LETTER FROM DI STEFANO TO CCRC
18 FEBRUARY 2007

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

18th February 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

Thank you kindly for your e mail message. It is our intention to respond also to the matters contained within your Provisional Refusal document as well as the matters we have highlighted in our letter and our telephone conversation.

In your provisional refusal document as an example you state that the Human Rights Act 1998 Art.6 does not apply in the case of Mr Bronson because his trial was heard before the HRA was passed by Parliament. If one were to accept that argument, which in our view is fallacious, then the concept of a fair trial or failure to receive a fair trial could never be a ground of appeal. The concept of a fair trial has always been contained within the ambits of common law. The Human Rights Act 1998 codified what was always the concept. The Human Rights Act 1998 did not create a ‘fairer trial’ than previous. The Privy Council case of Bell made that position crystal clear. Under English Law a defendant has always had the right to a fair trial with all the ingredients of the Human Rights Act. All the enactment of the HRA created was simply to codify what was always the case.

We shall make full representations on this matter and we do not agree that the question of whether an amicus curia is not contained within the matters which you have provisionally refused to refer. We have discussed this case with Mr James Lewis QC who will be counsel in the matter upon your referral to the Court of Appeal. There is in fact no guidance whatsoever regarding when or if an amicus should be appointed and that this case is the epitome and classic example of when an amicus must be appointed by the Court.

We would be obliged if you would confirm our extention.
Yours faithfully


Studio Legale Internazionale