Jeremy Bamber more than likely fits into the list of the most famous UK criminals. He was convicted of the White House Farm murders in 1985, and to this very day pleads his innocence for murdering his adopted parents Neville and June, both 61, his sister Sheila, 26, and her 6-year-old twin sons, Nicholas and Daniel.
Bamber, now 59, and serving a real life sentence at HMP Wakefeild, today lost his bid to bring legal action, over a refusal by the courts to downgrade his status from maximum security.
Bamber has always protested his innocence. He claims that his sister Sheila, who suffered with her mental heath, shot the family and then turned the gun on herself… a theory which due to evidence gathered has been proven as near on impossible, due to the length of the gun itself, as well as the fact that Sheila suffered 2 gunshot wounds, the first making it impossible for her to shoot the second with such accuracy.
Bamber is currently being held as a Category A prisoner. Category A prisoners are the most dangerous of the prison estate, and pose a threat to the public and to the staff within the prison. Bamber, was challenging a decision made back in March by a Prison and Probation service director to not downgrade him from being classed as a high security inmate. The appeal decision was made this morning, with the result of Bamber remaining under the highest possible security level.
During the case, documents were presented by Matthew Stanbury, Bambers’ barrister. One of which was an independent psychologists report, commissioned by Bambers’ solicitors’, which concluded he had met the criteria for downgrading from Category A status, and that the high security conditions he was being held in were no longer necessary. He then continued to argue that the current Category A status was “unreasonable” as it ‘substantially misrepresented” the opinion given by the independent psychologist.
Mr Justice Knowles rejected this and refused to bring the challenge any further, and concluded the case by saying “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.”
This isn’t the first attempt Bamber has made at a bid for freedom… or some level of freedom, and it certainly won’t be the last, as already Bamber is pursuing a fresh application to the Criminal Case Review Commission.