The case of Oliver Campbell is one of the longest and most complex miscarriages of justice in British legal history – one that only ended in September 2024 when the Court of Appeal quashed Oliver’s conviction, but did so in what many commentators have said was a very begrudging and poorly-reasoned judgment.
Previous articles on the Justice Gap and in PROOF Magazine consider the wider case and the long journey his legal team had to take to try and quash the conviction. On the face of it, and to most people who were aware of its notoriety, it appeared to be a clear and blatant wrongful conviction.
Glyn Maddocks, who represented Oliver for over two decades, now looks in some detail at the strange and concerning decision of the Crown following receipt of the Court of Appeal’s draft judgment to ask for a retrial in this arguably unique and unquestionably difficult case.
Oliver Campbell falsely confessed to the murder of Baldev Hoondle after being questioned by police without a solicitor present. The interviews were oppressive and reactionary (more has been written about them by Oliver’s legal counsel, Michael Birmbaum KC here). Hoondle was murdered during a robbery in Hackney in 1991, and Oliver was arrested for the crime, despite the fact that no forensics, and only extremely weak witness accounts, put him at the scene.
Oliver had severe learning difficulties as a result of an injury that he sustained as a young baby. His intelligence is borderline defective with an impaired capacity to process or remember more than the simplest verbal information. Despite this there was no lawyer present in the police station and his answers were suggested by leading questions some of which were at odds with the known facts and some of which were quite simply absurd. When he had legal assistance, Oliver withdrew his confession and was adamant that he was not guilty, but he was convicted of murder at the Old Bailey in December 1991.
Application for a Retrial
The basic position is that the Court of Appeal, if it quashes a conviction, has the power to order a retrial under Section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The decision whether to order a retrial requires to exercise its judgment by balancing the public interest against the legitimate interests of the defendant. The public interest is generally served by the prosecution of those reasonably suspected on available evidence of a serious crime, and if such a prosecution could be conducted without unfairness to or oppression of the defendant. The legitimate interests of the defendant requires there to be a careful consideration of the time which had passed since the alleged offence and any penalty already paid in other words any time served in prison.
In the case of Oliver Campbell, and as is normal, the Court of Appeal produced a draft judgment to allow both parties the opportunity to correct minor errors of fact and for either party to make any consequential applications. For reasons which are difficult to explain or understand given the rather unique circumstances and the fact that the CA had albeit somewhat reluctantly quashed the conviction in response to this, the Crown decided to apply for Oliver to be retried.
The Crown argued that despite quashing Oliver’s conviction and determining it was unsafe, the Court of Appeal had not found that Dr Beck’s evidence was conclusive of Oliver’s innocence. They suggested therefore that it was reasonably arguable that Oliver’s confession evidence was therefore still admissible. They went on to say that there were powerful arguments that his confessions were true and they then tried to back this up by using evidence of what Oliver had allegedly said to his solicitor (although this was ambivalent and strongly disputed) and to a doctor when he was on remand in Feltham Prison. Furthermore they said rather weakly that it was Oliver who took the police to the armed robber Eric Samuel and that of course the British Knights cap belonged to him.
Finally, and even more surprisingly, the Crown said that there was no reason why Oliver Campbell could not be fairly tried despite the fact 34 years had passed since his original trial took place and over 20 years had passed since he was released from prison. The Crown did concede that the weight of these matters was accentuated in this case by Oliver’s clear and obvious disabilities and the additional stress that a retrial would place upon him. However the Crown argued that such considerations were outweighed by the public interest in resolution of the issues which arose in the case of so grave a crime given that Oliver would be able to receive all necessary assistance in preparing for and presenting his case at the trial, including the benefit of measures which it was accepted were not available or in place in 1991.
In support of all these rather tenuous and, dare I say bizarre and highly contentious arguments, the Crown relied almost entirely on the odd and significantly different case of Justin Plummer – the only connection apparently was that the Crown’s leading Counsel had also appeared in that case.
Plummer was convicted of a murder that took place in February 1997. In July 2021 he was allowed to appeal the conviction following a CCRC reference based upon new expert evidence – he had long since served his minimum term but had not been released on license.
The CA was also asked to take account of the interests of the bereaved family of the deceased because family members had attended all three days of the hearing of Oliver’s appeal. The passage of time it was argued had not diminished the effect upon them of the murder of Baldev Hoondle. Although, as far as we can tell they were not asked about whether they wanted a retrial nor given the level of controversy and debate over the years about their view of the strength of Oliver’s conviction.
However the Crown did concede that if a retrial was ordered it would not rely on the identification by the key witness, saying that the absence of a full transcript of his trial evidence may inhibit a full exploration of that issue. What they did not say was that the trial Judge had said to the jury that if the only evidence available had been that witness he would have stopped the trial.
Glyn Maddocks KC. Photo: Andy Aitchison
Oliver’s arguments in response
After we had regained our composure from the shock and amazement that the Crown was apparently serious about its retrial application given the rather unique circumstances of this case we obviously had to think very carefully about responding. It seemed abundantly clear that we had to make the point very clearly that Oliver Campbell’s rights and interests entirely and overwhelmingly outweighed the general public interest in prosecuting a crime, albeit a serious crime, some 34 years after it occurred and when there had been a trial in 1991 and a first appeal in 1995.
In considering whether to prosecute the CPS have to weigh two factors – the public interest test and the evidential test.
In Oliver’s case there was extremely little evidence to support a prosecution – no forensic evidence, very poor (almost nonexistent) witness evidence, a plausible explanation from Oliver as to how he had lost his British Knights cap and the fact that Eric Samuel had on numerous occasions stated clearly to many people (including me) that Oliver was not involved in the shooting. We felt very strongly that the evidential test was not satisfied.
I should mention that Eric Samuel sadly died in 2014 and it would have therefore been impossible to call him to give evidence in support of Oliver if a retrial had been ordered. This would have been a massive and significant disadvantage for Oliver’s defense.
I’ve already said that Eric Samuel, who was one of the two gunmen, made a number of statements to police officers, to a BBC journalist, to his mother and to his sister and to me when I met him in 2012. When I asked him whether Oliver was responsible for the shooting he made it clear to me that Oliver wasn’t involved but at that stage he didn’t feel well enough or able to help Oliver with his appeal.
In addition to these arguments for resisting a retrial we also made the following strong points:
- The trial judge plainly did not believe many aspects of Oliver’s confessions and recommended a minimum term of eight years on the basis that Eric Samuel had supplied the gun and that Oliver was simply a pawn in the Samuel scheme. The Home Secretary fixed a minimum term of 10 years and in March 2000 medical staff recommended that Oliver be transferred to open conditions and decided not to press him on his repeated denials.
- Following his release Oliver had led a quiet and law abiding life – those who knew him described him as very gentle and vulnerable, he himself describing himself as the BFG (big friendly giant). He had a job working in a community cafe and a number of people who attended court hearings, including his former MP Mr Sandy Martin, bore witness to the extent of his community support and his good character. As far as most people who knew him well were concerned they expressed astonishment at him having been convicted of a crime that they simply did not think he would have been physically or mentally able to have done.
- We also pointed out that if convicted following a retrial Oliver could not be sentenced to a minimum term of more than 10 years and that this would entitle him to immediate release on license. The only effect of a retrial would be either an acquittal or if found guilty to leave him in the same position as before his appeal – in other words this would be an entirely pointless exercise. We also explained that there appeared to be no precedent where a retrial had been ordered after such a long period of time.
- The Crown’s reliance on the Plummer case was also challenged. Plummer was a prolific burglar and when a woman victim confronted him as he was about to burgle her house he attacked her, breaking her nose and pushing her to the ground and stamping on her head with such ferocity that the imprint of his trainer was left on her forehead. She was then either unconscious or semi-conscious. He then decided to kill her, took her into her caravan and stabbed her in a frenzied manner through the heart and lungs. His conviction was quashed because forensic evidence had been wrongly admitted. Somewhat bizarrely it seems that a dentist was allowed to give expert evidence on the footprints found the scene.
The Crown’s reliance on this entirely different case was extremely puzzling and difficult to justify. Plummer had remained in custody since his conviction and even well beyond tariff. Any comparison with Oliver’s case was pointless – Oliver Campbell had been free and law-abiding for approximately 22 years.
Additionally the prospect of Oliver being convicted following a retrial was clearly minimal given that the Crown had now abandoned the identification evidence of Mark Purchase and their point that Oliver knew that Eric Samuel was the other robber was very weak because Eric Samuel told a BBC reporter that he had discussed the robbery with Oliver before their arrest.
Oliver’s ownership of the British Knights hat was also of minimal weight given that it contained no hairs of his and a number of black hairs from an unknown person. Furthermore the Crown never attempted to address the falsity and the absurdity of most of the details of the robbery Oliver had given in his various apparent confessions.
On a retrial there would be a powerful argument that to allow the Crown to rely on one or more of the significant interviews would be grossly unfair because the Trial judge had rejected so much of it as unreliable. Furthermore and significantly, the Crown did not address the evidence critical of police conduct other than that of Dr Beck. At a retrial Oliver would be able to call Professors Brian Thomas Peter and Gisli Gudjohnsson who, like Doctor Beck, had strongly criticised the conduct of the interviews. Finally the argument for exclusion of the interviews has been greatly strengthened by changes in the law and practice regarding solicitors and appropriate adults
As far as unfairness was concerned this was overwhelming. The common law of hearsay had at the time of his Trial prevented Oliver from relying on the Eric Samuel admission of his co-defendant in which he had named a man called Harvey. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 now renders all the various and extensive exonerations of Oliver by Eric Samuel as admissible and indeed the Crown had conducted the appeal on the basis that they would nowadays in all probability be admitted.
In addition to all of these compelling legal arguments if a retrial was ordered Oliver’s acute memory issues which had been well documented in the expert evidence before the Court of Appeal would make it very difficult if not impossible for him to answer the Crown’s case at trial some 34 years after the event. His impaired memory would seriously inhibit his ability to instruct lawyers and to give evidence in his own defense even if special measures were adopted to assist his understanding of and participation in the trial. Moreover, there were real concerns that he would not be fit to stand trial in accordance with the relevant case law.
It was also abundantly clear and accepted that Oliver was a vulnerable person who struggled with basic self-care and required considerable support and it was very doubtful that he understood the appeal process. For many years he had been obsessed with proving his innocence. He probably believed that the allowing of his appeal meant that the Crown now accepted him to be innocent and a retrial if ordered would likely cause him considerable confusion and anxiety and potentially more serious mental health problems.
Oliver Campbell’s case is explored in the latest issue of PROOF magazine.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
In what could be argued as one of the most extraordinary decisions in recent history the judgment of the Court of Appeal, having reviewed the arguments advanced by the Crown and by Oliver’s defense, indicated that it was dismissing almost all of the arguments relied upon by Oliver:
“ we attach little weight to many of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, some of which strike us as inconsistent with the arguments advanced during the hearing of the appeal. We do not think it appropriate to embark upon an analysis of the various issues of admission admissibility of evidence which it is said would arise in a retrial; suffice it to say that there are points to be made on both sides of those issues and the position is not so clear cut that we can accept that they would probably be decided in a way which would substantially weaken the prosecution case”
Lord Justice Holroyd then continued that there was force in only one aspect of Oliver’s submissions. The fresh evidence showed that Oliver’s ability to process and hold information in his working memory was well below what would be expected even for someone of his low IQ. Those deficiencies would be compounded by the passage of a very long period of time. The confessions would be at the heart of any retrial. Oliver would face much greater difficulties than almost anyone else and much greater difficulties than he faced when he gave evidence during the trial.
