Law should change to allow review of cases of jailed officers, lawyer says
Mr Campbell, who died in 2004, was found guilty in April 1977 of theft and conspiracy to steal from the Bricklayers' Arms goods depot in south London, where he was a British Rail employee, and jailed for 18 months.
The case against him was led by the discredited British Transport Police (BTP) officer Detective Sergeant Derek Ridgewell, who, along with two colleagues, later pleaded guilty to stealing from the same depot.
The assistant chief constable of the BTP said following the Court of Appeal's ruling that he was 'disgusted' by Ridgewell's actions, and the force was 'sincerely sorry' to those affected.
He also said the force is continuing to 'actively pursue a criminal investigation' into those involved.
Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Wall and Mr Justice Butcher, said on Thursday it was with 'regret' that the court could not undo Mr Campbell's suffering.
But they said they hope clearing his name 'will at least bring some comfort' to his surviving family, including his son, Errol Campbell Jr.
Speaking to the media following the hearing, Mr Foot, who represented Mr Campbell Jr, said: 'In 1980, when Ridgewell was convicted, nothing happened to his cases.
'We are calling for a change in the law that, when a police officer goes to prison, there is an automatic review of their cases to look for miscarriages of justice.
'If that had happened, that would have saved more than 45 years of misery for the Campbell family.'
When asked if he had political support for the law change, Mr Foot said: 'We are talking to the Justice Select Committee, we're talking to the junior minister, and we believe that it is something that could be put into Hillsborough Law, alongside that, as a very simple reform that could stop this sort of thing ever happening again.'
He also called on BTP to name those who 'harboured' Ridgewell, claiming it was 'no secret' in the 1970s that the officer was 'racist and corrupt'.
He added that there were 'bound to be others' who were victims of miscarriages of justice.
Mr Campbell unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction in 1978, but his son applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), with the help of the charity Appeal, to look at the case in September 2024.
The CCRC had already referred the convictions of Mr Campbell's co-defendants, Saliah Mehmet and Basil Peterkin, whose convictions were quashed in January last year.
Henry Blaxland KC, representing Mr Campbell on Thursday, told the court it was dealing with victims of a miscarriage of justice brought about by 'state crime'.
In a statement read out by Mr Foot outside the Royal Courts of Justice following the ruling, Mr Campbell Jr said that BTP knew that Ridgewell was 'corrupt' but 'let him carry on regardless'.
He continued that his father's conviction 'caused absolute misery', but that his father was 'dapper' and 'a good man'.
He also said that he was 'angry that Ridgewell is not alive for this day'.
In 1980, Ridgewell, along with detective constables Douglas Ellis and Alan Keeling, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal from the Bricklayers' Arms Depot, with Ridgewell dying in prison before he had completed his sentence.
In a previous judgment, the court found that their criminal activities between January 1977 and April 1978 resulted in the loss from the depot of goods to the value of about £364,000, 'an enormous sum of money at that time'.
In a statement, BTP Assistant Chief Constable Charlie Doyle said: 'We are sincerely sorry to those affected by the criminal actions of former BTP Detective Sergeant Derek Ridgewell, whose appalling actions in the 1970s and 1980s led to the criminalisation of innocent people.
'We're continuing to review records relating to his corrupt practices, which includes those relating to officers who were associated with DS Ridgewell or may have assisted him in his criminal activity, and the review team has recently been provided with additional resources to support its work.
'I am disgusted by the actions of Derek Ridgewell, and while we know we can't change the past, his actions do not represent the BTP of today.
'We continue to actively pursue a criminal investigation into the actions of those involved and will present a file to the CPS for consideration once we have completed our inquiries.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027. Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend. At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'. He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'. At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
