WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. |
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT HHJ DEREK GRANT KC CASE NO 202500555/B1 [2025] EWCA Crim 1146 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE
MR JUSTICE BUTCHER
MR JUSTICE WALL
REX
v
ERROL CAMPBELL
REFERENCE BY THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
MR H BLAXLAND KC appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MISS F ROBERTSON appeared on behalf of the Crown
_________
J U D G M E N T
(Approved)
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: 48 years ago, in April 1977, Mr Errol Campbell stood trial in the Central Criminal Court with a number of other accused, all of whom had been employed by British Rail at the Bricklayers' Arms parcel sorting depot in South London. He was convicted of offences of conspiracy to steal and theft, and was sentenced to a total of 18 months' imprisonment.
In January 1978 Mr Campbell’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused by this court. His case now returns to this court on a Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission ("CCRC"), to whom we are grateful for their work on the case. The Reference takes effect as an appeal against conviction.
The charges against Mr Campbell and against those who stood trial with him all related to the alleged theft and handling of goods in transit through the parcel sorting depot. Two of Mr Campbell's co-accused, who were also convicted, were Basil Peterkin and Saliah Mehmet. The CCRC have previously referred their cases to this court and their appeals against conviction were allowed on 18 January 2024. The judgment of the court on that occasion is publicly available under the neutral citation number [2024] EWCA Crim 309.
It is convenient to take from that judgment the following brief summary of the overall circumstances of the case, which is to be found between paragraphs 4 and 13 of that judgment:
In a nutshell, the prosecution alleged a widespread conspiracy between January and November 1975 to divert parcels sent by mail order catalogue companies and to steal the contents. The total value of the stolen goods was said to be around £30,000.
The alleged crimes were investigated by the British Transport Police, and in particular by a small team comprising Detective Sergeant Derek Ridgewell, Detective Constable Douglas Ellis and Detective Constable Alan Keeling.
Ridgewell had previously led a different police team, which had been disbanded in 1973 after concerns about their methods and evidence had arisen, and in particular following criticism by a judge of their conduct and of the evidence which they gave of supposed confessions by suspects during a trial at the Central Criminal Court.
...
In 1980, Ridgewell, Ellis and Keeling all pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal from the Bricklayers' Arms Depot. Keeling also pleaded guilty to theft. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Ridgewell died in prison before he had completed his sentence. Their criminal activities between January 1977 and April 1978 had resulted in the loss from the depot of goods to the value of about £364,000 – an enormous sum of money at that time. During that same period they were giving evidence against these appellants.
Fresh evidence as to the dishonesty of those three British Transport Police officers has underpinned a series of CCRC references to this court: R v Simmons [2018] EWCA Crim 114; R v Trew, Christie and Griffiths [2019] EWCA Crim 2474; R v Boucher [2020] EWCA Crim 629; R v Green, Harriott and Davidson [2021] EWCA Crim 1026; and R v Johnson [2021] EWCA Crim 1837. Those appeals were not opposed by the Crown, and the convictions of the appellants were quashed, as a result of what has been referred to as 'the accumulating body of evidence' concerning the integrity of Ridgewell and of the teams which he had led.
In the first of the series of appeals, R v Simmons, Lord Burnett CJ, at [11] of the judgment of the court, summarised the various aspects of Detective Sergeant Ridgewell's conduct which had given rise to criticism during his role when heading the earlier different team. They included concerns as to the fabrication of evidence. At [14] of the judgment, Lord Burnett CJ went on to say this:
'Leaving aside the wider concerns identified in connection with the officer concerned, his convictions for conspiracy to steal goods in transit in connection with events so close in time to the alleged offending, and in circumstances where that alleged offending was itself stealing goods in transit, would in our judgement have been very telling.'"
In Mr Campbell's case, there was a specific allegation that the police had recovered from his home two items of stolen property: a travel clock, said to have been found in a coat pocket; and a packaging label said to have been found on a typewriter and said to be indicative of the dishonest switching of labels as a means of theft from the depot. Although some of the detail of Mr Campbell's case is no longer available, it is clear that he denied stealing those items and said that the clock had been "planted" by the police. and the label had been created by the police using a typewriter found at his home.
The present appeal is brought on the grounds that the fresh evidence which is now available as to the criminality and dishonesty of Ridgewell and his colleagues supports the allegation which Mr Campbell made against the officers at his trial and shows that their evidence was unreliable and Mr Campbell's convictions accordingly unsafe.
