Latest News 19.12.19
Statement regarding the White House Farm ITV drama.
We first became aware of a planned ITV drama about Jeremy’s case in December 2017, and took immediate steps to offer our assistance by contacting Kim Varvell at Production Company ‘New Pictures’, Commissioning Editor Kevin Lygo at ITV and writer Chris Mrska. We were willing to provide access to brand new forensic reports, our team of scientists, the case material, fresh evidence, and Jeremy and his legal team. Our offers were ignored, and we believe therefore, that the drama can only be based on factually incorrect and very out of date material.
Our campaign is not only about proving Jeremy’s innocence, but protecting the memory of his much-loved family who will undoubtedly have their characters dissected and denigrated in order to make sensationalised television. This will not benefit anyone, least of all Jeremy in his fight for justice, but will simply be a money pot for ITV, reaping in millions of pounds from a family tragedy that is still unresolved.
We need to make it clear that the Jeremy Bamber Campaign, Jeremy, and his legal team, do not endorse this drama.
Mark Newby, Jeremy’s solicitor, has written to ITV requesting that owing to the sensitivity in the current legal approaches that have been made to the High Court that the drama at the very least be postponed. Mr Newby of Quality Solicitors Jordans wrote:
“We have written to the producers of the Drama Series and invited them to postpone the broadcast of this series whilst matters are resolved in the High Court . We have intimated that we are concerned that such a drama series by its nature will place a fictitious narrative in the public domain which may be counter productive to the administration of justice in due course.”
We sincerely hope that in the interests of fairness and justice that ITV accede to this request.
The application for Judicial Review against the Crown Prosecution Service.
On 6 December 2019, Jeremy Bamber’s legal team served a Judicial Review application against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) following their repeated refusal to disclose key documentation to the defence. The decision to take action followed over three years of discussions between Jeremy’s legal team and various Heads of department at the CPS.
The Judicial Review is specific to two defined areas.
1. Directions made by the Court of Appeal in 2001/2002 for full disclosure of police and forensic material that have never been complied with. Partial disclosure was made after the appeal concluded, however PII rules at the time prevented this being disclosed to Jeremy and the campaign team. In 2011 this material was finally disclosed and subsequent analysis resulted in a comprehensive schedule detailing exactly what is missing. This includes forensic documents, photographs and police/scientist/civilian statements. The directions were presented to the CPS with details of exactly what was still undisclosed, yet disclosure has been refused.
2. Fresh documentary and scientific evidence was provided to the CPS together with a detailed forensic report which set out how we are able to show conclusively that two silencers were seized from White House Farm, that were both forensically examined, and were both found to have blood and paint contaminates on and in them, in different areas, contaminates which increased over time.
The police data base “Holmes” Box reference numbers were provided for the material, as well as the reasons this evidence is important, including the necessity for the defence to establish a complete chain of evidence for the two silencers, and to enable this material to be submitted to the CCRC in as a complete and substantial application as possible.
The claim is now in the hands of the Administrative Court to consider and we will advise, if appropriate, as and when permission for a hearing is granted.
Statement from Mark Newby, Solicitor representing Jeremy Bamber
Jeremy Bamber: Judicial Review against the Crown Prosecution Service
Posted on December 9, 2019
Today the Guardian Newspaper has published an article which confirms that on Friday 6th December Judicial Review Proceedings were issued against the Crown Prosecution Service over significant non-disclosure we can comment as follows:
We have been engaged in an extensive dialogue with the Crown Prosecution Service for sometime as our investigation in conjunction with the team supporting this case has uncovered what appears to be significant evidence supporting the fact that there has been a miscarriage of justice. However in order that we can progress this case further essential further disclosure is required which has been set out to the Crown Prosecution Service in precise terms.
It is disappointing that the CPS has chosen not to engage with that process and accordingly there is no alternative but to pursue that judicial review , particularly in circumstances where it appears that this may demonstrate that a misleading position was placed before the jury in relation to the forensic evidence .
We do not propose to comment further upon the matter whist judicial review proceedings are underway. We are aware that this case gives rise to huge media interest, but we would recommend caution whilst proceedings are underway in view of the consequences to this litigation and any future appeal.
Read a statement from Jeremy Bamber here
New evidence further supports Jeremy's 3.36 call to the police made 10 minutes after his father's at 3.26, reported in the Mirror today online, and on the Front page and double page spread of the print edition. To view the evidence found in 2010 on the call logs alongside the lastest evidence click here. There is also a video explaining the issue from 2010 here.
Read the statement from, Jeremy's solicitor, Mark Newby here
This comes after the Guardian reported that the jury did not know that the blood found in the sound moderator, which apparently matched the group of Sheila Caffell, also matched estate beneficiary Robert Boutflour. In 2002, at the last Appeal, it could not be proven that Sheila's DNA was ever in the sound moderator.
Jeremy Bamber's lawyer, Mark Newby, is currently in an ongoing discussion with the CPS regarding the non-disclosure of key evidence. At the time of the trial the Defence did not know that there was more than one sound moderator seized by police. One came from the relatives (later estate beneficiaries) who found the moderator at the house days after the police had finished their work. The other was probably taken by police from the house before the end of their scenes of crime work. It is impossible to tell the difference between them at various times, but disclosed paperwork shows that there were two moderators being examined on the same day, each with different contaminates and having different characteristics. This means that we can be certain there were two.
A new forensic report has been given to the CPS which supports this evidence together with a legal a request for disclosure of all chain of evidence material. The report also brings into question the integrity of the police forensic examinations. These moderators (silencers) were swapped and used interchangeably by police. Furthermore, it is impossible to know which one was examined for the 2002 Appeal in which there was no DNA from Sheila Caffell obtained, but there was DNA from an unidentified male. There is a possibility the DNA came from one of the Bamber estate beneficiaries, Robert Boutflour, who had an identical blood group to Sheila. The trial court was not told about this simple fact, even when the jury asked if Robert Boutflour and the beneficiaries had financial motive to lie.
This issue was recently reported in the Guardian by Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone.