The CCRC – Not Fit for Purpose!…

In 2023, the CCRC finally published its Report on my 1994 Trial… begrudgingly accepting 5 critical new pieces of evidence!

Judge McRae had told the Jury to consider TWO specific Prosecution points (Point 1 & Point 2)…

Having reviewed my case, the CCRC finally accepted our new evidence disproving the Prosecution’s “POINT ONE“…

…. but refused to consider irrefutable High Court documents disproving Judge McRae’s “POINT TWO”, that I had supposedly brought down my own Company to create a new racing team, Star Union and…

“…embark on a web of deception and falsehoods” (Prosecution Case)[55] Irrefutable HIGH COURT evidence, proving Grand Prix Racing Promotions collapse was caused by the 1990s recession and the failure of THREE unconnected companies!

Irrefutable HIGH COURT evidence, proving Grand Prix Racing Promotions collapse was outside my control and was due to the failure of THREE unconnected companies

ON POINT ONE – The CCRC:

1) In 2023 the CCRC finally accepted that His Honour Judge MacRae had curtailed important medical evidence from a senior Spinal Surgeon from being heard by the Jury (CCRC Point 240)[61][62].

2) In 2023 the CCRC also accepted new MRI scans[63][64]detailing multiple spinal fractures with two broken vertebrae, one having being knocked forward in my lower spine by a quarter of an inch, flattening and severely narrowing the exiting nerves to my right leg, causing a Spondylolisthesis at level L5 S1. These scans proved my injuries were caused by a serious traumatic impact, consistent with my 1988 horse riding accident and evidence the Spinal Surgeon had attempted to tell the Jury[65]

3) In 2023 the CCRC also accepted new evidence proving that I would not have known my injuries were permanent when I commenced my claims for unemployment in 1991 and for temporary disablement (CCRC Point 238)[66].

4) In 2023 the CCRC also begrudgingly accepted new expert evidence from three independent Chartered Psychologists[67], confirming previously undiagnosed High Functioning Autism (ASD) and ADHD, conditions the Jury were not aware of in 1994[77]:

  • CCRC Point 215: “It is accepted this [ASD] may to some extent have disposed the jury to assessing him negatively.”
  • CCRC Point 215: “Mr Bartlett’s ASD was likely to have impacted his behaviour at trial, and so the jury’s assessment of him… which may have adversely influenced them when giving evidence.

  • CCRC Point 206: “The CCRC concludes therefore that Mr Bartlett’s undiagnosed ASD may have had an impact… and ultimately on conclusions drawn by the jury about his honesty.”

5) In 2023 the CCRC also accepted new evidence proving I had NOT been the driver at the Zolder[68] Prize Indemnity Insurance race and that the driver was in fact my former co-driver Robin Donovan[69][70].

But critically the CCRC refused to interview the Prosecution’s star witness, Kevin Jeannette, the owner of Gunnar Porsche Racing, who had run the 966 Porsche in the Prize Indemnity race I was supposed to have defrauded…

In Court Kevin Jeannette had told the Jury I was an out and out villain and the mastermind behind the $250,000 Prize Indemnity scam. He told the Jury how I had supposedly falsified documents to the Insurance Company and fiddled him out of the sale of his Porsche 966, but…

In 2018 Gunnar Kevin Jeannette took part in a Marshall Pruett Podcast discussing his racing life and his involvement with Scotland Yard as a Prosecution Witness in my 1994 trial. In the Podcast he talks freely about his involvement in the $250,000 Prize Indemnity project, finally admitting:

“He [John Bartlett] won the money fair and square…”!

Kevin Jeannette talks about how he, his wife and children were all flown over by Scotland Yard, all expense paid and given the time of their lives, with Metropolitan Police officers running fake police chases through the streets of London to entertain his kids whilst he gave evidence in the Crown Court!

Despite his admission appearing to be a total contradiction of the evidence given during my Trial, the CCRC refused to interview Mr Jeannette or ANY of the multiple Crown Prosecution witnesses that had come forward complaining of police misconduct and manipulation of evidence by both the Met officers and the trial Judge.

When the proven facts no longer satisfy the Crowns original contention… when the original evidence can no longer sustain a conviction, the CCRC should refer a case back to the Court of Appeal… However, the CCRC chose to not consider the evidence that disproved Judge McRae’s “POINT TWO”, and so refused to refer my case back to the Court of Appeal[71], stating that the review outcome had not met the ‘Real Possibility Test’[72] (the legal basis for making a referral).

The ‘Real Possibility Test’ has received considerable criticism for some time[73], notably by Dr Michael Naughton, a Director of the Innocence Network UK and leading academic expert on miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. He specified this Test is:

“…entirely contrary to what the Royal Commission envisaged and directly against its recommendation that it be ‘independent of both the Government and the courts'” and “means that the CCRC are always in the realm of second-guessing what the Court of Appeal may think about cases that are received following a referral by the CCRC”
Dr Michael Naughton[74]

My case was subsequently published on CCRC Watch[75], an Empowering the Innocent project, established by Dr Naughton.