The Ridgewell Principle Consolidated: Fresh Evidence of Contemporaneous Police Criminality and Racially-Motivated Misconduct Renders Convictions Unsafe

Introduction

R v Campbell [2025] EWCA Crim 1146 is a significant addition to the series of appellate decisions addressing miscarriages of justice arising from the misconduct of officers led by Detective Sergeant Derek Ridgewell of the British Transport Police (BTP). The case concerns Mr Errol Campbell, a British Rail employee convicted in 1977 of conspiracy to steal and theft relating to the diversion and theft of parcels from the Bricklayers’ Arms depot in South London. His initial attempt to appeal in 1978 was refused.

Decades later, following a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) Reference, the Court of Appeal received fresh evidence of the criminality and dishonesty of the investigating officers—Ridgewell, Ellis and Keeling—who, during the very period of Mr Campbell’s alleged offending, were themselves stealing goods from the same depot. The appeal was brought posthumously under section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by Mr Campbell’s son.

This judgment follows and consolidates a line of authorities that have progressively exposed the unreliability of prosecutions underpinned by Ridgewell’s evidence. It also explicitly acknowledges credible concerns of racial targeting of Black defendants. The Court quashed Mr Campbell’s convictions, concluding they were unsafe in light of the fresh evidence admitted under section 23 of the 1968 Act and the now well-established “accumulating body of evidence” concerning Ridgewell’s integrity and methods.

Summary of the Judgment

- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed Mr Campbell’s 1977 convictions. The Crown did not oppose the appeal and indicated it would not seek a retrial.

- Fresh evidence of the criminality and dishonesty of the principal investigating officers was admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The Court held this evidence undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case presented at trial and rendered the convictions unsafe.

- The case was treated as materially indistinguishable from the successful appeals of co-accused Basil Peterkin and Saliah Mehmet (R v Peterkin and Mehmet [2024] EWCA Crim 309), as well as earlier appeal decisions involving Ridgewell-led investigations: 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.

- Importantly, the Court recognised that Mr Campbell had alleged at trial that incriminating items—specifically a travel clock and a packaging label—were planted or concocted by police. The fresh evidence of police corruption and dishonesty directly reinforced the plausibility of those allegations.

- The Court reiterated earlier observations that the BTP should have taken action much sooner: first, to prevent Ridgewell from being redeployed after serious concerns about his methods arose in 1973; and second, to review convictions following the officers’ own 1980 convictions for thefts at the depot. The Court expressed regret at the substantial delay in rectifying miscarriages of justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court explicitly anchored its approach in a line of authorities dealing with Ridgewell’s conduct:

• R v Simmons [2018] EWCA Crim 114: Lord Burnett CJ distilled the concerns surrounding Ridgewell’s integrity, including fabrication of evidence, and underscored the critical relevance of the fact that he was himself convicted of similar thefts around the same time as the alleged offending in cases he investigated. The Court described that fact as “very telling,” setting a benchmark for how contemporaneous police criminality weighs in safety assessments.
• 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; R v Johnson [2021] EWCA Crim 1837: These cases collectively form the “accumulating body of evidence” regarding Ridgewell’s misconduct and its impact on the reliability of convictions he helped secure.
• R v Peterkin and Mehmet [2024] EWCA Crim 309: Mr Campbell’s case is aligned with these co-accused appeals, where the Court emphasized that the jury in the 1970s did not know (and could not have known) that principal police witnesses were engaged in the same criminal conduct they attributed to defendants. Had the jury known, it would have been profoundly probative in assessing the officers’ credibility.

These precedents supplied both the legal framework and the evidential template: contemporaneous police criminality, proven dishonesty, and the systemic pattern of misconduct by the Ridgewell teams collectively render such convictions unsafe. Campbell extends this settled line, applying it to a case with alleged planted evidence (a “tainted recovery”) and expressly acknowledging racial targeting as part of the reliability assessment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on well-established statutory and common law foundations:

• The safety test: Under section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Court must allow an appeal if a conviction is unsafe. While section 2 is not quoted in the judgment, it is the governing standard against which the Court evaluates the effect of fresh evidence.
• Fresh evidence under section 23 of the 1968 Act: The Court accepted the admissibility of new material establishing the criminality and dishonesty of Ridgewell and colleagues. Section 23 requires the Court to consider whether the evidence is capable of belief, whether it may afford a ground for appeal, whether it would have been admissible at trial, and whether there is a reasonable explanation for not adducing it at trial. The Court was satisfied that:
  • The evidence of police criminality and dishonesty is compelling and reliable (capable of belief).
  • It directly undermines the prosecution narrative and the credibility of key witnesses (affords a ground of appeal).
  • It would have been admissible, had it been known (e.g., to challenge credibility and reliability of the officers’ testimony and purported recoveries).
  • The evidence was not available to the jury in the 1970s; there is a plain and reasonable explanation for its non-availability then.
• The contemporaneity factor: Echoing Simmons and Peterkin/Mehmet, the Court emphasized that the officers’ thefts occurred during the very period of the alleged offences tried against Mr Campbell. That contemporaneity powerfully corrodes the reliability of their evidence and corroboration claims. In short, it is not merely prior misconduct; it is ongoing criminality in the identical milieu and modus operandi.
• Tainted recoveries and planted evidence: Mr Campbell’s defence centered on the proposition that police planted a travel clock and manufactured a label. Fresh evidence of the officers’ dishonesty makes such assertions credible. In such circumstances, purported recoveries lose probative value; they cannot independently sustain a conviction when the integrity of the officers is in question.
• Racial targeting as a reliability factor: The Court accepted submissions that Black defendants—including Mr Campbell—were targeted. While the primary legal ground remains dishonesty and contemporaneous criminality of officers, the racialized context strengthens the conclusion that the trials were unfair and that the evidence may have been manipulated.
• Institutional critique and delay: The Court reiterated the force of submissions that Ridgewell should have faced investigation and likely dismissal after concerns arose in 1973, and that the BTP should have proactively reviewed convictions after the officers’ 1980 convictions. Although these comments are not prescriptive holdings, they are judicially significant: appellate courts expect policing bodies to adopt remedial reviews where officer criminality undermines casework.
• No retrial: The respondent’s position that it would not seek a retrial underscores the gravity of the evidential collapse. Where the core reliability of the prosecution’s case is destroyed by the proven misconduct of its principal witnesses, retrial is neither practicable nor in the interests of justice.
• Posthumous appeal: Exercising powers under section 44A of the 1968 Act, the Court permitted the appeal to proceed after Mr Campbell’s death, acknowledging the enduring public interest in rectifying miscarriages of justice even posthumously.

Impact and Significance

This judgment has several far-reaching implications:

• Consolidation of the “Ridgewell principle”: Where principal police witnesses are later shown to have been engaged in contemporaneous and directly analogous criminality, fresh evidence to that effect will ordinarily render resulting convictions unsafe. Campbell confirms that this applies even where a trial judge’s directions were impeccable and the original appeal failed; the decisive shift is the fresh evidence now available.
• Treatment of “tainted recoveries”: When the investigative officers’ integrity is compromised, purported recoveries found during searches (e.g., the travel clock and label) become deeply suspect. Campbell reinforces the principle that such items cannot rehabilitate a case whose foundation—officer credibility—is rotten.
• Racial targeting as a contextual reliability factor: The Court’s explicit recognition that Black defendants were targeted matters for future appeals. In assessing safety, courts may consider the racialized context of policing as part of the credibility and integrity calculus.
• Institutional duty to review: While not a formal rule, the Court’s persistent criticism creates a strong normative expectation that police forces and prosecution authorities must review past convictions when officers are later convicted of related criminal conduct. This judgment amplifies the call for retrospective audits and proactive CCRC referrals.
• Posthumous justice: The use of section 44A underscores the justice system’s commitment to correcting wrongs even after an appellant has died, encouraging families and the CCRC to pursue meritorious references.
• Evidential standards and finality: Campbell shows that the interests of finality yield to fairness where fresh, credible evidence reveals systemic corruption at the heart of a conviction. Courts will not allow the passage of time to entrench injustice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Unsafe conviction: The central test for appeals in England and Wales. A conviction is unsafe if, in light of all the information now available (including fresh evidence), the Court has doubt about its reliability. If unsafe, the conviction must be quashed.
• CCRC Reference: The Criminal Cases Review Commission can refer a case back to the Court of Appeal if it believes there is a real possibility the conviction would not be upheld. A Reference operates as an appeal, as in Mr Campbell’s case.
• Section 23 (Criminal Appeal Act 1968): Allows the Court of Appeal to receive fresh evidence on appeal. The Court assesses whether the evidence is credible, relevant, admissible, and why it was not presented at trial, then decides if admitting it serves the interests of justice.
• Section 44A (Criminal Appeal Act 1968): Permits appeals to proceed after an appellant’s death, enabling posthumous correction of miscarriages of justice.
• Contemporaneous police criminality: Misconduct by police occurring during the same timeframe and in the same context as the alleged offences. This drastically undermines their credibility and the integrity of their investigations.
• Tainted recovery: Items allegedly found by police that may have been planted or fabricated. When officers’ honesty is in doubt, such “finds” can no longer be safely relied upon.
• Obiter observations on institutional duty: Judicial comments urging police/prosecutorial reviews after officer convictions are not binding rules but carry persuasive authority and set expectations for institutional conduct.

Conclusion

R v Campbell cements and humanizes a critical strand of modern appellate jurisprudence: when fresh, credible evidence reveals that principal police witnesses were contemporaneously engaged in the very crimes they alleged against defendants, convictions depending on their testimony are unsafe and must be quashed. Campbell is legally significant for folding allegations of planted evidence into the broader Ridgewell narrative, for acknowledging racial targeting as part of the unreliability matrix, and for reaffirming the Court’s readiness to correct historic wrongs—even posthumously—through section 44A.

The judgment also delivers an institutional message: when officers are convicted of related misconduct, policing bodies and prosecutors should not wait for piecemeal CCRC referrals; systemic reviews are warranted. Practically, Campbell will guide future appeals involving tainted investigations, particularly where purported recoveries were central to conviction and where broader patterns of officer corruption and racialized policing are present. The case is a somber reminder of the enduring costs of institutional failures, and a clear statement of appellate resolve: fairness must prevail over finality when fresh evidence exposes the true fragility of a conviction.