Press Statement from Mark Newby on the Judicial Review of the CPS decision not to disclose evidence.
“Immediate Disclosure Declined as door left open by the Court “
Today the High Court declined a request by the those representing Jeremy Bamber to order disclosure which would have answered a very material aspect of this case namely prima facie conclusions reached by an eminent Ballistics Expert that there may have been two Silencers examined in this investigation . The issue could have been answered by disclosing just 27 documents out of an overall case file running to several million pages.
It remains our view that this would have been the most expedient and resource sensitive way to address this important issue , however the High Court has concluded that the high water mark imposed in the case of Nunn R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk  AC 225 has not in this case been crossed . Indeed The Honourable Mr Justice Knowles who decided the case considered that this case was so uniquely complex that the Court could simply not itself do justice to a determination one way or the other of whether Jeremy Bamber could establish in the end whether he had the required evidence to demonstrate to the Court that he and his expert are correct and that accordingly the material would make a decisive difference .
Counsel for Jeremy Bamber said that the existence of a second moderator would potentially undermine the safety of the convictions. Whilst the prosecution also relied on other evidence, the question of whether Ms Caffell could have shot herself with the moderator affixed to the rifle inevitably became a prominent one. He said there were questions surrounding the correctness of the attribution of the blood to Ms Caffell, and the attribution of the paint to a struggle with Nevill Bamber. Jeremy Bamber had advanced a detailed assessment of why this would make a material difference to the safety of the conviction.
The essence was that Jeremy Bamber was very sure that the conclusion with the 27 documents seen would have supported his case, however we could not say for certainty without seeing the documents and this remained the problem.
The argument was strongly contested by the Crown, but, the real thrust of the argument was that it was only the CCRC who could consider this uniquely complex case.
His Lordship significantly summarised the position as it stands as this:
“55. I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and have read and considered all of the material that has been lodged. I have carefully considered the decision of Saini J and for the reasons that he gave, with which I agree, and for the following reasons, I have concluded that permission should be refused. This does not leave the Claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”
Whilst the decision is disappointing, we agree with his Lordships assessment that Jeremy Bamber certainly does have the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC. Indeed there is material which still simply cannot be put into the public domain and a significant amount of further material which will now be added to the application to now be put to the Commission which we consider will require a thorough investigation by the Commission .
The net consequence of what is about to be delivered in the months ahead is to afford the commission an opportunity to be able to look at key areas of this uniquely complex case again, but with the benefit of fresh material which we submit raises the required possibility that the Court would not now uphold the conviction if the case was referred .
As part of the run into this case there was criticism that Jeremy Bamber was advancing a narrative of misconduct by Essex Police which was unsubstantiated , yet it was revealed just 24 hours before the hearing , following concerns that had been raised by Jeremy Bamber , that a former senior investigating officer in the case Michael Ainsley had not only taken sensitive material from the investigation home , but he had passed documents to the author of the Book , Carol Ann Lee , which led to the ITV Drama and then taken it upon himself to destroy evidence .
This is a deeply concerning chain of events, which is subject to an ongoing investigation.
Accordingly despite the overall outcome to this review , it is our view that the Jeremy Bamber’s case has moved forward as result of these proceedings and the team look forward to the now pivotal next step of being able to start to engage with the commission over this case in the months ahead .
The Onus is now on the Commission once it is seized of the case as His Lordship noted:
“57. If ever there was a case where the CCRC should be approached to make a decision on what is said to be new evidence, it is this one. This is a massively complex case which has been investigated and re-investigated by more than one police force over some 35 years. The body of material is vast. After so many years, and so much litigation, the CCRC is the body undoubtedly best placed to consider the Claimant’s arguments. This case is so complicated, and has so many overlapping layers, that judicial review is a hopelessly blunt tool with which to address and determine the Claimant’s arguments. Even deciding what disclosure has, or has not, been made is fraught with difficulty Even if the Claimant were right on his primary case, the Court is hardly in a position to say whether the CPS’s determination that it would not mean the convictions are unsafe, is one which was not reasonably open to it. It simply does not have the material or understanding of all the detail of the case to be able to make that determination.”
Jeremy Bamber is represented by Mark Newby of QualitySolicitors Jordans – https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby
His Counsel are:
Matt Stanbury https://gcnchambers.co.uk/barrister/matthew-stanbury/
Jeremy Bamber - Judicial Review Adjourned
Posted on May 1, 2020
The Judicial Review of Jeremy Bamber was heard today Via Skype by the Honorourable Mr Justice Knowles and was on Jeremy Bamber's application adjourned
Jeremy Bamber continues to pursue his judicial review against the Director of Public Prosecutions over serious non disclosures and non-compliance with previous Court of Appeal orders .
The matter came before the Honorarable Mr Justice Knowles on 1st May 2020 . On the 30th April we received from the Crown a Skeleton Argument which raised a significant amount of material upon which fairness dictated that Jeremy Bamber should be able to comment upon
The Crown opposed the application to adjourn but it was granted .
Accordingly the matter has now been adjourned until 29th May and we expect to file a robust response to the Crown in advance of the hearing
At this stage no skeleton arguments will be released from the case but the Court will reconsider release once the amended skeleton argument has been filed .
Mark Newby, solicitor
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.