Jeremy Bamber challenges Ministry of Justice over restrictions imposed by HMP Wakefield

Jeremy Bamber is challenging the Ministry of Justice over decision making by the Governor of HMP Wakefield Prison which has restricted on going contact with Journalists and campaigners , in a case which could have wider implications for how the wrongfully convicted are able to access investigative journalist support in miscarriage of justice cases

 

Jordans Solicitors LLP confirms that a claim for judicial review has been issued in the High Court of Justice (King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court) and served on the Defendants on behalf of our client, Mr Jeremy Bamber.

The claim — The King (on the application of Jeremy Bamber) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice and (2) the Governing Governor of HM Prison Wakefield — challenges a series of decisions taken by the prison authorities which restrict Mr Bamber’s ability to communicate with journalists and with members of his campaign team and long-standing supporters. The Court will now consider whether to grant permission for the claim to proceed.

The restrictions have arisen at a significant moment. Mr Bamber has a live application before the Criminal Cases Review Commission — a submission which has been informed by significant investigative journalism. The ability of a person maintaining their innocence to correspond with responsible journalists about the safety of a conviction raises questions of wider public importance that extend beyond this case.

Mr Bamber is represented by Tim Owen KC and Rosalind Comyn of Matrix Chambers, instructed by Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, and Katy Harris, Solicitor, of Jordans Solicitors LLP.

“We can confirm that a claim for judicial review has been issued and served. This is an important claim which raises serious questions about the ability of a prisoner maintaining his innocence to communicate with journalists and supporters at a critical stage of his case.”

“Out of respect for the process, we do not propose to discuss the detail of the challenge while the question of permission is before the Court. We will say more at the appropriate time.”

— Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, Jordans Solicitors LLP

ENDS

 

Notes to editors

  1. The proceedings are a claim for judicial review in the Administrative Court. Permission has not yet been determined; the issue and service of the claim mark the commencement of the proceedings.
  2. Jordans Solicitors LLP does not intend to comment further on the substance of the challenge pending the Court’s determination of permission.
  3. Counsel instructed: Tim Owen KC and Rosalind Comyn (Matrix Chambers).
  4. Solicitors with conduct: Mark Newby (Solicitor Advocate) and Katy Hale  (Solicitor), Jordans Solicitors LLP.

Media contact: [Mark Newby] — [mark@jordansllp.com — [01302 365374 ]