Court clears man with severe learning difficulties of 1990 London murder

[Still Waters]

Oliver Campbell, a man with severe learning difficulties who was jailed for life for the murder of a shopkeeper three decades ago after confessing in police interviews, has had his convictions quashed by the court of appeal.

The judgment clearing Campbell, 54, of conspiracy to rob and murder ends what has been described as one of the longest miscarriages of justice in British criminal history, and will throw a new focus on past policing failures and the current approach of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

Campbell said: “The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years. I can start my life an innocent man.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/sep/11/appeal-court-clears-man-with-severe-learning-difficulties-of-1990-london

[MrAnderson]

7 hours ago, Still Waters said:

Oliver Campbell, a man with severe learning difficulties who was jailed for life for the murder of a shopkeeper three decades ago after confessing in police interviews, has had his convictions quashed by the court of appeal.

The judgment clearing Campbell, 54, of conspiracy to rob and murder ends what has been described as one of the longest miscarriages of justice in British criminal history, and will throw a new focus on past policing failures and the current approach of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

Campbell said: “The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years. I can start my life an innocent man.”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/sep/11/appeal-court-clears-man-with-severe-learning-difficulties-of-1990-london

Great for the man although he did spend most of his life in prison. There seems to be a good number of miscarriages of justice in the UK.

Remember he was convicted by the a court of law and everyone was absolutely sure beyond any reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

The problem it seems that you have in the UK is that convicted individuals have very few appeals and if it goes to the last stage it usually takes years to overturn the original decision. Something needs to happen to accelerate the very unfair process.

@Duke Wellington and @Grey Areab you probably will find this very interesting. And @itsnotoutthere

Edited September 11 by MrAnderson

[MrAnderson]

The guy said that

"The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years. I can start my life an innocent man.”

And may I add he must sue the hell out of them and if I was him I would have much further and find why and if it was miscarriage of justice or a conspiracy to imprison an innocent man. And act accordingly of course.

[Grey Area]

23 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Great for the man although he did spend most of his life in prison. There seems to be a good number of miscarriages of justice in the UK.

Remember he was convicted by the a court of law and everyone was absolutely sure beyond any reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

The problem it seems that you have in the UK is that convicted individuals have very few appeals and if it goes to the last stage it usually takes years to overturn the original decision. Something needs to happen to accelerate the very unfair process.

@Duke Wellington and @Grey Areab you probably will find this very interesting. And @itsnotoutthere

Why the obsession with miscarriages of justice in the U.K.?

You know this happens in the states and all over the world right?  Just one quite prolific example below.  Unlimited automatic appeals didn’t really help out this poor chap did it?

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/27/anthony-broadwater-falsely-convicted-lawsuit-settled-alice-sebold

I think the statistics are fairly similar for wrongful convictions in the U.K. compared to the states, although rather concerning is that the estimated 5% wrongful conviction statistic applies to those on death row as well.

[MrAnderson]

31 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Why the obsession with miscarriages of justice in the U.K.?

You know this happens in the states and all over the world right?  Just one quite prolific example below.  Unlimited automatic appeals didn’t really help out this poor chap did it?

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/27/anthony-broadwater-falsely-convicted-lawsuit-settled-alice-sebold

I think the statistics are fairly similar for wrongful convictions in the U.K. compared to the states, although rather concerning is that the estimated 5% wrongful conviction statistic applies to those on death row as well.

There is no obsession with the miscarriages of justice in the UK. I didn't made the thread but I wanted to get your attention that miscarriages of justice happen quite frequently and imagine these are the cases that do get attention because I suspect there are more innocent people in prison who never get the chance to prove they are innocent or people who should have received a different sentence and so spend much less time in prison.

[Grey Area]

7 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

There is no obsession with the miscarriages of justice in the UK. I didn't made the thread but I wanted to get your attention that miscarriages of justice happen quite frequently and imagine these are the cases that do get attention because I suspect there are more innocent people in prison who never get the chance to prove they are innocent or people who should have received a different sentence and so spend much less time in prison.

I have never said that there aren’t miscarriages of justice, of course there are.  They happen in the U.K. where there is a limit on the number and the timing of which appeals can be made, but also in other countries where the law may differ.

Do you think, by examining the statistics of the frequency of incorrect verdicts world wide, and also the time spent in prison by these victims would point to a particular issue with the UK’s appeal system?

What I have already said, which leaves me curious as to why you think I need to be made aware of this thread, is that this is a flawed system.  It’s a system reliant in a great part on people, people who are generally in one way or another victims of trauma.

You have the accused.  They are, if guilty, on the whole looking for any way to get out of their predicament, if innocent, then traumatised in their own right.  You have the victim/s, who are obviously, victims of an event which was traumatic enough to have their case brought to a criminal trial.  You have witnesses, who are close enough to the trauma to be know as witnesses.  You then have the expert witnesses, pressured to arrive at a particular point.

