmise why he has not confessed: the renunciation of any hope of compensation, the stigma of being labelled a child killer and its immediate security implications, the loss of face amongst supporters to name but a few. The actual Latin is Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum-by submitting the body, and I would have thought it would have been more applicable for somebody who couldn't speak for themselves such as a mentally incapacitated person, rather than someone of Bamber's ilk, who has been writing letters at every opportunity to all and sundry for the past 33 years.
I thought Rubin Carter's Defence got a Prosecution witness to recant his evidence, and along with playing the race card and Bob Dylan's intervention succeeded in rattling the Legal Establishment enough into releasing him.
I would like to think we could retain the jury system, that is trial by one's peers, as this does diffuse decisions down to the people. There may be rare decisions in complex business matters or reasons of national security that trials should be held in camera with a judge only.
-
Yes, but I already know all that. My point is that this is not how habeas corpus is applied in the United States and other common law jurisdictions, and while obviously that is no guide or precedent for the English courts, it does indicate that the principle could be expanded.
If you stop and think about it, the example of Youell Swinney backs up my argument. You've just helped me make my case, albeit that in the matter of Bamber, the Crown would presumably contest a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that Bamber's sentence is 'legal': but that then begs the question.
That in itself is the issue. I'm not pretending that, as matters stand, habeas corpus is the correct route or would be a strong avenue, I simply raise the possibility for further discussion.
In my view, ineffective assistance of counsel will not work as a ground of appeal for two reasons: first, he has already had ample opportunity to make that argument, it's now far too late; second, his counsel was not 'ineffective' in the sense understood by the courts (I do agree that his defence let him down, but that is not the same point). Defendants charged with homicide offences and reliant on legal aid are normally granted representation by experienced QCs, or at the least, very 'senior' junior counsel, and one of the reasons for this is to close-off a potential ground of appeal.
With regard to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, as you will be aware, that is in practice a ministerial prerogative, so you are relying on a politician to grant this relief and that will likely only happen if Bamber confesses or he has reached very old age and is infirm or terminally-ill (if the latter, normally the Prison Service would just release him anyway as long as he is old).
Have politicians ever intervened in these matters or are they content to take the soft option of extending a sentence until they have either moved on from the Home Office portfolio or retired? In any case don't underestimate the power of the Monarch to intervene should enough stink be created for the Legal Establishment that for a quiet life it would be better to take the risk that a given prisoner be released.
-
Steve,unfortunately JB's indirect connections to the Monarch would put the blockers on your suggestion for starters. It'll forever remain as an " excuse " to keep JB where he is,regardless.
-
Steve,unfortunately JB's indirect connections to the Monarch would put the blockers on your suggestion for starters. It'll forever remain as an " excuse " to keep JB where he is,regardless.
Yes I hadn't thought of that Lookout. The Monarch might look more favourably had Leslie Marsham expressed sympathy for his natural son, but as things stand the Defence is facing a brick wall pursuing that legal angle.
-
In my view, ineffective assistance of counsel will not work as a ground of appeal for two reasons: first, he has already had ample opportunity to make that argument, it's now far too late; second, his counsel was not 'ineffective' in the sense understood by the courts (I do agree that his defence let him down, but that is not the same point). Defendants charged with homicide offences and reliant on legal aid are normally granted representation by experienced QCs, or at the least, very 'senior' junior counsel, and one of the reasons for this is to close-off a potential ground of appeal.
All you need to do is get the defence QC to admit he screwed up.
easier said than done. But in thoery its a straight forward shortcut to getting it off the ground.
-
The actual Latin is Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum-by submitting the body,
I give the full Latin in the opening post.
and I would have thought it would have been more applicable for somebody who couldn't speak for themselves such as a mentally incapacitated person, rather than someone of Bamber's ilk, who has been writing letters at every opportunity to all and sundry for the past 33 years.
As explained above, habeas corpus writs are used in England in very different areas of law: including immigration detention, Mental Health Act cases and civil imprisonment. They can be applied for ad litem where the prisoner or patient is thought to be non compos mentis, but they can equally be used by mentally-competent individuals and are. The fact that Bamber is compos mentis does not in itself exclude him from the relief.
I thought Rubin Carter's Defence got a Prosecution witness to recant his evidence, and along with playing the race card and Bob Dylan's intervention succeeded in rattling the Legal Establishment enough into releasing him.
He was released under habeas corpus proceedings after conventional appeals had failed.
I would like to think we could retain the jury system, that is trial by one's peers, as this does diffuse decisions down to the people. There may be rare decisions in complex business matters or reasons of national security that trials should be held in camera with a judge only.
My view is that juries should be retained, but reformed to restrict who qualifies to sit on a jury. I believe the problem is not the jury system per se, but rather the modern tendency to think that virtually anybody can and should serve in that capacity, which I believe is greatly detrimental to the credibility and seriousness of juries.
-
All you need to do is get the defence QC to admit he screwed up.
easier said than done. But in thoery its a straight forward shortcut to getting it off the ground.
