NEWS

Michael Birnbaum KC, Glyn Maddocks KC (Hon) and Rose Slowe act in landmark appeal to quash the 33 year old convictions of Oliver Campbell for murder and conspiracy to rob
Oliver Campbell, a vulnerable brain-damaged black youth, was convicted in 1991 of murder and conspiracy to rob an off licence in Hackney. The evidence against him was that the shooter had worn Oliver’s distinctive “British Knights” cap (which contained hairs that were not his or his co-defendant’s), a deeply flawed identification and a series of admissions made in the absence of a solicitor which were largely inconsistent with the known facts and / or ridiculous. There were major concerns about the fairness and propriety of police questioning.
The jury never heard that, shortly after they were both charged, Oliver’s co-defendant Eric Samuel had exonerated him to police and had named another man as the gunman. It was later established that Samuel had exonerated Oliver to at least five different people, including a BBC reporter, who in 2001 had covertly recorded Samuel confirming Oliver’s innocence.
The jury in 1991 had not heard any expert evidence as to why Oliver might have confessed falsely. Dr Gisli Gudjonsson (as he then was), instructed by the defence, thought that the interviews “verged on the oppressive” but felt unable to advance any theory on that crucial point, because the then available science was in its infancy.
An appeal in 1995 conducted by trial counsel failed. In 1999 Michael Birnbaum QC (as he then was), deeply concerned that Oliver had been wrongly convicted, took on the case pro bono. Relying inter alia on evidence obtained by the BBC, he submitted a very detailed application to the CCRC for referral of Oliver’s convictions. In 2003 the CCRC rejected the application.
In 2019, the CCRC agreed to look at the case again and Michel assisted by solicitor Glyn Maddocks KC (Hon) submitted a new application. The CCRC obtained further expert reports from Professor Gudjonsson and Dr Alison Beck. The forensic science of false confessions had advanced considerably. Gudjonsson expressed the view that there was a more than 50 per cent chance that Oliver had confessed falsely. Beck explained that it was very possible he had confessed because he thought that, if he went along with the police view of his guilt, he would be allowed to leave the police station.
The CCRC referred the convictions back to the Court of Appeal in 2022. Rose Slowe was instructed as junior counsel for the Appellant from April 2023, and assisted Michael and Glyn to prepare the case for court.
The appeal was heard over three days by Holroyde LJ and Stacey J and Bourne J. Michael, leading Rose, advanced lengthy and detailed submissions in support of a number of grounds of appeal, drawing the Court’s attention to a mass of material highly favourable to Oliver, not relied on at trial or on the first appeal. He called Professor Gudjonsson and Dr Beck. Rose made written and oral submissions supporting one of the grounds: that Oliver had been not received a fair trial in 1991 as a consequence of the lack of special measures to protect vulnerable defendants available at that time.
The appeal raised complex issues of law regarding modern standards of fairness, on which lengthy legal submissions were served by Michael and Rose setting out the relevant case authorities and legal principles in this respect. In essence, it was submitted that the Court was to assess the safety of the conviction by contemporary practice and standards of fairness.
In a judgment handed down on 11 September 2023, the Court of Appeal held that it was troubled by a significant feature of the case:
“We accept the evidence of Dr Beck and Professor Gudjonsson that, over the years since the trial and the 1994 appeal, understanding of the factors which may contribute to a false confession has increased, and the research which has contributed to that understanding has also led to the development of psychometric tests for measuring relevant factors. There have, of course, also been important developments in the law relating to admissibility of evidence, and in matters of practice and procedure relevant to a fair trial. But in the very unusual circumstances of this case, the principal reason for our disquiet arises from the fact that the fresh evidence would provide a court with the benefit of much more information than was available at the trial about the appellant’s mental state when he made his confessions.”
The Court held that the whole approach to the case would now be informed by a better understanding of Oliver’s vulnerabilities and of the risk of false confessions that was known now but could not have been known in 1991. This would have had a significant impact on the conduct of the trial; the fresh evidence would have impacted on the legal arguments as to the admissibility of Oliver’s confessions and would have created a materially different context in which the jury would reach their verdicts. The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
The Crown applied for a retrial. Michael and Rose prepared written submissions stressing that Oliver could not now receive a fair trial due to his severe vulnerabilities and memory deficits, outweighing any public interest in prosecuting serious crime. The Court declined to order a retrial.
Links to the Judgment and news coverage:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/oliver-campbell-v-the-king/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70j2d4v24wo
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/sep/11/appeal-court-clears-man-with-severe-learning-difficulties-of-1990-london
https://news.sky.com/story/oliver-campbell-brain-damaged-man-who-was-jailed-for-life-over-murder-has-conviction-quashed-13212411
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/oliver-campbell-murder-appeal-conviction-overturned-b2610799.html
Man with learning disabilities has conviction quashed for 1990 murder