He concluded:
“we have found this a finally balanced decision (sic). We attach considerable weight to the public interest in a fair trial resolving the issues in this case, but we conclude that that general interest is outweighed by the consideration that the appellant-who has served over a decade in prison and has been subject to licence conditions for more than two decades cannot have a fair trial in circumstances where he will be so severely handicapped in addressing the matters which he would want and need to address”
I feel sure that anyone who has followed this case and who reads this will be as bewildered as we were at the comments of the Court of Appeal in relation to the ‘finally balanced decision’ not to order a retrial in a case where the person concerned was convicted in 1991 and had spent some 34 years with the help of very many people trying to clear his name. A few points do however need to be emphasised.
First it is simply impossible to understand the Court of Appeal’s claim that some of the arguments advanced against a retrial were inconsistent with those advanced on the hearing of the appeal. No explanation was provided as to what these inconsistencies were. Simply stated there were no such inconsistencies. In addition the implication of the judgment is that Oliver was saved from having to face a retrial only by the fact that he would struggle to cope with it. This is quite frankly disingenuous and exemplifies the point that for reasons which are inexplicable the Court attached little or no weight to the powerful arguments as to the conduct of the police, the absurdity and inconsistency of the admissions made by Oliver and Eric Samuel’ s repeated and consistent exonerations of Oliver over a period of years.
Thirdly and significantly given that Oliver could not receive any additional punishment if convicted on a retrial what did the Crown or the CA think would be the point of having a retrial which given the current delays and massive backlogs in the criminal justice system would be unlikely to take place until 2027 or 2028. In the unlikely event of him being convicted at a retrial subject of course to a further appeal what would be the point and at what cost to the public purse, and at a time when the criminal justice system is cracking at the seams and facing the most stringent financial cuts of any public body.
Quite frankly the decision of the Court of Appeal not to order a retrial in a case which was tried in 1991 following the conviction being quashed in September 2024, although thankfully the correct decision, is bewildering and unsettling in very many ways. How can representatives in future cases try to assess what the Court of Appeal would likely do in relation to ordering a retrial when it considers or tries to consider logically and forensically the phrase ‘finally balanced decision’.
I’m afraid for so very many reasons the Oliver Campbell case in its totality has revealed deep and significant flaws in our appeal and criminal justice system. Whether the Law Commission which is currently looking at the appeal system can make recommendations which this or future governments can take forward and which will avoid cases such as Oliver’s being repeated is a matter of debate and conjecture. All we can hope for is that this sorry state of affairs will never be allowed to occur again.
“An extraordinary decision”: Oliver Campbell’s fight for justice and the absurdity of a retrial
“An extraordinary decision”: Oliver Campbell’s fight for justice and the absurdity of a retrial
The case of Oliver Campbell is one of the longest and most complex miscarriages of justice in British legal history – one that only ended in September 2024 when the Court of Appeal quashed Oliver’s conviction, but did so in what many commentators have said was a very begrudging and poorly-reasoned judgment.
Previous articles on the Justice Gap and in PROOF Magazine consider the wider case and the long journey his legal team had to take to try and quash the conviction. On the face of it, and to most people who were aware of its notoriety, it appeared to be a clear and blatant wrongful conviction.
Glyn Maddocks, who represented Oliver for over two decades, now looks in some detail at the strange and concerning decision of the Crown following receipt of the Court of Appeal’s draft judgment to ask for a retrial in this arguably unique and unquestionably difficult case.
Oliver Campbell falsely confessed to the murder of Baldev Hoondle after being questioned by police without a solicitor present. The interviews were oppressive and reactionary (more has been written about them by Oliver’s legal counsel, Michael Birmbaum KC here). Hoondle was murdered during a robbery in Hackney in 1991, and Oliver was arrested for the crime, despite the fact that no forensics, and only extremely weak witness accounts, put him at the scene.
