Jeremy Bamber, who has served more than 40 years in prison for murdering five members of his family, has been banned from communicating with the media. Bamber was convicted in 1986 by a 10-2 majority of shooting his adoptive parents, his sister, and her six-year-old twins at the family farmhouse in Essex a year earlier. He has always protested his innocence.
Details of the Ban
The 65-year-old has long relied on telephone interviews and exchanges of letters with journalists to draw attention to his case. However, his campaign group has told the Guardian he is no longer allowed to send or receive letters from journalists, nor is he permitted to talk to reporters by phone. He was last granted a face-to-face interview with a journalist in 2010.
Without giving a specific explanation for the decision in Bamber's case, the Prison Service cited "the need to protect victims from serious distress and maintain confidence in the justice system" as the basis for such restrictions in general.
Media Coverage and Legal Challenges
The ban comes at a time when the case has received prominent media coverage. Last October, the New Yorker released a six-part podcast series questioning the safety of the convictions. Initial newspaper reports of the massacre called it a murder-suicide, suggesting that his sister, Sheila Caffell, had killed her family and then herself.
Bamber became a suspect a month later after his former girlfriend Julie Mugford gave a statement to Essex police, claiming he had told her he was planning the murders. It later emerged that Mugford had agreed to sell her story to the News of the World for £25,000 if Bamber was convicted.
This February, Prof Jason Payne-James, a specialist in forensic and legal medicine, told the Guardian he did not believe a silencer had been used in the shootings, a finding that appears to undermine a central tenet of the prosecution's case.
Legal Precedent and Campaign Response
The right of prisoners claiming a miscarriage of justice to contact the media was established in the UK through a 1999 case, in which Ian Simms and Michael O'Brien successfully argued that a "blanket ban" on journalists interviewing prisoners violated free speech rights. Bamber's campaign group says the ban is unlawful and contradicts Ministry of Justice rules allowing prisoners media contact "when making serious representations about their own conviction."
A spokesperson for the Jeremy Bamber Innocence Campaign stated: "The ban is a sign the authorities are determined to prevent Jeremy exposing the misconduct and mistakes that led to his wrongful conviction. It seems no coincidence that just as new exculpatory evidence receives media attention, the prison decides he can no longer make representations to the media."
Bamber's legal team has indicated it will seek a judicial review if the ban is not lifted. Matt Foot, co-director of the charity Appeal, said: "To deny Mr Bamber the ability to correspond with the media appears to be a blanket ban. I hope the prison reverses this decision as soon as possible."
A Prison Service spokesperson said: "Prisoners' access to the media policy does not provide blanket bans. Any restriction requires justification, taking into account factors such as protecting victims from serious distress and maintaining confidence in the justice system."
