Murderer Jeremy Bamber's legal bid for appeal refused - Oct 2012

[ActualMat]

Yes - the hearing will basically allow Bamber's representative to argue his written case. It wont be a full hearing though and will possibly not last longer then a couple of hours ( its still at the filter stage where the court decides whether there is enough there to take it to a final hearing). Mckay is a solicitor-advocate according to his website, so will argue the case himself ( that's assuming they go for a hearing). I may pop along there myself if Im around the High Court.

That would be brill frank.  Having someone inside the court as it happens would be priceless. Wish I could be there too!

Do we know when it is likely to be assuming McKay makes application?

I can try!

[Matthew Wyse]

Here is the latest from Jeremy Bamber as posted on the blue forum:

“Yesterday saw the High Court reject my application to Judicially Review the decision from the CCRC not to send my case back to the appeal court based on the new evidence. It is our intention to apply for an oral hearing and I have every confidence in my legal team to submit the case and win.  I suspect that the decision made today has political implications, particularly in light of so many recent events where police corruption and general misconduct in public office is shown to be virulent, this is especially so where high profile cases are concerned.  Should I win my case at Judicial Review, the conduct, competency and integrity of the CCRC will be brought into question. The impact of this will be very serious as the handling of all of the cases rejected (currently at 96%)  by the underfunded and so called ‘independent’ government operated department will have to be reviewed, and the CCRC would no longer be a political patsy able to ignore police corruption and keep it under wraps at the cost of the tax payer and the innocent victims of injustice."


Yawn yawn   

[Jerry]

Here is the latest from Jeremy Bamber as posted on the blue forum:

“Yesterday saw the High Court reject my application to Judicially Review the decision from the CCRC not to send my case back to the appeal court based on the new evidence. It is our intention to apply for an oral hearing and I have every confidence in my legal team to submit the case and win.  I suspect that the decision made today has political implications, particularly in light of so many recent events where police corruption and general misconduct in public office is shown to be virulent, this is especially so where high profile cases are concerned.  Should I win my case at Judicial Review, the conduct, competency and integrity of the CCRC will be brought into question. The impact of this will be very serious as the handling of all of the cases rejected (currently at 96%)  by the underfunded and so called ‘independent’ government operated department will have to be reviewed, and the CCRC would no longer be a political patsy able to ignore police corruption and keep it under wraps at the cost of the tax payer and the innocent victims of injustice."


Yawn yawn   

This did make me laugh to be honest.  Are we expected to believe this bit of a rant came from Bamber or is this the handiwork of loved up girly Daniele Hammond?   Could it be that Bamber is so deluded after 27 years that he honestly thinks the public give a flying fig about him.  Don't you just have to laugh at the attacks on the CCRC by Bamber and that other dafty over on the blue forum.  The very people who have the power to have their case sent back to the appeal court and all they can do is to defame them.  He is certainly burning his bridges by the looks of it.   


In my opinion it is time the law was changed to stop murderers like Bamber making a complete ar.. out of the legal system.   Time for closure don't you all think?

[Matthew Wyse]

I think he and his supporters are all living in cloud cuckoo land if the truth be known.   Can you imagine what they would be like if someone some day were to find some evidence of Bambers innocence?   It is interesting to see that the judge didn't even feel that there was anything in the gun tests carried out in Arizona which can only go to show that they are worthless.  IMO if there had been anything in them they could have ordered new independent tests to be carried out.  Obviously they are of the opinion that all this so called new evidence is just a smokescreen.

[frank50]

I agree, but there will be closure if he loses this judicial review. I believe that the CCRC will refuse to rexamine the case ( whatever crap he throws at them) - they said as much when they released their decision earlier in the year. .

Here is the latest from Jeremy Bamber as posted on the blue forum:

“Yesterday saw the High Court reject my application to Judicially Review the decision from the CCRC not to send my case back to the appeal court based on the new evidence. It is our intention to apply for an oral hearing and I have every confidence in my legal team to submit the case and win.  I suspect that the decision made today has political implications, particularly in light of so many recent events where police corruption and general misconduct in public office is shown to be virulent, this is especially so where high profile cases are concerned.  Should I win my case at Judicial Review, the conduct, competency and integrity of the CCRC will be brought into question. The impact of this will be very serious as the handling of all of the cases rejected (currently at 96%)  by the underfunded and so called ‘independent’ government operated department will have to be reviewed, and the CCRC would no longer be a political patsy able to ignore police corruption and keep it under wraps at the cost of the tax payer and the innocent victims of injustice."


Yawn yawn   

This did make me laugh to be honest.  Are we expected to believe this bit of a rant came from Bamber or is this the handiwork of loved up girly Daniele Hammond?   Could it be that Bamber is so deluded after 27 years that he honestly thinks the public give a flying fig about him.  Don't you just have to laugh at the attacks on the CCRC by Bamber and that other dafty over on the blue forum.  The very people who have the power to have their case sent back to the appeal court and all they can do is to defame them.  He is certainly burning his bridges by the looks of it.   


