a majority of 10–2 (the minimum required for conviction). Sentencing him to five life terms, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of twenty-five years, the judge told Jeremy: "Your conduct in planning and carrying out the killing of five members of your family was evil, almost beyond belief." In December 1994, Home Secretary Michael Howard told Jeremy that he would remain in prison for the rest of his life, following a decision in 1988 by the Home Secretary of the day, Douglas Hurd. Appeals Leave to appeal refused, 1989 and 1994 Jeremy first sought leave to appeal in November 1986, arguing that the judge had misdirected the jury. The application was heard and refused by Mr Justice Caulfield in April 1988. During a full hearing in March 1989 before three Appeal Court judges—Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice; Mr Justice Roch; and Mr Justice Henry—Jeremy's lawyer, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, argued that the trial judge's summing up had been biased against his client, that his language had been too forceful, and that he had undermined the defence by advancing his own theory. Rivlin also argued that the defence had not pressed Mugford about her dealings with the media but should have, because as soon as the trial was over her story began to appear in newspapers. On 20 March 1989 the judges refused Jeremy leave to appeal, ruling that there was nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about the verdicts. Because the trial judge had criticized the police investigation, Essex Police held an internal inquiry. Jeremy alleged this report confirmed that evidence had been withheld by the police so he made a formal complaint, which was investigated in 1991 by the City of London Police. This investigation uncovered more material, which Jeremy used to petition the Home Secretary in September 1993 for a referral back to the Court of Appeal, refused in July 1994. During this process, the Home Office declined to give Jeremy the expert evidence it had obtained, so he applied for judicial review of their decision in November 1994, which resulted in the Home Office handing over the evidence. In 1996 a police officer destroyed many of the trial exhibits, saying later he had not been aware that the case was ongoing. Jeremy's defence team referred to the destruction of blood samples as a "disgrace". Court of Appeal, 2002 Criminal Cases Review Commission referral In 1997 the Home