Jeremy Bamber - Date set for hearing of judicial Review decision - 29 Nov 2012

[John]

Someone else here confirm that I'm right about the CCRC appeals. You can't just send them in when you feel like it, you need to have their permission  they need to agree to look at the case again.

Neil said by law they have to. That's not correct. They don't. Once they agree to look at the case, then obviously by law they have to. But once they have lawfully said NO! then you have to reapply for them to accept a new set of submissions.

That's correct Mat.   

The Judicial Review decision yesterday means Bamber's case is effectively closed and is not now active or live.   If new evidence is obtained at some later date he will have to reapply to the CCRC as the Law stands.

[ActualMat]

Someone else here confirm that I'm right about the CCRC appeals. You can't just send them in when you feel like it, you need to have their permission  they need to agree to look at the case again.

Neil said by law they have to. That's not correct. They don't. Once they agree to look at the case, then obviously by law they have to. But once they have lawfully said NO! then you have to reapply for them to accept a new set of submissions.

That's correct Mat.   

The Judicial Review decision yesterday means Bamber's case is effectively closed and is not now active or live.   If new evidence is obtained at some later date he will have to reapply to the CCRC as the Law stands.

Yep, I knew it. The CCRC said so in the press release when they said that it was their final decision. The Bamber case will now be a 'case in waiting' once Simon Mckay reapplies......but from what I'm reading on the blue forum they don't seem to know they need to reapply??

[ActualMat]

4 - Can I apply to the CCRC more than once?
If necessary you can apply to the CCRC more than once in relation to the same
conviction or sentence. However, if you apply to us for another review of a case
that we have looked at before, your re-application will need to raise something
new that you didn’t mention to us in any earlier applications and that was not
raised at your trial or appeal. If it does not, we will not review your case again.

[frank50]

I dont know why they are bothering to reapply. The CCRC will not look at it and then MCkay will bring yet another ridiculous Judicial Review of that refusal. Eventually Bamber will be declared a vexatious litigant by the High Court - Im sure of it. As for Mckay, his judgment is sadly lacking. To have a case dismissed in less than a session like that is pretty humiliating..

[ActualMat]

I dont know why they are bothering to reapply. The CCRC will not look at it and then MCkay will bring yet another ridiculous Judicial Review of that refusal. Eventually Bamber will be declared a vexatious litigant by the High Court - Im sure of it. As for Mckay, his judgment is sadly lacking. To have a case dismissed in less than a session like that is pretty humiliating..

Frank, so it's true. The session didn't actually finish and it was over?

[frank50]

Well yes. The hearing started at 10.30 and was over before lunch. And that included ths judgment at the end

[takeshi]

mmm interesting i didn't realise he was going down that road again. i am also perplexed by his, amongst others, application to the european court against their "whole life tariffs". how is that going to work? assuming he is successful, i would imagine this involves some kind of release on parole. but i always understood that parole was granted after the offender had admitted his guilt and shown genuine repentance. how is Bamber going to do that?

[Tim Invictus]

mmm interesting i didn't realise he was going down that road again. i am also perplexed by his, amongst others, application to the european court against their "whole life tariffs". how is that going to work? assuming he is successful, i would imagine this involves some kind of release on parole. but i always understood that parole was granted after the offender had admitted his guilt and shown genuine repentance. how is Bamber going to do that?

The ECHR have already rejected Bamber's  claim that Whole Life Tarrifs are illegal. All Bamber is able to try now is to get them to make the British Government have to periodically review such tarrifs!

And don't worry hun he is going to lose this appeaal too! Bamber is going nowhere ..... ever .... until the gates of hell open for him!

  

[goatboy]

What I want to know is where is all of this money funding the legal battles coming from? NGB? And if Simon McKay isn't getting paid to do this how much longer will he be representing Jeremy? With the best will in the world even if McKay genuinely believes Bamber to be innocent (though when asked this question outright he tellingly refused to answer) and is doing it for the love of it the guy has a living to make surely?

[frank50]

I cant see Mckay carrying on - he would be mad.  He knows that any further submissions to the CCRC will be rejected out of hand, so he will be wasting his time. I think Bamber will change tack and try to campaign through the media. The good thing is that nobody of any significance is particularly interested anymore. 

What I want to know is where is all of this money funding the legal battles coming from? NGB? And if Simon McKay isn't getting paid to do this how much longer will he be representing Jeremy? With the best will in the world even if McKay genuinely believes Bamber to be innocent (though when asked this question outright he tellingly refused to answer) and is doing it for the love of it the guy has a living to make surely?

[John]

I dont know why they are bothering to reapply. The CCRC will not look at it and then MCkay will bring yet another ridiculous Judicial Review of that refusal. Eventually Bamber will be declared a vexatious litigant by the High Court - Im sure of it. As for Mckay, his judgment is sadly lacking. To have a case dismissed in less than a session like that is pretty humiliating..

I just love those words 'vexatious litigant' ....nice choice Frank!   

From Wiki >Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. A perfect analogy with Bamber's campaign.

[Padgates staff]

I bet I could name others  >@@(*&)

[Tim Invictus]

Perhaps NGB could comment on how an future Bamber submissions to the CCRC will be funded?

[thedarkman]

I just love those words 'vexatious litigant' ....nice choice Frank!   

From Wiki >Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. A perfect analogy with Bamber's campaign.

Never mind about that font of all knowledge Wikipedia, check out:

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/