Bamber, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Bamber, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Permission for judicial review is refused because the CPS did not err in law in refusing disclosure; the existence of a second sound moderator is not credibly shown to affect the safety of the conviction, and the CCRC is the appropriate forum for further investigation.

Parties
Claimant: Jeremy Bamber; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure Post Conviction, Duty of Disclosure, Alternative Remedies, Safety of Conviction
Criminal Law Judicial Review Disclosure Post Conviction Duty of Disclosure Alternative Remedies Safety of Conviction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Bamber

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS is obliged to disclose material post-conviction under the Nunn principles
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a second sound moderator could undermine the safety of the conviction
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is appropriate before approaching the CCRC

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for judicial review is refused because the CPS did not err in law in refusing disclosure; the existence of a second sound moderator is not credibly shown to affect the safety of the conviction, and the CCRC is the appropriate forum for further investigation.

Court Disposition

Permission refused