The Guardian is challenging the ban on Jeremy Bamber talking to journalists following a recent wave of revelations seemingly undermining his convictions for murdering five members of his family. Speaking to the Double Jeopardy podcast, the newspaper’s feature writer Simon Hattenstone confirmed that the Guardian’s legal team had written to the governor, seeking to determine whether it amounted a ‘blanket ban’ and to challenge it – see here for an earlier report on the Justice Gap in which supporters called the restrictions ‘patently ridiculous and disingenuous’.
Ken Macdonald KC, the podcast co-host and the former Director of Public Prosecutions, asked the journalist what were his impressions of Bamber when they first met. ‘That’s the shocking thing,’ replied Hattenstone. ‘I’ve never been able to meet Jeremy and very few people have.’ Hattenstone, who wrote about the case with his Guardian colleague Eric Allison, explained that he has only ever communicated with Bamber by letter. ‘Eric used to talk to him regularly on the phone,’ he added.
Bamber was last granted a face-to-face interview with a journalist in 2010. At that time he was anticipating his conviction being overturned through a successful application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). ‘And so they thought if we talk on the phone it will be OK even though they knew he could be punished for it. Anyway, he didn’t get out.’
According to the Guardian, the prison service have not given a specific explanation for the new ban, instead citing the need to protect ‘victims from serious distress and maintain confidence in the justice system’ as the basis for restrictions in general.
‘The horrific thing about this is that Jeremy’s case isn’t in isolation,’ said Hattenstone. ‘So many times I’ve tried to visit people and have been stopped. When a prison or the Ministry of Justice starts to punish people they become more frightened of talking themselves. They start to censor themselves because they will lose privileges. It becomes a self-fulfilling circle, and that’s really dangerous.’
He was joined by the former Belmarsh prison governor John Podmore who was asked why should prisoners be able to talk to the press at the risk of upsetting victims and their families. ‘How would you have felt about prisoners in Belmarsh having contact of this sort?’
‘We need to remember that we get it wrong,’ he said; quoting the judgement in the landmark case of Ex Parte Simms – see here – in which Lord Steyn acknowledged that many miscarriages have been identified ‘only through painstaking investigations by journalists’. ‘There is an issue of fairness,’ Podmore continued, ‘but it’s also about being reasonable and about looking at it on a case by case basis.’
‘The problem with the prison service is it never apologises, never explains and, in this case, it should be giving good reasons as to why there is a prima facie case of breaking the law and stopping something that’s been going on for a long time.’
John Podmore
The ban follows a series of alarming revelations about the case seemingly undermining the safety of the conviction – notably, Heidi Blake writing for the New Yorker (a 17,000 word investigation plus a podcast) as well as Hattenstone’s own reporting on the case. The New Yorker’s Blood Relatives podcast included an interview with PC Nick Milbank who worked at the Essex Police at the time of the murders about receiving a 999 call from someone inside Whitehouse Farm at 6:09am on the morning of the murders. If verified, Bamber couldn’t have committed the murders.
It was suggested that the New Yorker’s ‘intrusive reporting’ including the doorstepping of relatives ‘might have raised a few hackles in the Ministry of justice’. Simon Hattenstone argued that the level of intrusion was justified and that the New Yorker podcast was ‘fantastic journalism’.
‘We want our readers to be able to see Jeremy Bamber – to make their own judgment,’ he said. ‘When you’re denied basic routes to make a claim for justice, you end up looking for other ways forward.’ The journalist pointed out there had long been controversy about the 999 call. ‘The CCRC should’ve instantly gone to Millbank – or simply accepted the quotes because The New Yorker is one of the most prestigious and trusted media outlets in the world – and said “My God this seems to make the conviction unsafe.’ Astonishingly, rather than go to interview him to confirm it, the CCRC did nothing.’ in the meantime, Millbank died.
Tim Owen KC, the podcast co-host, was a junior barrister in Ex Parte Simms representing both Ian Simms and Michael O’Brien prevented from talking to the late investigative journalist Bob Woffinden – see here for a recent analysis. That 1999 judgement appeared to establish the right of a prisoner who maintained his innocence to speak to journalists as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention. ‘My personal view is that it’s going to be an extremely difficult decision to maintain as legal bearing in mind where Bamber’s case is,’ said Owen. ‘The fact that it is actively before the CCRC and full squarely within the facts and principle of the Simms and O’Brien case.’