In my opinion it is time the law was changed to stop murderers like Bamber making a complete ar.. out of the legal system.   Time for closure don't you all think?

[John]

I agree, but there will be closure if he loses this judicial review. I believe that the CCRC will refuse to rexamine the case ( whatever crap he throws at them) - they said as much when they released their decision earlier in the year.

Do you think they (the High Court) are just going through the motions frank and that their decision has already been made?   >@@(*&)

[frank50]

Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber. 

I agree, but there will be closure if he loses this judicial review. I believe that the CCRC will refuse to rexamine the case ( whatever crap he throws at them) - they said as much when they released their decision earlier in the year.

Do you think they (the High Court) are just going through the motions frank and that their decision has already been made?   >@@(*&)

[John]

Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.

I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture.  By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage. 

It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf.  When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.

[Matthew Wyse]

Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.

I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture.  By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage. 

It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf.  When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.

Simon McKay is supposed to be doing this work on a pro bono basis isn't he?   Not the sort of thing a lawyer normally does so what is he hoping to gain from this if anything?  I haven't known a lawyer to do anything for nothing in all the years I have been in business.  8-)(--)

I will just add isn't Jeremy Bamber supposed to be broke...penniless...after his failed attempts to shaft the remaining family who inherited Nevill and June's estates?

[Mr Justice K]

Murderer Jeremy Bamber's legal bid for appeal refused!



A judge has turned down Jeremy Bamber's latest appeal bid.


Convicted killer Jeremy Bamber has lost the latest stage in his legal battle to clear his name.

Bamber is serving a whole life sentence for shooting dead five members of his family in Essex in 1985.

He had sought to challenge the Criminal Cases Review Commission's (CCRC) decision not to send his case to the Court of Appeal.

But that bid has been turned down by a High Court judge. His lawyers said a further hearing in court might be made.

Read more...

Quite the correct judgement in my opinion.  The evidence in this case points most assuredly to a guilty verdict and I would be most surprised if any other decision had been forthcoming.

My Lordships are not infallible but I personally feel on this occasion that they got it spot on.

[frank50]

Lawyers do pro bono cases quite regularly to be fair but you have to find them! I think Mckay was hoping to get a referral to the Court of Appeal, at which point Bamber would get legal aid and Mckay would earn a lot of money as a solicitor-advocate (and a lot of publicity for his practice). If the JR is thrown out, Id be very surprised if Mckay carries on. The posters on the other forum seem to think that Mckay will, in some way, welcome the chance to start again from scratch but I dont reckon so at all.

Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.

I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture.  By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage. 

It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf.  When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.

Simon McKay is supposed to be doing this work on a pro bono basis isn't he?   Not the sort of thing a lawyer normally does so what is he hoping to gain from this if anything?  I haven't known a lawyer to do anything for nothing in all the years I have been in business.  8-)(--)

I will just add isn't Jeremy Bamber supposed to be broke...penniless...after his failed attempts to shaft the remaining family who inherited Nevill and June's estates?

[puglove]

Lawyers do pro bono cases quite regularly to be fair but you have to find them! I think Mckay was hoping to get a referral to the Court of Appeal, at which point Bamber would get legal aid and Mckay would earn a lot of money as a solicitor-advocate (and a lot of publicity for his practice). If the JR is thrown out, Id be very surprised if Mckay carries on. The posters on the other forum seem to think that Mckay will, in some way, welcome the chance to start again from scratch but I dont reckon so at all.

Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.

I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture.  By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage. 

It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf.  When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.

Simon McKay is supposed to be doing this work on a pro bono basis isn't he?   Not the sort of thing a lawyer normally does so what is he hoping to gain from this if anything?  I haven't known a lawyer to do anything for nothing in all the years I have been in business.  8-)(--)

I will just add isn't Jeremy Bamber supposed to be broke...penniless...after his failed attempts to shaft the remaining family who inherited Nevill and June's estates?

I agree. Even if I believed that JB was innocent, I wouldn't expect for a moment that Simon McKay would tackle the case "from scratch." If all he's got to pin his hopes on are a couple of experiments with dead pig rind and Mike's photos and logs, he's b....red. But I might be wrong. (I don't think I'm wrong!)

[puglove]

If you analyse the blue forum now, it seems to be 4 ladies of a certain age, mertol, Gladys, and 2 intelligent men with their own agenda who still support Mike and his wanderings. So that's 8 people. I suppose I could do a quiz about this, but I'd be interested to know what the ratio is, re: the rest of Great Britain. I'm guessing quite small.   >@@(*&)

[Admin]

Made a couple of edits to tidy up the quote boxes above.   

[Matthew Wyse]

If you analyse the blue forum now, it seems to be 4 ladies of a certain age, mertol, Gladys, and 2 intelligent men with their own agenda who still support Mike and his wanderings. So that's 8 people. I suppose I could do a quiz about this, but I'd be interested to know what the ratio is, re: the rest of Great Britain. I'm guessing quite small.   >@@(*&)

I would say that unless you were from the Colchester/Maldon area you probably wouldn't even remember the case let alone be interested in it.