The system is flawed because people are flawed.  The only way to sidestep this issue is to place trials into the hands of AI and algorithms.  Not sure we want to go down that path.

 

[openozy]

You wonder how many innocent people have been executed in places that have the death penalty.

[Duke Wellington]

It is still less than 1% being found to actually be innocent.

The focus needs to be on strengthening the system to prevent more miscarriages of justice. Maybe jury service needs restricting to those who have a university education to make sure they are intelligent enough to understand the evidence?

[Still Waters]

2 hours ago, openozy said:

You wonder how many innocent people have been executed in places that have the death penalty.

I always wonder about that too. At least in the UK that can't happen.

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

I have never said that there aren’t miscarriages of justice, of course there are.  They happen in the U.K. where there is a limit on the number and the timing of which appeals can be made, but also in other countries where the law may differ.

Do you think, by examining the statistics of the frequency of incorrect verdicts world wide, and also the time spent in prison by these victims would point to a particular issue with the UK’s appeal system?

What I have already said, which leaves me curious as to why you think I need to be made aware of this thread, is that this is a flawed system.  It’s a system reliant in a great part on people, people who are generally in one way or another victims of trauma.

You have the accused.  They are, if guilty, on the whole looking for any way to get out of their predicament, if innocent, then traumatised in their own right.  You have the victim/s, who are obviously, victims of an event which was traumatic enough to have their case brought to a criminal trial.  You have witnesses, who are close enough to the trauma to be know as witnesses.  You then have the expert witnesses, pressured to arrive at a particular point.

The system is flawed because people are flawed.  The only way to sidestep this issue is to place trials into the hands of AI and algorithms.  Not sure we want to go down that path.

 

Yes the system is flawed and measures have tinge taken to improve it dramatically as it can fail people. Imagine how many others are in prison who will never have the chance to prove they are innocent or to be able to reduce their sentences when they received an unfair trial and treatment.

The whatever statistics could be flawed on how many are innocent have been found guilty. I don't know the figure but it looks to me that the system is designed in such a way that it's extremely difficult to overturn a guilty verdict and you need to bring more 'evidence' on the table. Who said that you need more evidence rather than to show the evidence used was weak and there were serious flaws with the arguments and claims of the prosecution and based upon this the conviction was unsafe.. You can't take the first trial and whatever was concluded as the gospel. The system is really not good when it comes to this.

[MrAnderson]

2 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

It is still less than 1% being found to actually be innocent.

The focus needs to be on strengthening the system to prevent more miscarriages of justice. Maybe jury service needs restricting to those who have a university education to make sure they are intelligent enough to understand the evidence?Y

You don't know the exact number and it could be more than that because not everyone gets the attention Lucy Letby is getting at the moment so to initiate enquiries and to cast doubt in the safety of the convictions. We shouldn't forget that there could a number of people who have received the wrong sentences and should have been given less time than they are given.

I think people will disagree with you on the hoe someone can be regarded as intelligent or not based on their education. Clearly there is a huge problem when laymen and ordinary citizens are trying to interpret the evidence without any knowledge and understanding of maths, statistics, medicine, criminology and so on. You successfully pointed to a Artois problem. It doesn't mean people are less intelligent but it's a big problem.

Maybe a jury with experts and non experts. Let's say 12 experts and 12 non experts?

Edited September 12 by MrAnderson

[openozy]

2 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

It is still less than 1% being found to actually be innocent.

Who's statistics are they from, the judicial system?

[Duke Wellington]

95% of our convicts suffer from at least one personality disorder, and 99% have mental health issues (present before incarceration).

I mean, while that doesn`t double prove guilt, it could be used as a double check. Because lets face it, to do the type of crime Letby has been convicted off they are going to be pretty gaga. Its just not something mentally healthy people do.

[Essan]

1 hour ago, Duke Wellington said:

95% of our convicts suffer from at least one personality disorder, and 99% have mental health issues (present before incarceration).

I mean, while that doesn`t double prove guilt, it could be used as a double check. Because lets face it, to do the type of crime Letby has been convicted off they are going to be pretty gaga. Its just not something mentally healthy people do.

Most convicts are not baby killers, and most do not have any personality or mental health issues at all - or, at least, no more so that the rest of the population.  

[Essan]

5 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

It is still less than 1% being found to actually be innocent.

The focus needs to be on strengthening the system to prevent more miscarriages of justice. Maybe jury service needs restricting to those who have a university education to make sure they are intelligent enough to understand the evidence?

Do you think that would have prevented these postmasters from being wrongly convicted?

https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/horizon-scandal-pages/overturned-convictions-and-financial-redress-information-on-progress

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Most convicts are not baby killers, and most do not have any personality or mental health issues at all - or, at least, no more so that the rest of the population.  

