Why will the CCRC not tell Jeremy Bamber the decision on whether his conviction will be referred to the Court of Appeal? Who really runs the CCRC?

On the 17th April 2025, three Commissioners employed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) reached a decision on whether to refer Jeremy Bamber’s March 2021 submission to the Court of Appeal (CoA). Their decision has still not been communicated to Jeremy Bamber as of 3rd June. Who, or what, is preventing the communication of the news?

Why is a man who was wrongly convicted nearly 40 years ago still waiting for their verdict?

The CCRC claims to be independent of external influences, however, the seven week (and counting) delay indicates that someone or several people have the power to challenge or overrule the decision of the three Commissioners, i.e. that political factors might be being weighed up, perhaps possibly management of the media reaction, whether the decision is positive or negative for Jeremy Bamber.

The CCRC has a policy on the decision to refer which allows, in certain circumstances for a Commissioner to refuse to refer a case even if it meets the criteria for referral. The policy states:

The discretion not to refer will be exercised in accordance with public law principles. The CCRC will also have regard to various factors including the public interest, the age and seriousness of the conviction, and whether the convicted person is deceased. The use of the discretion will be decided by a Commissioner.

The policy continues…

If a case meets all the statutory criteria, it will not normally be necessary to discuss the CCRC’s discretion not to refer. Once the CCRC has found that the “real possibility” test is satisfied, it will rarely be appropriate to decide against referral. However, in some cases it will be necessary to consider whether a referral is appropriate even though there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld if the case were referred to the appeal court. There may be rare cases where the CCRC considers that an admission is made by an applicant in such circumstances that, even if there were a real possibility of the convictions being quashed, it should consider exercising its discretion not to refer in the public interest.

Because of the secrecy surrounding CCRC decision making we don’t know who or what is obstructing the communication of the decision in Jeremy Bamber’s case. However, what does seem clear is that the CCRC does not have the freedom to refer every case on its merits having met the statutory criteria. It is obvious that if the CCRC refers the Bamber case to the CoA then potentially a considerable number of police officers and forensic science staff, not to mention certain family members, will be subject to critical scrutiny and the possibility of criminal charges such as perverting the course of justice. Is this preventing a referral?

Of course, the CCRC management, CEO Karen Kneller and Head of Casework Amanda Pearce are currently ‘lame ducks’ sitting waiting to be fired, no doubt preoccupied with issues of compensation and severance. Are they to be trusted with making a decision in such a long-running and contentious case such as Jeremy Bamber’s? There is no Chairman or Deputy. So, has someone with political influence been consulted, and, if they have, are mulling over the issues?

It is my view that the three Commissioners have almost certainly decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. I base my belief on the assumption that the CCRC has still not spoken to Nicholas Milbank. How could they possibly reject the Bamber submissions of March 2021 if they have not met with Milbank? They are aware of what he said around a year ago in an interview with Heidi Blake of The New Yorker about the 999 call made from White House Farm at 06:09 on 7th August when all occupants were supposedly dead. It would be bizarre, even by the standards of the CCRC, to reject the submissions while evidence exists that exonerates Jeremy Bamber. It would reinforce the prevailing view that the CCRC is in effect moribund and incapable of operating at any level, as reported by a clearly shocked House of Commons Justice Committee.

In the 30 years that the CCRC has been supposedly considering the Bamber case they have never actually investigated anything of significance, which is a staggering indicator of its failure. For example, I informed them of the forgery of police incident record documentation, and they refused my offer to assist them to locate the forgeries. I informed them of the existence of a suicide note written by Sheila Caffell as discussed by Detective Sergeant Stan Jones; they have made no effort to follow this lead with the Metropolitan Police (who have the discussion recorded). The CCRC have not investigated the crucial issue of a 999 call made on the morning the bodies were discovered – a call that could only have been made by one of the supposed victims. The CCRC has images of the 70 or more wounds inflicted upon the three adult victims, but these have never been investigated. The list of issues in the case that have not been pursued is endless. The CCRC has far-reaching powers to investigate yet uses none of them. Not just in the Bamber case, but in every case that I have assessed.

So, while Jeremy Bamber languishes in jail an inoperative, broken CCRC is sitting on a decision on whether or not to refer his case to the CoA. How many other applicants are in a similar position? Dozens? Hundreds? The situation is farcical and someone in authority needs to resolve it without any further delay.

By Bill Robertson

Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber.

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.