Experts reveal new evidence led to Oliver Campbell referral to the Court of Appeal
The Ipswich man's conviction was overturned yesterday
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has said new evidence of Ipswich man Oliver Campbell's "vulnerabilities" led to the body referring his case to the Court of Appeal, almost 20 years after they declined to do so.
Mr Campbell, who was jailed for life in 1991 for the fatal shooting of Baldev Hoondle in Hackney, east London, the previous year, had convictions for murder and conspiracy to rob overturned by the Court of Appeal on Wednesday.
Three judges ruled that new evidence about Mr Campbell's "mental state", related to the severe brain damage he suffered as a baby, would mean a jury's decision today "might be different" and therefore rendered the convictions "unsafe".
The CCRC, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, referred the case to the court in 2022, despite previously declining to do so in 2005.
Barristers for Mr Campbell told a hearing in February that the body previously made the "wrong decision" following a "very fine and thorough investigation".
Following the ruling, a spokesperson for the CCRC said: "The CCRC referred Mr Campbell's murder conviction in light of new evidence that his vulnerabilities had not been properly understood or explained at trial.
"Our review considered modern psychological practice and recent changes in the law, including those concerning the treatment of vulnerable suspects.
"The jury at Mr Campbell's trial knew that he had learning disabilities with impaired memory and reasoning skills, but an expert report had concluded that he was not abnormally suggestible.
"We approached that same expert and invited him to reconsider his assessment of Mr Campbell.
"A second expert instructed by the CCRC explained how a modern approach to assessing Mr Campbell would take a more holistic view that considered his background and experience.
"This expert agreed that there were reasons why Mr Campbell may have given unreliable evidence which were not fully understood or explained to the jury at the time.
"The CCRC decided that there was now a real possibility the Court of Appeal would conclude that Mr Campbell's admissions were unreliable and that ultimately his convictions were unsafe.
"The Court of Appeal judgment makes clear that its decision is based on fresh evidence from recent research work, and that the understanding of the factors which may contribute to a false confession has increased.
"It also states that there have been important developments in the law relating to admissibility of evidence and in matters of practice and procedure relevant to a fair trial."
"Simply absurd"
The court heard earlier this year that Mr Campbell, who was aged 21 when he was jailed and is now in his 50s, suffered severe brain damage as an eight-month-old baby and continues to struggle with memory, concentration and retaining information.
His barrister, Michael Birnbaum KC, said this meant he made false admissions in police interviews which were "simply absurd", and "nonsense", and contained a "litany of inconsistencies" against the facts of the case.
He continued that Mr Campbell believed admitting the incident was an accident was "his least bad option", and that his learning difficulties meant he was "out of his depth" and "simply unable to do justice to himself" when giving evidence at the original trial at the Old Bailey.
In a 30-page judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mrs Justice Stacey and Mr Justice Bourne, said new evidence on understanding Mr Campbell's learning difficulties would have given the trial "much more information" about Mr Campbell's "mental state when he made his confessions".
He said: "As a result of the fresh expert evidence, the whole approach to the case would now be informed by a different and better understanding of relevant factors."
He continued: "A jury knowing of the fresh evidence would be considering the reliability of those confessions in a materially different context.
"In those circumstances, we cannot say that the fresh evidence could not reasonably have affected the decision of the jury to convict."
The judges rejected arguments that Mr Campbell was "badgered and bullied" by police into giving a false confession, stating there was no "evidential foundation" for claims of "manipulation, deliberate misleading and bullying" made against officers.