A vulnerable, brain-damaged youth jailed for shooting dead a shopkeeper in a robbery more than 30 years ago was at high risk of falsely confessing under “relentless” Metropolitan Police questioning, a court has been told.
Psychologist Gísli Guðjónsson told the Court of Appeal he had not fully understood Oliver Campbell’s vulnerabilities when first assessing him after his arrest for the murder of Baldev Hoondle in 1991.
Campbell, now 53, spent 11 years inside for the murder at Hackney’s G and H Supermarket in 1990. He has severe learning difficulties following a brain injury sustained when he was eight months old, and has difficulty concentrating and processing information.
Nearly 20 at the time, he told detectives during an interview on December 1, 1990, without a solicitor present: “I, I like pulled the trigger by accident.”
But Campbell’s lawyers say he was pressured into wrongly confessing by “bullying” police questioning and have fought for more than 20 years for the conviction to be quashed.
On the second day of the appeal into Campbell’s conviction 33 years ago, Mr Guðjónsson said he was originally unsure whether or not the defendant was being obstructive in questioning.
But after reassessing the case for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in 2021, the international expert in false confessions said he had now changed his view.
He said the “understanding of false confessions was almost non-existent” at the time of the murder and that since then he has written two books, assessed about 500 cases, and carried out extensive research into false confessions.
“My knowledge now is hugely improved to what it was in 1991,” he told the court.
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.”
Campbell is widely said to be suggestible, meaning he is likely to agree with whatever he thinks someone wants to hear.
Mr Guðjónsson said that during his first assessment in 1990, he raised concerns about the “nature of the questioning” by Metropolitan Police detectives when interviewing Campbell.
The expert told the court he now thinks that Campbell was “giving police what he thought they wanted to believe”.
He added: “The mindset is relentless questioning, how can I stop them questioning me? How can I get them off my back?
“Eventually, people realise they’re not getting anywhere and the only way out is to say it was an accident.”
He added that although he cannot say for certain whether Campbell falsely confessed, he said: “I’m saying it was high risk.
“I’m looking at the science and the science tells me that there are numerous cumulative risk factors that increase the likelihood of him making a false confession.”
Mr Guðjónsson also said it was “absolutely essential” that Campbell’s solicitor was present at all times.
“He was so vulnerable he clearly needed an appropriate adult and solicitor that would be congniscent of any pressure he considered would be unfair,” said the expert.
“I’m not criticising the police. I’m saying the techniques they were using carry a very high risk. They do significantly increase the risk of a false confession.”
Previously in the case, 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 said the interviewing detective “manipulated events to hold the interview in the absence of [Campbell’s] solicitor” and he 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.”
The Crown Prosecution Service, represented by John Price KC, is opposing the appeal.
Lord Justice Holroyde, Mrs Justice Stacey and Mr Justice Bourne expected to give their judgment at a later date.
