Jeremy Bamber loses bid to bring legal challenge over prisoner status
- Credit: PA
Essex murderer Jeremy Bamber has lost a bid to bring a legal challenge over a refusal by the prison service to downgrade him from maximum security.
The 59-year-old is serving a full-life tariff after being convicted of murdering his adoptive parents, sister and nephews at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy, near Maldon, in August 1985.
Bamber has always maintained his innocence and claims his sister, Sheila ‘Bambi’ Caffell, who suffered from schizophrenia, killed parents Nevill and June and her twin six-year-old boys Nicholas and Daniel before turning the gun on herself.
Bamber sought permission for a High Court challenge over a decision taken in March by the director of the long-term and high security estate - part of the Prison and Probation Service - not to downgrade him from a Category A inmate, or to direct that an oral hearing on the issue take place.
Category A prisoners are considered the most dangerous to the public and held in maximum security conditions.
You may also want to watch:
At a remote hearing in October, lawyers for Bamber asked Mr Justice Julian Knowles to give the go-ahead for a full hearing of Bamber’s claim, arguing that the decision was “unreasonable”.
In a ruling on Friday, the senior judge refused Bamber permission to bring the challenge.
- 1 Man left with serious burns after fire at Hadleigh petrol station
- 2 Community thanked for helping seriously burned man at Hadleigh petrol station
- 3 DHL driver apologises after 'dangerous' driving in Ipswich rat-run
- 4 Matchday Recap: Town beaten yet again as Blues flop at Northampton
- 5 George Burley: Ipswich fans' dreams would have been shattered by a European Super League
- 6 'We've got to be better - myself included' - Cook on 3-0 loss at Northampton Town
- 7 Ratings: How the Ipswich Town players performed in their 3-0 defeat to Northampton
- 8 Mega theme park plans 'could add to Essex traffic problems'
- 9 Town's new owners to discuss player recruitment with Cook this week
- 10 Rose-tinted reaction to Duke's death was so out of proportion
In his judgment, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said: “I have concluded that permission must be refused on the basis that neither of the grounds of challenge advanced on behalf of the claimant is arguable.”
MORE: Murderer Jeremy Bamber: New White House Farm ITV drama is ‘a disgrace’In written documents before the court, Bamber’s barrister, Matthew Stanbury, had argued that an independent psychologist’s report, commissioned by Bamber’s solicitors, had concluded he had met the test for downgrading a Category A prisoner and that these conditions were “no longer necessary” for managing him.
He argued that the decision not to downgrade Bamber from Category A was “unreasonable” as it “substantially misrepresented” the opinion given by the independent psychologist.
It was argued that the director’s decision wrongly stated that the psychologist had concluded it was “impossible” to assess Bamber’s risk, when she had actually concluded that, while it was “difficult” to assess the risk, it was not impossible.
Mr Stanbury also said that “fairness required an oral hearing” over whether Bamber should be downgraded, for reasons including the fact that he “has served 35 years without ever having an oral hearing, and the passage of time means that a risk assessment is more difficult without a face-to-face assessment”.
The Ministry of Justice opposed Bamber’s action.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said he agreed that the director was “wrong” to say the psychologist “had concluded that an assessment of risk was ‘impossible”’.
“She did not say that, and her report cannot reasonably be read to have reached that conclusion,” the judgment says.
“She expressed her conclusion that such an assessment was possible, and she made one. Whether or not this was just lazy language on the director’s part, it was an error.”
But the judge added: “Equally, however, when the director’s decision is read as a whole it is plain that he had the right question in mind and that the reasons he gave for refusing to recategorize the claimant were ones which were reasonably open to him on the evidence.”
He also said he was “entirely satisfied” that Bamber had had “a fair opportunity to present his case on why he ought to be re-categorised even without an oral hearing”.