Oliver Campbell, whose murder conviction from 1991 was quashed after more than three decades, plans to sue the Metropolitan Police, his lawyers said, alleging officers bullied him into signing a confession despite his severe learning disabilities.
Campbell, 55, was jailed for the fatal shooting of shopkeeper Baldev Hoondle during a robbery in Hackney on July 22, 1990. He spent 11 years in prison and then lived for about two decades on licence before the Court of Appeal ruled his conviction unsafe after fresh evidence was presented.
Campbell’s legal team say police exploited his cognitive impairments — a consequence of brain damage sustained as an infant that left him with problems in memory, concentration and retaining information — to obtain admissions that were inconsistent with the facts of the case. Defence lawyers said Campbell was interviewed 14 times during the investigation and in some interviews did not have a solicitor or an appropriate adult present.
The Court of Appeal found that key material undermined the safety of the convictions. Fresh evidence highlighted that a British Knights baseball cap found near the scene contained hairs that did not match Campbell’s; Campbell had told investigators the cap had been stolen from him after he bought it. Witness descriptions of the robbers’ heights — about 5 feet 10 inches — did not match Campbell, who is about 6 feet 3 inches. Prosecutors’ witnesses, including the victim’s son, were unable to identify Campbell in an identity parade, despite earlier saying they had been close to the gunman.
In quashing the convictions, Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Bourne and Mrs Justice Stacey said they were satisfied the fresh evidence meant the rulings at trial "might be different" and that a jury aware of the new material would have considered the reliability of the confessions in a "materially different context." The court heard defence submissions describing some of Campbell’s admissions as "simply absurd," "nonsense" and containing a "litany of inconsistencies."
Campbell’s solicitor, Glyn Maddocks KC, said the team intends to launch a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for the years Campbell lost as a result of the conviction and licence conditions. He warned that a successful claim may be hard to secure because the law changed in 2014 to require applicants for miscarriage-of-justice compensation to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence — a standard defence lawyers say is extremely difficult to meet without compelling forensic evidence.
Another member of Campbell’s legal team, solicitor Toby Wilton, urged the government to amend the compensation regime, saying it forces victims of wrongful conviction into "complex, adversarial, civil claims" and "heaps injustice upon injustice." Following the appeal decision, Campbell said: "The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years. I can start my life an innocent man." Friends said he now works in a coffee shop and has taken up attending music festivals after being freed from licence conditions.
The Metropolitan Police said the conviction was quashed because fresh evidence emerged that was not available at the time of Campbell’s original confession in 1991. A force spokesperson added that Campbell had been medically examined and found fit for detention and interview, and that he had declined access to independent legal advice during the investigation.
Campbell first appealed against his conviction in 1994 and was unsuccessful. A later attempt to review the case was dismissed in 2019 before the Court of Appeal ultimately ruled the convictions unsafe after the presentation of new evidence. His lawyers have indicated the force is likely to contest any compensation claim, setting the stage for what could be a prolonged civil battle over accountability and damages.
The case underscores enduring questions about the treatment of vulnerable suspects during police interviews and the legal thresholds for compensation after wrongful convictions. Campbell’s planned civil suit will test how post‑2014 compensation law applies in a case where the appellate court has found the original verdict unsafe on the basis of fresh evidence and inconsistencies in the investigative record.