Key Facts
- •Oliver Campbell was convicted in 1991 of conspiracy to rob and murder.
- •The conviction stemmed from a July 1990 off-license robbery and shooting.
- •Evidence included eyewitness testimony (with potential police influence), a British Knights cap found near the scene, and Campbell's statements to police.
- •Campbell had a significant intellectual disability due to childhood brain damage.
- •Campbell's police interviews were conducted with varying degrees of procedural compliance, including some without a solicitor present.
- •A 1994 appeal was dismissed.
- •The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in 2024 based on new expert evidence suggesting the unreliability of Campbell's confessions and potential admissibility of Samuels' exculpatory statements.
- •New expert evidence highlighted the evolving understanding of false confessions and vulnerabilities in individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Legal Principles
Test for allowing an appeal against conviction: the conviction is unsafe.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s2(a)
Power to dismiss appeals following CCRC references: if the only ground is a development in law since conviction, and an extension of time would not be granted.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s16C
Admissibility of fresh evidence: the court considers capability of belief, potential to allow appeal, admissibility at trial, and explanation for non-adduction at trial.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s23
Admissibility of confessions: confessions are admissible unless obtained by oppression or in a way likely to render them unreliable.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, ss76, 76A
Applying modern standards to historical convictions: while current standards judge fairness, non-compliance with past rules requires different treatment.
R v Bentley, R v Hanratty, R v King
The Pendleton test: when receiving fresh evidence, the court considers whether the evidence might reasonably have affected the jury's decision.
R v Pendleton
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
The fresh expert evidence, particularly Dr. Beck's, revealed a significantly different understanding of factors contributing to false confessions, unavailable at trial. This, coupled with changes in legal practice and procedure regarding vulnerable defendants, raised a real possibility that the jury's verdict would have differed if this information had been available. The court considered the convictions unsafe.
Retrial refused.
While the public interest in a fair trial is acknowledged, the court found that Campbell's severe cognitive deficits, significantly hampering his ability to participate in a retrial, outweighed the public interest in pursuing a retrial.