For Jeremy Bamber, 17 April is D-day. Today, he hopes his case will be sent back to the court of appeal for the second time, and his many supporters believe this will lead to his conviction for murdering five members of his family being quashed after 40 years in prison. They say this is an unsafe conviction at the very least, but maintain Bamber did not and could not have carried out the horrific crimes. Others, including most of Bamber’s surviving relatives, remain convinced that Bamber murdered his mother, father, sister and her six-year-old twin boys and should never be released.
It could also be a huge day for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body responsible for sending alleged miscarriages of justice back to the court of appeal. When the commission started in 1997, it was a beacon of hope for the wrongfully imprisoned – the first independent organisation set up to investigate and refer miscarriages of justice. But over the years it has fallen into disrepute, widely condemned as tardy, conservative and inept.
Bamber’s story is not simply that of a potential miscarriage of justice. It is also the story of how long it can take to challenge a conviction. Take his latest submission to the CCRC. It included 10 grounds for appeal, including new evidence showing that Bamber’s father, Nevill, rang the police 10 minutes before Bamber did so; police tampering with the crime scene; the existence of a second gun silencer when the trial judge insisted there was only one; and the fact that the police had seen signs of life inside the house while Bamber was with officers outside. So far, the commission has spent four years dealing with four of these pieces of evidence. At this rate, it would take another six years to consider the case, by which time Bamber would be 70. It is believed that the decision to accelerate his case has been made to save the CCRC from further criticism.