That won't happen though, will it.
-
Have politicians ever intervened in these matters or are they content to take the soft option of extending a sentence until they have either moved on from the Home Office portfolio or retired? In any case don't underestimate the power of the Monarch to intervene should enough stink be created for the Legal Establishment that for a quiet life it would be better to take the risk that a given prisoner be released.
Realistically, I think if I was Bamber's solicitor, I would be telling him that, his appeals aside, the way forward is to work towards rehabilitation within the prison system, as that does provide a route towards more favourable conditions and temporary release privileges. The obvious difficulty is that he is a child killer, but there are specialist prisons that would accommodate him and it is definitely possible for a Category B prisoner to move straight to a Category D wing in a closed prison and then work towards temporary release.
His first move is to have his security classification downgraded from A to B, which shouldn't be too difficult given that has happened before and he was only re-categorised after objections from the family. I'm surprised that is not being pushed more aggressively.
-
I give the full Latin in the opening post.
As explained above, habeas corpus writs are used in England in very different areas of law: including immigration detention, Mental Health Act cases and civil imprisonment. They can be applied for ad litem where the prisoner or patient is thought to be non compos mentis, but they can equally be used by mentally-competent individuals and are. The fact that Bamber is compos mentis does not in itself exclude him from the relief.
He was released under habeas corpus proceedings after conventional appeals had failed.
My view is that juries should be retained, but reformed to restrict who qualifies to sit on a jury. I believe the problem is not the jury system per se, but rather the modern tendency to think that virtually anybody can and should serve in that capacity, which I believe is greatly detrimental to the credibility and seriousness of juries.
Yes but you spelt it wrongly. As far as the jury question is concerned you might as well restrict voting in a General Election if you go down that route. Anyway I thought the Defence could object to a jury member before the trial started under the current system.
-
Yes but you spelt it wrongly. As far as the jury question is concerned you might as well restrict voting in a General Election if you go down that route. Anyway I thought the Defence could object to a jury member before the trial started under the current system.
It was a simple typo, I accidentally missed out the 'j'. Thanks for pointing that out.
I do think voting should be restricted too. I would introduce male-only enfranchisement, and restrict it to men over 35.
You're right, the defence can object to a juror. So what? The point is surely that the pool from which the jurors are selected is deficient. The average person, for a mixture of intellectual and emotional reasons, lacks the capability to evaluate the evidence. That's why Julie Mugford's evidence was allowed: it's necessary in 'mass democratic' jury trials to manipulate juries, as they can't assess cases purely on the cold facts.
There's also the problem that majority verdicts are permitted. I believe that is also a modern innovation. Jury verdicts should be unanimous. Nobody should spend a single day in prison on the basis of a head count. The point being that if one or two jurors are skeptical, that is a signal that there is something wrong with the Crown's case. That's the whole point of why we have Twelve Men: it reflects the ancient wisdom that in any group of a dozen or so people, the majority will be conformists (a bit like you, Steve), and then there will be one or two skeptical or neutrally-minded individuals (a bit like me). The minority skeptics like me should never be shouted down - hence the old practice of jury unanimity.
Face it - the jury system has been deliberately eroded and we now have mob justice in all but name.
-
It was a simple typo, I accidentally missed out the 'j'. Thanks for pointing that out.
I do think voting should be restricted too. I would introduce male-only enfranchisement, and restrict it to men over 35.
You're right, the defence can object to a juror. So what? The point is surely that the pool from which the jurors are selected is deficient. The average person, for a mixture of intellectual and emotional reasons, lacks the capability to evaluate the evidence. That's why Julie Mugford's evidence was allowed: it's necessary in 'mass democratic' jury trials to manipulate juries, as they can't assess cases purely on the cold facts.
There's also the problem that majority verdicts are permitted. I believe that is also a modern innovation. Jury verdicts should be unanimous. Nobody should spend a single day in prison on the basis of a head count. The point being that if one or two jurors are skeptical, that is a signal that there is something wrong with the Crown's case. That's the whole point of why we have Twelve Men: it reflects the ancient wisdom that in any group of a dozen or so people, the majority will be conformists (a bit like you, Steve), and then there will be one or two skeptical or neutrally-minded individuals (a bit like me). The minority skeptics like me should never be shouted down - hence the old practice of jury unanimity.
Face it - the jury system has been deliberately eroded and we now have mob justice in all but name.
Wasn't there one jury member in the Ian Huntley case who insisted on his innocence? Surely the judge can use his common sense and ask for a majority verdict should he see fit?
As for myself you don't know me, so can't sit as judge and jury upon me.
-
Wasn't there one jury member in the Ian Huntley case who insisted on his innocence? Surely the judge can use his common sense and ask for a majority verdict should he see fit?
My point is that that should not be permitted. I've explained why in the immediate post above: juror unanimity is an important protection, due to human nature.
As for myself you don't know me, so can't sit as judge and jury upon me.
Just pulling your leg.