Oliver had severe learning difficulties as a result of an injury that he sustained as a young baby. His intelligence is borderline defective with an impaired capacity to process or remember more than the simplest verbal information. Despite this there was no lawyer present in the police station and his answers were suggested by leading questions some of which were at odds with the known facts and some of which were quite simply absurd. When he had legal assistance, Oliver withdrew his confession and was adamant that he was not guilty, but he was convicted of murder at the Old Bailey in December 1991.
Application for a Retrial
The basic position is that the Court of Appeal, if it quashes a conviction, has the power to order a retrial under Section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The decision whether to order a retrial requires to exercise its judgment by balancing the public interest against the legitimate interests of the defendant. The public interest is generally served by the prosecution of those reasonably suspected on available evidence of a serious crime, and if such a prosecution could be conducted without unfairness to or oppression of the defendant. The legitimate interests of the defendant requires there to be a careful consideration of the time which had passed since the alleged offence and any penalty already paid in other words any time served in prison.
In the case of Oliver Campbell, and as is normal, the Court of Appeal produced a draft judgment to allow both parties the opportunity to correct minor errors of fact and for either party to make any consequential applications. For reasons which are difficult to explain or understand given the rather unique circumstances and the fact that the CA had albeit somewhat reluctantly quashed the conviction in response to this, the Crown decided to apply for Oliver to be retried.
The Crown argued that despite quashing Oliver’s conviction and determining it was unsafe, the Court of Appeal had not found that Dr Beck’s evidence was conclusive of Oliver’s innocence. They suggested therefore that it was reasonably arguable that Oliver’s confession evidence was therefore still admissible. They went on to say that there were powerful arguments that his confessions were true and they then tried to back this up by using evidence of what Oliver had allegedly said to his solicitor (although this was ambivalent and strongly disputed) and to a doctor when he was on remand in Feltham Prison. Furthermore they said rather weakly that it was Oliver who took the police to the armed robber Eric Samuel and that of course the British Knights cap belonged to him.
Finally, and even more surprisingly, the Crown said that there was no reason why Oliver Campbell could not be fairly tried despite the fact 34 years had passed since his original trial took place and over 20 years had passed since he was released from prison. The Crown did concede that the weight of these matters was accentuated in this case by Oliver’s clear and obvious disabilities and the additional stress that a retrial would place upon him. However the Crown argued that such considerations were outweighed by the public interest in resolution of the issues which arose in the case of so grave a crime given that Oliver would be able to receive all necessary assistance in preparing for and presenting his case at the trial, including the benefit of measures which it was accepted were not available or in place in 1991.
In support of all these rather tenuous and, dare I say bizarre and highly contentious arguments, the Crown relied almost entirely on the odd and significantly different case of Justin Plummer – the only connection apparently was that the Crown’s leading Counsel had also appeared in that case.
Plummer was convicted of a murder that took place in February 1997. In July 2021 he was allowed to appeal the conviction following a CCRC reference based upon new expert evidence – he had long since served his minimum term but had not been released on license.
The CA was also asked to take account of the interests of the bereaved family of the deceased because family members had attended all three days of the hearing of Oliver’s appeal. The passage of time it was argued had not diminished the effect upon them of the murder of Baldev Hoondle. Although, as far as we can tell they were not asked about whether they wanted a retrial nor given the level of controversy and debate over the years about their view of the strength of Oliver’s conviction.
However the Crown did concede that if a retrial was ordered it would not rely on the identification by the key witness, saying that the absence of a full transcript of his trial evidence may inhibit a full exploration of that issue. What they did not say was that the trial Judge had said to the jury that if the only evidence available had been that witness he would have stopped the trial.
