R v Errol Campbell

Fresh evidence of serious dishonesty by principal prosecution witnesses may be received under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 where it materially undermines the prosecution case and bears on the safety of the conviction. Evidence that those witnesses were themselves engaged, at the relevant time, in the same criminal activity alleged against the appellant is particularly powerful. If the jury did not know that fact, it may render the conviction unsafe. An appeal may be brought on behalf of a deceased appellant under section 44 A.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in 1977 of conspiracy to steal and theft arising from alleged thefts at a British Rail parcel depot. His application for leave to appeal was refused in 1978. A subsequent Criminal Cases Review Commission reference relied on fresh evidence concerning the dishonesty of Detective Sergeant Ridgewell and other British Transport Police officers, including evidence that they were themselves stealing goods from the depot during the relevant period.

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed the appeals of two co-accused in R v Peterkin and Mehmet, [2024] EWCA Crim 309. The Crown accepted that this case was materially indistinguishable, that the fresh evidence was admissible under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and that the convictions were unsafe. The central issue was whether the fresh evidence undermined the reliability of the prosecution case sufficiently to require the convictions to be quashed.

The court allowed the appeal brought on behalf of the late R v Errol Campbell and quashed his convictions. No retrial was sought.

1. Fresh evidence. The court formally received the fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The evidence concerned the criminality and dishonesty of the police officers whose evidence had been central to the prosecution case. It materially undermined the reliability of that case.
2. Materiality to safety. The critical circumstance was that the principal prosecution witnesses were themselves engaged in the same criminal activity as that alleged against the appellant, during the period relevant to the charges. The jury had not known this at trial. The court applied the reasoning in R v Simmons, [2018] EWCA Crim 114, and the corresponding reasoning in R v Peterkin and Mehmet, [2024] EWCA Crim 309. That evidence would have been very telling and made the convictions plainly unsafe. The fresh evidence was also relevant to the submission that the appellant and others had been targeted because they were black.
3. Procedure and order. The Vice-President had authorised the appeal to be brought on the appellant’s behalf under section 44 A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, following his death. The appeal therefore proceeded and was allowed, with the convictions quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The CCRC reference took effect as an appeal. The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (January 1978): The appellant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
• Central Criminal Court (April 1977): The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to steal and theft and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.