An Ipswich man with learning difficulties said he can "start my life as an innocent man" after finally clearing his name 33 years after he was convicted of murder.
Oliver Campbell, who has lived in Ipswich since finishing an 11-year sentence at Hollesley Bay Prison near Woodbridge in 2002, has found justice after the Court of Appeal found him to be innocent of murder by shooting and conspiracy to rob a shopkeeper in London in 1991.
At the time, a confession was given by Mr Campbell who was interviewed in 14 separate police interrogations at the time, many without a lawyer being present.
Mr Campbell suffered severe brain damage as a baby, and as such, has severe learning difficulties.
At the end of April, his case was adjourned by the Court of Appeal after a two-day hearing, which included evidence provided by a forensic psychologist who said that Mr Campbell scored “abnormally high” on tests for acquiescence, meaning he has a “tendancy to agree to something irrespective of content.”
The psychologist also said that the techniques of questioning used by police “carried a very high risk” and they were “dangerous”.
Mr Campbell has been fighting for a long time to clear his name, and in November 2022, he found he was able to appeal his conviction and in February this year, he found out his appeal was going to be discussed by the Court of Appeal.
Following the judgment, Mr Campbell, now in his 50s, told the PA news agency: “The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years.
“I can start my life an innocent man.”
His supporters said: “We are all in tears. This is the best news.
“Ollie’s life starts now.
“He thanks his legal team, Michael, Rose and Glyn, and his supporters, and his foster mum Jean, and especially Teresa.”
In their ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Bourne and Mrs Justice Stacey, said they had “concluded that the convictions are unsafe”.
He said: “We accept that, considered in the light of the fresh evidence, the rulings might be different.
“A jury knowing of the fresh evidence would be considering the reliability of those confessions in a materially different context.
“In those circumstances, we cannot say that the fresh evidence could not reasonably have affected the decision of the jury to convict."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel