Understanding Criminal Appeals.

[Myster]

A criminal solicitor's view on the Jeremy Bamber case...

https://freedomlawclinic.org/understanding-criminal-appeals-jeremy-bamber/

[Nicholas]

A criminal solicitor's view on the Jeremy Bamber case...

https://freedomlawclinic.org/understanding-criminal-appeals-jeremy-bamber/

Luke Gittos ‘is a criminal lawyer at Murrays Partnership Solicitors and a specialist in complex criminal litigation. He qualified in 2013 and has been working in criminal justice since 2009. He is the case supervisor for all our criminal work.

‘The Freedom Law Clinic was established in 2015 as a pro bono and alternatively funded project looking at apparent cases of miscarriages of justice, providing support to convicted prisoners who are maintaining their innocence.

As a result of our initial work, we developed a unique programme which harnesses the power of students to provide vital resource for those who are not able to afford representation and might otherwise be denied access to justice.

Now we are a Community Interest Company and fund our work through a diverse range of paid-for education services. We keep our overheads to a minimum and any profit we make is retained within the company and reinvested to fulfil our long term goal of delivering legal education that really does change the world.
https://freedomlawclinic.org/

For £245 ‘pay as you go’ per month you can train to become a solicitor

https://freedomlawclinic.org/sqe-programme-with-qualifying-work-experience/

[Nicholas]

A criminal solicitor's view on the Jeremy Bamber case...

https://freedomlawclinic.org/understanding-criminal-appeals-jeremy-bamber/

There are only 2 parts available ?

[Myster]

There are only 2 parts available ?

It's supposed to be continued later (see end of part 2), but I don't know whether that will be free to view or not.

[Nicholas]

It's supposed to be continued later (see end of part 2), but I don't know whether that will be free to view or not.

Any idea when exactly this was first published ?

It could be a ‘teaser’ of what’s to come for the paying consumer - at £245 ‘pay as you go’ per month 🙄

[colsville]

It's a strange case to examine, and I think he's chosen it in order to get extra clicks and views, rather than any relevancy it has to the law in general. This case is a freak outlier of a case, and a one off.

All except one of the grounds of contention submitted by Bamber to the CoA had already been rejected by the CCRC prior to referral to the CoA.  That includes the 'ground' that the lawyer discussed in the video.  Those 15 grounds of contention should never have been referred to the CoA in the first place.

And yet the lawyer placed a huge amount of weight to the accusation that a TFG officer used one of the phones in the house. A ground of contention that had already been dismissed by the CCRC.

The only real issue here is that Bambers legal team were able to re-submit 15 previously rejected grounds of contention to the CoA, which took up a huge amount of time, which frustrated and annoyed the 3 CoA judges so much, that at the end of their report, they effectively request a change in the law to stop that particular abuse from happening again.

None of that was discussed by the lawyer. But actually, that is the real legal talking point about this case, the ability of one convicted criminal to game the system in his favour, at the expense of genuine miscarriages of justice.

[Nicholas]

It's a strange case to examine, and I think he's chosen it in order to get extra clicks and views, rather than any relevancy it has to the law in general. This case is a freak outlier of a case, and a one off.

All except one of the grounds of contention submitted by Bamber to the CoA had already been rejected by the CCRC prior to referral to the CoA.  That includes the 'ground' that the lawyer discussed in the video.  Those 15 grounds of contention should never have been referred to the CoA in the first place.

And yet the lawyer placed a huge amount of weight to the accusation that a TFG officer used one of the phones in the house. A ground of contention that had already been dismissed by the CCRC.

The only real issue here is that Bambers legal team were able to re-submit 15 previously rejected grounds of contention to the CoA, which took up a huge amount of time, which frustrated and annoyed the 3 CoA judges so much, that at the end of their report, they effectively request a change in the law to stop that particular abuse from happening again.

None of that was discussed by the lawyer. But actually, that is the real legal talking point about this case, the ability of one convicted criminal to game the system in his favour, at the expense of genuine miscarriages of justice.

Yet Luke Gittos didn’t think it relevant to mention in his video ?

Do you recall the name of the law change ?

[Holly Goodhead]

It's a strange case to examine, and I think he's chosen it in order to get extra clicks and views, rather than any relevancy it has to the law in general. This case is a freak outlier of a case, and a one off.

All except one of the grounds of contention submitted by Bamber to the CoA had already been rejected by the CCRC prior to referral to the CoA.  That includes the 'ground' that the lawyer discussed in the video.  Those 15 grounds of contention should never have been referred to the CoA in the first place.

And yet the lawyer placed a huge amount of weight to the accusation that a TFG officer used one of the phones in the house. A ground of contention that had already been dismissed by the CCRC.

The only real issue here is that Bambers legal team were able to re-submit 15 previously rejected grounds of contention to the CoA, which took up a huge amount of time, which frustrated and annoyed the 3 CoA judges so much, that at the end of their report, they effectively request a change in the law to stop that particular abuse from happening again.

None of that was discussed by the lawyer. But actually, that is the real legal talking point about this case, the ability of one convicted criminal to game the system in his favour, at the expense of genuine miscarriages of justice.

The CCRC referred the case to CoA based on the DNA evidence (point 15).  Once referred the defendent is entitled to throw the kitchen sink at it.

How does the CCRC/appeal court know which cases are genuine and which aren't until they're heard?

Despite protestations from the appeal judges the law is still in tact.

[Nicholas]

The CCRC referred the case to CoA based on the DNA evidence (point 15).  Once referred the defendent is entitled to throw the kitchen sink at it.

It’s Appellant Holly and no they are not - although most do

[Holly Goodhead]

It’s Appellant Holly and no they are not - although most do

Yes appellant. You are no doubt better versed in such matters than I am.

If they're not legally entitled to throw the kitchen sink at it then how come they do? 

[colsville]

Yet Luke Gittos didn’t think it relevant to mention in his video ?

Do you recall the name of the law change ?

I don't know if the law was ever changed, but I can't see the reason why someone is allowed to re-submit 'grounds of contention' that have previously been considered and then rejected by the CCRC.  It doesn't make any sense.

I'd be surprised in the intervening 20 years if the law hasn't been changed in some way.  But then again Jeremy Bamber hasn't had the opportunity to abuse the system as he surely would have given half the chance.  So maybe this type of abuse hasn't happened since.

But this is what the appeal court judges wrote in the CoA notes, and it's pretty damning:

paragraph 522

However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained.

We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them.

We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person.

However for us members of the public, the CoA report allows us to see exactly how guilty Jeremy Bamber is, without any of his supporters being able to interfere with the facts.  All people need to do is to check out that report, which Bamber has no control over, and cannot be interfered with by his supporters. It's there forever in black and white for all to see.

So the existence of that report has done a lot of good as far as the truth about the Bamber case is concerned.

For any newbies out there, here's the link:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=(bamber)

[Common sense]

My reading of the CoA case was that Bamber was attempting to produce a "lurking doubt" by showing the police acted in bad faith in withholding or concealing evidence,  for example;

Not disclosing notes from when they had examined his hands ( pointing out that he was there at the time and never asked for them ),   

Not disclosing that the lab had rejected SC's hand swabs because of possible contamination ( the court pointing out that such contamination could have only helped Bamber and deciding that on closer examination, there had been no deliberate attempt to conceal the fact )

Not disclosing details of when he was under surveillance ( his solicitors notes proved that he was aware he was being surveilled at the time )

Etc etc.. As Colsville says, it just seemed to annoy the judges as each of the points were weak to ridiculous on their own and not much stronger when taken together. Remember too that the DNA evidence on which the referral was made was described as "useless" by Bambers own expert.

 The law wasn't changed and there remains no filter on CCRC referrals although "lurking doubt" cases have been considered bad law ever since.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't know if the law was ever changed, but I can't see the reason why someone is allowed to re-submit 'grounds of contention' that have previously been considered and then rejected by the CCRC.  It doesn't make any sense.

I'd be surprised in the intervening 20 years if the law hasn't been changed in some way.  But then again Jeremy Bamber hasn't had the opportunity to abuse the system as he surely would have given half the chance.  So maybe this type of abuse hasn't happened since.

But this is what the appeal court judges wrote in the CoA notes, and it's pretty damning:

paragraph 522

However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained.

We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them.

We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person.

However for us members of the public, the CoA report allows us to see exactly how guilty Jeremy Bamber is, without any of his supporters being able to interfere with the facts.  All people need to do is to check out that report, which Bamber has no control over, and cannot be interfered with by his supporters. It's there forever in black and white for all to see.

So the existence of that report has done a lot of good as far as the truth about the Bamber case is concerned.

For any newbies out there, here's the link:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=(bamber)

How has the existence of that report done a lot of good as far as the truth about the Bamber case is concerned? 

I agree the points were weak but that doesn't mean that much stronger points are not going to emerge in the future.

[Holly Goodhead]

My reading of the CoA case was that Bamber was attempting to produce a "lurking doubt" by showing the police acted in bad faith in withholding or concealing evidence,  for example;

Not disclosing notes from when they had examined his hands ( pointing out that he was there at the time and never asked for them ),   

Not disclosing that the lab had rejected SC's hand swabs because of possible contamination ( the court pointing out that such contamination could have only helped Bamber and deciding that on closer examination, there had been no deliberate attempt to conceal the fact )

Not disclosing details of when he was under surveillance ( his solicitors notes proved that he was aware he was being surveilled at the time )

Etc etc.. As Colsville says, it just seemed to annoy the judges as each of the points were weak to ridiculous on their own and not much stronger when taken together. Remember too that the DNA evidence on which the referral was made was described as "useless" by Bambers own expert.

 The law wasn't changed and there remains no filter on CCRC referrals although "lurking doubt" cases have been considered bad law ever since.

Why would the law change?  If the CCRC refer based on one aspect of a case and that aspect is upheld by the CoA it potentially changes other aspects or at least enables other aspects to be viewed through a different lens!

[Common sense]

Why would the law change?  If the CCRC refer based on one aspect of a case and that aspect is upheld by the CoA it potentially changes other aspects or at least enables other aspects to be viewed through a different lens!

I don't think it really matters to anyone except the judges. Their point is that a traditional appeal requires leave ( permission ) from the court upon grounds submitted. Deciding if grounds are arguable is done first by a single judge  and by a panel of 3 in a renewal of grounds hearing if the single judge see's no merit and refuses leave at the first attempt. If the appellant is given permission to appeal on say, 2 of his 7 grounds, he can't then reintroduce the rejected points without further leave of the court. The court does have a duty to fully explore the allowed grounds which can obviously be time consuming.

A CCRC referral bypasses this filter system and as Bamber demonstrates, wasting the court's time with bullshit is surely an unwise strategy but should the CCRC make an unlikely referral on a single point, I expect the court will have to spend tedious hours batting away imaginary phone calls to police, fictitious conversations and other conspiracy theories.

I suspect the law hasn't changed because there are very few CCRC referrals anyway but of those few, even less are stupid enough to do a Bamber.