Campbell, who suffered brain injuries as a child, appealed in 1994 with fresh psychological evidence that his injuries made him susceptible to pressure in the police interview. However, the court ruled this inadmissible.
In 1991, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) rejected an application with further psychological reports and a covert recording by a BBC journalist of the co-accused stating Campbell was not present at the scene.
In 2020, however, it did refer a second application to the Court of Appeal.
Ruling the convictions unsafe and rejecting the Crown’s application for a retrial, in R v Campbell [2024] EWCA Crim 1036 last week, Lord Holroyde said: ‘The real possibility that different rulings as to admissibility would be made if the fresh evidence were available brings with it the real possibility that a jury would be considering a significantly different evidential picture.
‘Even if all the evidence of confessions were admitted, 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.’
Michael Birnbaum KC, of Foundry Chambers, acting pro bono for Campbell, argued 17 grounds. They included ‘exceptionally weak’ identification evidence; a lack of forensic evidence since hair in a cap relied on by the prosecution did not match Campbell’s; confessions made in the absence of a solicitor; and details given to the police by Campbell that were ‘either contrary to the known facts or absurd’ or similar to details broadcast in BBC Crimewatch.