You are incorrect: Prevalence of mental disorders in prisons in the UK: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC (nih.gov)

And I might add, someone has to be off their rocker to commit such a heinous crime. These are not ordinary people, they are broken or wired up wrongly in their heads. Find yourself a sociopath and have a look for yourself.

[Essan]

5 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

You are incorrect: Prevalence of mental disorders in prisons in the UK: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC (nih.gov)

And I might add, someone has to be off their rocker to commit such a heinous crime. These are not ordinary people, they are broken or wired up wrongly in their heads. Find yourself a sociopath and have a look for yourself.

Where does it say 99% of convicted felons have mental heath issues?  (as you claimed).   
 

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Essan said:

Where does it say 99% of convicted felons have mental heath issues?  (as you claimed).   
 

That one gives many disorders, not the cumulative of all.

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Essan said:

Do you think that would have prevented these postmasters from being wrongly convicted?

https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/horizon-scandal-pages/overturned-convictions-and-financial-redress-information-on-progress

What he is trying to say is that random jurors may not be able to handle the information and evidence given well. Maybe they need to have some kind of training. You don't want for example some guys from your local pub to decide whether your father is guilty of a murder charge. It's a valid point but on the other hand university education on its own doesn't guarantee higher intelligence and understanding of the evidence presented.

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

What he is trying to say is that random jurors may not be able to handle the information and evidence given well. Maybe they need to have some kind of training. You don't want for example some guys from your local pub to decide whether your father is guilty of a murder charge. It's a valid point but on the other hand university education on its own doesn't guarantee higher intelligence and understanding of the evidence presented.

When a case is going to trial I think the prosecution team should have to tick boxes saying what type of evidence will be presented.

If something like statistics is ticked, I think the jury need to go through a training session before the trial advising them how to spot good and bad statistics, and how to think critically about them to ensure they aren`t used to uphold a dodgy narrative. I also think IQ tests are a must, and anyone with an IQ below 110 should be banned from jury service. In scientifically complex cases that should be increased to 120.

I also think a separate body needs setting up where the convicted can make a complaint if they cannot secure an appeal. That body will review the evidence, not the arguments made in court, and critically assess them on likelihood of guilt. If they have doubt, then an automatic appeal should be granted.

With UK laws being what they currently are she can only appeal on grounds of procedural error or new evidence. New evidence does not include evidence that her defence team were aware of but not used. Her only chance at the moment of getting an appeal is to hope enough experts and public pressure force the government into allowing one. Because the statistics were not questioned, the cherry picking of deaths leaving out those when she wasn`t present was not talked about, and her team most bizarrely of all allowed her therapy self-criticism thought pad to be entered into evidence as a confession without cross examining what it was about. 

Something is fishy, and I cannot quite put my finger on what is going on. Was her barrister bribed or something? Did they cheat to get their law degree, because it seems their is likely at the very minimum incompetence going on. Odd....

Edited September 12 by Duke Wellington

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

When a case is going to trial I think the prosecution team should have to tick boxes saying what type of evidence will be presented.

If something like statistics is ticked, I think the jury need to go through a training session before the trial advising them how to spot good and bad statistics, and how to think critically about them to ensure they aren`t used to uphold a dodgy narrative. I also think IQ tests are a must, and anyone with an IQ below 110 should be banned from jury service. In scientifically complex cases that should be increased to 120.

I also think a separate body needs setting up where the convicted can make a complaint if they cannot secure an appeal. That body will review the evidence, not the arguments made in court, and critically assess them on likelihood of guilt. If they have doubt, then an automatic appeal should be granted.

With UK laws being what they currently are she can only appeal on grounds of procedural error or new evidence. New evidence does not include evidence that her defence team were aware of but not used. Her only chance at the moment of getting an appeal is to hope enough experts and public pressure force the government into allowing one. Because the statistics were not questioned, the cherry picking of deaths leaving out those when she wasn`t present was not talked about, and her team most bizarrely of all allowed her therapy self-criticism thought pad to be entered into evidence as a confession without cross examining what it was about. 

Something is fishy, and I cannot quite put my finger on what is going on. Was her barrister bribed or something? Did they cheat to get their law degree, because it seems their is likely at the very minimum incompetence going on. Odd....

I have the same suspicion that something is really wrong here given how the defense has acted and I can't be sure what it is. The only way to get a new trial is through public pressure and constant attention by part of the press and journalists, some politicians, and experts.

There must be a new separate body to review the evidence presented and I agree very strongly with this. I don't think that the only way to get a new trial should be to provide new evidence when the evidence used could be weak to secure a conviction and the arguments made by the prosecution flawed. Retrials should be granted for a number of reasons without the need for the defense to provide new evidence. It sounds as if the evidence used is like the gospel and the jurors and judges are inflallible.

The part where you talk about the IQ of jurors is something that politicians and the legal world would probably never accept. Imagine they are testing jurors' ability based on IQ tests? First of all not many people will hit the 110 mark that you set as the average IQ is below that.