The murder conviction of a brain-damaged youth for shooting dead a shopkeeper in 1990 should be quashed because his vulnerabilities meant he could not properly defend himself, a court has been told.
Rose Slowe KC told the Court of Appeal that Oliver Campbell had faced a “monumental task in an alien process, without any of the protections available today” to rebut the accusations made against him at his trial.
Campbell, now 53, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1991 after being found guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey for the murder of Baldev Hoondle at Hackney’s G and H Supermarket.
He confessed to the crime under what his lawyers have described as “bullying” Metropolitan Police questioning, but retracted his admission later.
But Ms Slowe, representing the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), told an appeal against his 33-year-old conviction: “If Oliver came before the court today, he would have a totally different experience to that of his trial in 1991.”
Campbell, who was nearly 20 when he was arrested, has severe learning difficulties following a brain injury sustained when he was eight months old.
His range of difficulties include concentrating for long periods and processing information. He particularly struggles to understand long and complex sentences.
Ms Slowe said: “Looking at the reports and information available, there can be little doubt that Oliver, as he was in 1991, would have been identified as a vulnerable defendant at an early stage of proceedings were the case to come before the court today.”
But protections for vulnerable defendants in court were only brought in 2005, meaning that Campbell had to give evidence for over six hours without any of the support he would get today.
For example, Ms Slowe said that today Campbell would be allowed an intermediary to help him understand proceedings and that he would be allowed to take regular breaks.
“Oliver has extremely limited short-term auditory and verbal memory, and ability to retain information,” she told the court.
“He only would’ve been able to properly process questions of limited length.”
Elsewhere during her submission to the court, she said: “In 1991, Oliver seems to have been left to fend for himself. He had no protection from an intermediary as one would expect him to have today.
“He was not given the opportunity to give his best evidence.”
She argued that applying modern standards of fairness to the 1991 trial meant the appeal “could be allowed this ground alone”.
The appeal was due to last two days but was adjourned part complete on Thursday by Lord Justice Holroyde, Mrs Justice Stacey and Mr Justice Bourne to resume at a later date.
The adjournment will allow Campbell’s lawyers to submit further arguments on the legal precedence surrounding the case, as well as enable the Crown Prosecution Service – which is opposing the appeal – to respond.
Earlier in the hearing, a psychological expert said that Campbell was at high risk of falsely confessing under “relentless” Metropolitan Police questioning.
Psychologist Gísli Guðjónsson told the Court of Appeal he had not fully understood Oliver Campbell’s vulnerabilities when first assessing him after his arrest.
Mr Guðjónsson, an internationally renowned expert in false confessions, said he was originally unsure whether or not the defendant was being obstructive in questioning.
But after reassessing the case for the CCRC in 2021, the international expert in false confessions said he had now changed his view.
Explaining why Campbell might have confessed even when innocent, Mr Guðjónsson said: “The pressure on Mr Campbell being in custody for three days, the cognitive load on him, would’ve been extreme.
“He was distressed and clearly confused at times. He was naive. He was conflicted, I think, about: ‘Do I tell the truth or do I lie and get out of here?’
“He was poor at communicating to police. He was inadvertently saying things like ‘who grassed me up?’ that could be misinterpreted.”
Michael Birnbaum KC said Campbell’s disabilities meant he was “easily manipulated”.
The barrister described the confession as “nonsense” because “the admissions he made were inconsistent with each other and in some cases absurd”. He also criticised the “weak identification” of Campbell at the scene.
The case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, in 2022 after a two-year investigation.
Chairwoman Helen Pitcher said at the time: “It is now clear that, at the time of Mr Campbell’s trial, the full extent of his vulnerabilities were not properly understood.”
