Miscarriage of justice campaigner threatens court action over refusal to let him meet convicted murderer

Martin Shipton

Wales’ best-known miscarriage of justice campaigner has threatened the Ministry of Justice with High Court action after being blocked from having contact with a man convicted of murdering five members of his own family.

Jeremy Bamber is a British convicted mass murderer serving a whole-life tariff for the 1985 White House Farm killings of his adoptive parents, sister Sheila Caffell, and her six-year-old twin sons. At his trial in 1986, prosecutors argued that he had staged the scene as a murder-suicide to secure an inheritance.

Bamber has consistently protested his innocence, citing fresh evidence, alleged police mishandling, and unreliable witness testimony. Despite multiple appeals and Criminal Cases Review Commission reviews, his conviction has been upheld, though recent investigations and media reports continue to fuel debate over possible wrongful conviction.

Michael O’Brien served 11 years in jail for murdering Cardiff newsagent Phillip Saunders before having his conviction quashed. During his time in prison, he met Bamber and is convinced he is innocent. He wants to help his campaign.

But the prison authorities, backed by the Ministry of Justice, won’t allow Mr O’Brien to correspond with Bamber, let alone visit him.

A letter before action sent by Mr O’Brien’s solicitor, Dean Kingham, to the Ministry of Justice states: “[Mr O’Brien] has visited numerous prisons across the prison estate and engaged with a number of prisoners using letters and visits.

“The starting point is any decision taken must provide sufficient reasoning for the individual to understand the decision. The claimant [Mr O’Brien] has corresponded with the prison seeking to understand the decision, but no reasoning sufficient to understand has been received or communicated to him beyond referencing PSI 37/2010 Prisoners’ Access to the Media and PSI 49/2011 Prisoner Communication Services.

“The decision/stance does not engage with any substantive reasoning specific to the request. The stance of the Defendant [the Ministry of Justice] engages the Claimant’s rights along with the prisoner’s rights.”

The letter goes on to quote legal rights held by individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to privacy and freedom of expression.

Article 8, concerning respect for private and family life, states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Freedom of expression

Article 10, concerning freedom of expression, states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Proportionality assessments

Mr O’Brien’s solicitor continues: “Both Article 8 and Article 10 require proportionality assessments when they are interfered with.

“The Defendant can only restrict the rights if it can be shown the action is lawful, necessary and proportionate. By failing to provide full and detailed reasoning to the Claimant, it cannot be seen how the Defendant has satisfied this duty.”

The Ministry of Justice has been given 14 days to respond.

A Prison Service spokesperson said: “While we are unable to comment on live legal proceedings, HMP [His Majesty’s Prison] Wakefield remains committed to acting in accordance with current HMPPS [His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service] policy and legal obligations.”

---

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.