LETTER FROM DI STEFANO TO CCRC
31 JANUARY 2007

ADM/GDS/jl/SILC.100738
YOUR: 00358/2006

31 January 2007

Criminal Cases Review Commission
Alpha Tower
Suffolk Street
Queensway
Birmingham
B1 1TT
ENGLAND

URGENT

By Fax : +44 121 633 1823

Dear Sirs:

CHARLES BRONSON: HMP WAKEFIELD BT 1314

We write to confirm that Mr Charles Bronson has engaged this firm in replacement to Kaim Todner Solicitors of London. We have been forwarded by the said firm the Provisional Statement of Reasons for the CCRC refusal in referring the case back to the Court of Appeal. We are awaiting the full documentation from Kaim Todner in order to make further submissions. We will require a further period of 60 days in which to consider the documents once received and as such would be obliged if you would kindly extend the time for submissions to 6th April 2007.

We wish however, for the CCRC to note that we consider this case a potential leading case for evaluation by the Court of Appeal on the criteria for any Court in appointing an amicus curia in the circumstances analogous to those of Mr Bronson. In essence Mr Bronson was without legal counsel and although that may well have been a matter for choice the question that the Learned Trial Judge, in our preliminary submission, should have considered is whether the case was fit for the imposition of an amicus to protect (a) Mr Bronson (b) the Court and (c) the interests of justice.

The case against Mr Bronson was complicated in procedure, preparation and law. It was a similar dilemma that the ICTY (which we were involved) faced with H.E. President Milosevic as to whether the imposition of an amicus was contrary to the right of the defendant in representing himself outweighed against the rights of natural justice. Ultimately, and notwithstanding that President Milosevic was a trained lawyer the Court ruled that in such complicated cases an amicus was required.

We are of the view that in the case of Mr Bronson the Learned Trial Judge should have, on the Courts own motion, and especially in light of a Legal Aid Certificate remaining in force throughout the Trial for counsel and solicitors, should have imposed an amicus curia.

The whole question mark over the trial proceedings involved also the question of whether Mr Bronson was in possession of his full faculties at the time of the offence and thereafter. It was a question that having considered the history of Mr Bronson the Trial Judge should have raised but was obviously precluded from doing so without counsel advancing the position.
The criteria for the imposition of an amicus curia has to the best of our knowledge never been raised or considered even as a Practise Direction but which obviously is now becoming more and more important as Defendants frequently dismiss their legal teams.

In the case of Mr Bronson it was a fundamental failure not only of the Trial Judge (who was without precedent in such and without the benefit of any direction from the Court of Appeal, House of Lords, or PD from the Lord Chief Justice) but without the benefit of having raised such with Counsel. The matter was never canvassed even with Prosecuting Counsel who must have realised the difficulties that Mr Bronson faced and the obvious lacking of equality of arms.

It is for these reasons that we are of the view the conviction of Mr Bronson was clearly unsafe but that further direction is required from the Court of Appeal to the lower courts in the form of a practise direction dealing specifically with the appointment of an amicus curia. Ultimately, it will spare the Court of Appeal much time and your organisation many resources since the bulk of the complaints arriving at the Criminal Appeal Office and the CCRC stem from defendants who have dismissed their legal teams for whatever reasons.
It is interesting to note that in other jurisdictions within the EU and the US the imposition of an amicus is almost obligatory to ensure that the Court Process runs efficiently and more important effectively for all parties. To cite the US Supreme Court: "An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored." Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.

We require the appropriate time period to consider the full papers but thought that our preliminary observations may be useful to the CCRC in understanding the direction we intend to take. Mr Bronson should have been imposed with an amicus curia in the circumstances especially as the Legal Aid Certificate for counsel and solicitors was never discharged. The case was complicated and the defendants own psychiatric history (known to the judge, the media, and potentially the jury) was sufficient grounds in our view for any adjudicator to realise (as was the case with President Milosevic) that an amicus was vital.

In our view that failure made any verdict unsafe and wholly unsatisfactory regardless of the allegations faced.

We shall prepare full submissions and hope that the above may be of assistance.

We look forward to hearing from you. Kindest of regards

Yours faithfully

Studio Legale Internazionale