Glyn Maddocks KC. Photo: Andy Aitchison
Oliver’s arguments in response
After we had regained our composure from the shock and amazement that the Crown was apparently serious about its retrial application given the rather unique circumstances of this case we obviously had to think very carefully about responding. It seemed abundantly clear that we had to make the point very clearly that Oliver Campbell’s rights and interests entirely and overwhelmingly outweighed the general public interest in prosecuting a crime, albeit a serious crime, some 34 years after it occurred and when there had been a trial in 1991 and a first appeal in 1995.
In considering whether to prosecute the CPS have to weigh two factors – the public interest test and the evidential test.
In Oliver’s case there was extremely little evidence to support a prosecution – no forensic evidence, very poor (almost nonexistent) witness evidence, a plausible explanation from Oliver as to how he had lost his British Knights cap and the fact that Eric Samuel had on numerous occasions stated clearly to many people (including me) that Oliver was not involved in the shooting. We felt very strongly that the evidential test was not satisfied.
I should mention that Eric Samuel sadly died in 2014 and it would have therefore been impossible to call him to give evidence in support of Oliver if a retrial had been ordered. This would have been a massive and significant disadvantage for Oliver’s defense.
I’ve already said that Eric Samuel, who was one of the two gunmen, made a number of statements to police officers, to a BBC journalist, to his mother and to his sister and to me when I met him in 2012. When I asked him whether Oliver was responsible for the shooting he made it clear to me that Oliver wasn’t involved but at that stage he didn’t feel well enough or able to help Oliver with his appeal.
In addition to these arguments for resisting a retrial we also made the following strong points:
The Crown’s reliance on this entirely different case was extremely puzzling and difficult to justify. Plummer had remained in custody since his conviction and even well beyond tariff. Any comparison with Oliver’s case was pointless – Oliver Campbell had been free and law-abiding for approximately 22 years.
Additionally the prospect of Oliver being convicted following a retrial was clearly minimal given that the Crown had now abandoned the identification evidence of Mark Purchase and their point that Oliver knew that Eric Samuel was the other robber was very weak because Eric Samuel told a BBC reporter that he had discussed the robbery with Oliver before their arrest.
Oliver’s ownership of the British Knights hat was also of minimal weight given that it contained no hairs of his and a number of black hairs from an unknown person. Furthermore the Crown never attempted to address the falsity and the absurdity of most of the details of the robbery Oliver had given in his various apparent confessions.
On a retrial there would be a powerful argument that to allow the Crown to rely on one or more of the significant interviews would be grossly unfair because the Trial judge had rejected so much of it as unreliable. Furthermore and significantly, the Crown did not address the evidence critical of police conduct other than that of Dr Beck. At a retrial Oliver would be able to call Professors Brian Thomas Peter and Gisli Gudjohnsson who, like Doctor Beck, had strongly criticised the conduct of the interviews. Finally the argument for exclusion of the interviews has been greatly strengthened by changes in the law and practice regarding solicitors and appropriate adults
As far as unfairness was concerned this was overwhelming. The common law of hearsay had at the time of his Trial prevented Oliver from relying on the Eric Samuel admission of his co-defendant in which he had named a man called Harvey. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 now renders all the various and extensive exonerations of Oliver by Eric Samuel as admissible and indeed the Crown had conducted the appeal on the basis that they would nowadays in all probability be admitted.
In addition to all of these compelling legal arguments if a retrial was ordered Oliver’s acute memory issues which had been well documented in the expert evidence before the Court of Appeal would make it very difficult if not impossible for him to answer the Crown’s case at trial some 34 years after the event. His impaired memory would seriously inhibit his ability to instruct lawyers and to give evidence in his own defense even if special measures were adopted to assist his understanding of and participation in the trial. Moreover, there were real concerns that he would not be fit to stand trial in accordance with the relevant case law.
It was also abundantly clear and accepted that Oliver was a vulnerable person who struggled with basic self-care and required considerable support and it was very doubtful that he understood the appeal process. For many years he had been obsessed with proving his innocence. He probably believed that the allowing of his appeal meant that the Crown now accepted him to be innocent and a retrial if ordered would likely cause him considerable confusion and anxiety and potentially more serious mental health problems.
Oliver Campbell’s case is explored in the latest issue of PROOF magazine.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
In what could be argued as one of the most extraordinary decisions in recent history the judgment of the Court of Appeal, having reviewed the arguments advanced by the Crown and by Oliver’s defense, indicated that it was dismissing almost all of the arguments relied upon by Oliver:
“ we attach little weight to many of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, some of which strike us as inconsistent with the arguments advanced during the hearing of the appeal. We do not think it appropriate to embark upon an analysis of the various issues of admission admissibility of evidence which it is said would arise in a retrial; suffice it to say that there are points to be made on both sides of those issues and the position is not so clear cut that we can accept that they would probably be decided in a way which would substantially weaken the prosecution case”
Lord Justice Holroyd then continued that there was force in only one aspect of Oliver’s submissions. The fresh evidence showed that Oliver’s ability to process and hold information in his working memory was well below what would be expected even for someone of his low IQ. Those deficiencies would be compounded by the passage of a very long period of time. The confessions would be at the heart of any retrial. Oliver would face much greater difficulties than almost anyone else and much greater difficulties than he faced when he gave evidence during the trial.
He concluded:
“we have found this a finally balanced decision (sic). We attach considerable weight to the public interest in a fair trial resolving the issues in this case, but we conclude that that general interest is outweighed by the consideration that the appellant-who has served over a decade in prison and has been subject to licence conditions for more than two decades cannot have a fair trial in circumstances where he will be so severely handicapped in addressing the matters which he would want and need to address”
I feel sure that anyone who has followed this case and who reads this will be as bewildered as we were at the comments of the Court of Appeal in relation to the ‘finally balanced decision’ not to order a retrial in a case where the person concerned was convicted in 1991 and had spent some 34 years with the help of very many people trying to clear his name. A few points do however need to be emphasised.
First it is simply impossible to understand the Court of Appeal’s claim that some of the arguments advanced against a retrial were inconsistent with those advanced on the hearing of the appeal. No explanation was provided as to what these inconsistencies were. Simply stated there were no such inconsistencies. In addition the implication of the judgment is that Oliver was saved from having to face a retrial only by the fact that he would struggle to cope with it. This is quite frankly disingenuous and exemplifies the point that for reasons which are inexplicable the Court attached little or no weight to the powerful arguments as to the conduct of the police, the absurdity and inconsistency of the admissions made by Oliver and Eric Samuel’ s repeated and consistent exonerations of Oliver over a period of years.
Thirdly and significantly given that Oliver could not receive any additional punishment if convicted on a retrial what did the Crown or the CA think would be the point of having a retrial which given the current delays and massive backlogs in the criminal justice system would be unlikely to take place until 2027 or 2028. In the unlikely event of him being convicted at a retrial subject of course to a further appeal what would be the point and at what cost to the public purse, and at a time when the criminal justice system is cracking at the seams and facing the most stringent financial cuts of any public body.
Quite frankly the decision of the Court of Appeal not to order a retrial in a case which was tried in 1991 following the conviction being quashed in September 2024, although thankfully the correct decision, is bewildering and unsettling in very many ways. How can representatives in future cases try to assess what the Court of Appeal would likely do in relation to ordering a retrial when it considers or tries to consider logically and forensically the phrase ‘finally balanced decision’.
I’m afraid for so very many reasons the Oliver Campbell case in its totality has revealed deep and significant flaws in our appeal and criminal justice system. Whether the Law Commission which is currently looking at the appeal system can make recommendations which this or future governments can take forward and which will avoid cases such as Oliver’s being repeated is a matter of debate and conjecture. All we can hope for is that this sorry state of affairs will never be allowed to occur again.
Related Posts