Birnberg Peirce – Colin Campbell – Press statement 23 September 2025

Birnberg Peirce – Colin Campbell – Press statement

23 September 2025

Fresh evidence in Court of Appeal cases & permission to appeal to the Supreme Court

Today, in a quite extraordinary and kafkaesque process, a judge sitting alone in a two-minute hearing, read out a decision in which the court stated that the question* the Appellant had asked to be certified as a point of law ‘does not arise from the judgement handed down’ and refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. There is no reasoning or basis for claiming that the question does not arise from the appeal. Mr Campbell was told that oral submissions were precluded. In a four-week appeal, and in detailed submissions, our point was central and wasn’t put into the judgment.

The Court of Appeal in Mr Campbell’s case has effectively usurped the role of the jury. At his appeal, Mr Campbell, produced what the Court of Appeal accepted was credible, admissible and relevant expert evidence which was not heard by the jury to the effect that the hypoglycaemia of four of the five women on the indictment may have been due to natural causes, together with other examples of similar cases at the same two hospitals shortly before and after the prosecution cases, when the original jury had asked a question about whether there were any other similar cases near the end of the trial in 2008 and that question went unanswered by the trial judge.

This appeal should therefore have been allowed and at the very least it should have been sent back for a new jury trial. Instead, the court upheld the convictions because the court decided that they preferred the expert evidence called by the crown at the appeal rather than considering the potential effect which Mr Campbell’s fresh expert evidence might have on a jury. They did so without addressing in their judgment Mr Campbell’s principal legal arguments as to what the correct approach to fresh evidence in these cases is and why his appeals should be allowed if the correct test is applied.

To make matters worse, the same constitution of the Court of Appeal has today refused our application to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal applied the wrong legal test in Mr Campbell’s appeal, in a decision-making process which can only be described as effectively marking their own homework. The Court is effectively being a judge in their own cause. This process is of significant constitutional concern which we will be drawing to the attention of the Law Commission and the legislature.

The Law Commission itself published a paper in February this year which highlighted the need for a consistent approach by the Court of Appeal in fresh evidence cases in the light of the conflicting approaches by the Court over the last 25 years.

In the meantime, in light of today’s decision, the only route to appeal for Mr Campbell is to apply to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6, the Right to a fair trial. This is what Mr Campbell now intends to do.

Rory Hearty, Solicitor – 020 7911 0166

ENDS

*Mr Campbell identified the following point of law which he requested the Court to certify as a point law:

Singularly, in a fresh evidence appeal against conviction based fundamentally on scientific evidence, where the court is satisfied that the conditions of s23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended, are satisfied, thereafter is any reasonable doubt about the safety of a conviction to be assessed by the court’s view of a credible explanation which did not form any part of the jury’s decision?

Relevant dates:

1. 26 June 2025 – Court of Appeal Judgment handed down

2. 16 July 2025 – application to appeal to the Supreme Court submitted to the Court of Appeal.

3. 3 September 2025 – email from Court of Appeal stating: ‘that the Court is not minded to certify any question and that oral argument on the issues is not required.’

4. 23 September 2025 – today’s decision was handed down by LJ Macur in a two-minute hearing; there was no official judgment and nothing in writing.