On Mr Campbell's behalf, Mr Blaxland KC, in measured but extremely cogent submissions, draws attention to the specific concern that Mr Campbell, and others convicted on the basis of the now discredited testimony of Ridgewell and his colleagues in the two squads, had been targeted because they were black. Mr Blaxland submits, with justification, that the fresh evidence is relevant not only to dishonesty on the part of Ridgewell but also to his racial prejudice.
Mr Blaxland KC also represented Mr Peterkin and Mr Mehmet at their appeal. On their behalf he made two particular points to the court hearing their appeals which bear repetition. Mr Blaxland submitted on that occasion, and submits again today, that Ridgewell should have been investigated, and in all probability dismissed, after the earlier concerns and criticisms had led to the disbanding of the previous team which he had led, referred to as the "anti-mugging team". Instead, Mr Blaxland observed, Ridgewell was simply moved by the British Transport Police (“BTP”) to head a different team investigating thefts at the Bricklayers' Arms parcel depot, a position which he and others then grossly abused by themselves stealing goods in the very manner of which they accused others.
Secondly, Mr Blaxland suggested that after the 1980 convictions of the three BTP officers, the BTP should have reviewed the safety of convictions which were based upon the evidence of those officers.
In January 2024, having listened to those submissions, the court said this:
We see considerable force in those submissions. Like the constitutions of this court which have heard the earlier appeals, we express our regret that so many years have passed before action was taken following the efforts initially made by the appellant Mr Simmons in the first case in the series."
Those words are equally applicable today in Mr Campbell's case.
Mr Blaxland submits that Mr Campbell's appeal is materially indistinguishable from the successful appeals of his former co-accused Mr Peterkin and Mr Mehmet.
Miss Robertson, for the respondent, accepts that that submission is correct, as do we. She accepts that, as in the appeals of Mr Peterkin and Mr Mehmet, the fresh evidence showing the dishonesty of the police officers concerned, and the consequent undermining of the prosecution case presented at trial, is admissible under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and renders Mr Campbell's convictions unsafe. She recognises that the trial of Mr Campbell took place during the very period when Ridgewell, the key witness against him, was himself stealing from the parcels depot. Miss Robertson therefore does not oppose the appeal, and helpfully indicates that should the court quash the conviction no application would be made for a retrial.
Miss Robertson points out that when Mr Campbell first appealed to this court in 1978, the court at that time took the view that his case had been very fully dealt with in the trial judge's summing-up, the jury had had all relevant material before them and had been correctly directed, and that there was therefore no ground for interfering with the verdicts. Miss Robertson very fairly reminds us that in relation to Mr Peterkin's appeal, in which a similar point arose, the court in January 2024 said this at paragraph 19 of its judgment:
"Now that the fresh evidence is available, it can be seen that a most important matter which was not put before the jury, because it was not then known, was that the principal prosecution witnesses were themselves engaged in the very same criminal activity as that which they alleged against Mr Peterkin and his co-accused. As was said in R v Simmons, if the jury had been aware of that fact, it would have been very telling."
Those words apply equally to the present case. The concessions properly and fairly made by the respondent are plainly correct. We formally receive the fresh evidence, in the light of which Mr Campbell's convictions are plainly unsafe.
Very sadly, Mr Campbell has not lived to hear this judgment of the court. He died on 29 October 2004, taking the miscarriage of justice which he had suffered and his wrongful convictions to his grave. With authority granted by the Vice-President pursuant to section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the appeal has been brought on his behalf by his son Mr Errol Campbell (Junior), to whom we express our gratitude.
In a witness statement which he provided to the CCRC, and which Mr Blaxland KC rightly read aloud in full, Mr Campbell (Junior) describes his father coming home from police detention beaten and bruised. Mr Campbell (Senior) maintained his innocence for the rest of his life. He regarded himself, with justification, as a victim of racism. The effect on him can readily be understood. In addition, his convictions cost him the job which he had held for many years and which he had enjoyed. These awful consequences are encapsulated in the final sentences of Mr Campbell (Junior's) statement:
"After he came out of prison my father went to America to get away from his experience. I did not see him for years. I think he left England for up to six years. He took up heavy drinking and had a drinking problem for the rest of his life. He was a ruined man."
We regret that this court cannot now undo all that the late Mr Campbell suffered. We can however, and do, allow the appeal brought on his behalf and quash his convictions. We hope that that will at least bring some comfort to Mr Campbell's family who survive him.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk