CCRC Reopens Two 1972 Magistrates' Convictions

On 8 October 2026 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred two magistrates' court convictions from January 1972 back to the Crown Court, and both men had pleaded guilty at the time.

That combination — a guilty plea, a magistrates' court, and a conviction more than fifty years old — is exactly the combination most people are told is hopeless. It is worth understanding why it was not, and where the limits of that are.

What happened

Andrew Sam and Wayne Green were stopped at Tottenham Court Road station on 14 January 1972. They said they were approached by plain-clothes officers. They were convicted together at Marlborough Magistrates' Court the next day, 15 January 1972, of attempted theft from a person, and sentenced to three months' detention.

Mr Sam was 17. Mr Green was 18.

They appealed the sentence to the Crown Court, and on 11 February 1972 it was reduced to three-year probation orders. The convictions themselves stayed.

The officer who gave evidence against them was Derek Ridgewell of the British Transport Police, who has since been comprehensively discredited. The CCRC says it has now referred 17 people's convictions connected to Ridgewell back to the courts: 15 to the Court of Appeal, all of which have been quashed, plus these two.

The applications in this case came through the British Transport Police, which is investigating Ridgewell's misconduct.

Why the guilty pleas did not block it

Because of one sentence in the legislation.

Section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 lets the CCRC refer a magistrates' court conviction, and any sentence imposed on it, to the Crown Court. Section 11(2) says that reference is then treated "for all purposes as an appeal by the person under section 108(1)" of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 — "whether or not he pleaded guilty".

That last phrase matters. A guilty plea in the magistrates' court normally removes your right to appeal against conviction. A CCRC reference under section 11 is not blocked by it.

A magistrates' conviction goes back to the Crown Court, not the Court of Appeal

This is the part almost nobody knows, and it changes how people should think about old summary convictions.

When the CCRC refers a conviction from the Crown Court, it goes to the Court of Appeal. When it refers a conviction from a magistrates' court, section 11 sends it to the Crown Court instead. The Crown Court then decides whether to uphold the conviction.

Section 11 also allows the CCRC to give notice that a related conviction is treated as referred as well. Convictions count as related if they are convictions of the same person, by the same court, on the same day (section 11(4) and (5)).

The Crown Court cannot make it worse

A real and reasonable fear about reopening an old case is that the outcome could get worse. On this route, the Act closes that off.

Section 11(6) provides that the Crown Court "may not award any punishment more severe than that awarded by the court whose decision is referred".

Section 11(7) also allows the Crown Court to grant bail, though time spent on bail does not count towards a term of imprisonment or detention.

What the CCRC has to be satisfied of

The CCRC cannot refer a case because it looks unfair. Section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 sets three conditions.

First, the Commission must consider there is "a real possibility" the conviction or sentence "would not be upheld were the reference to be made".

Second, that view has to rest on an argument or evidence "not raised in the proceedings which led to it or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it". Something new, in other words — not a rerun of the same argument.

Third, an appeal must already have been determined, or leave to appeal refused.

Section 13(2) gives the CCRC a way round the second and third conditions where it thinks there are "exceptional circumstances which justify making it". That is the provision that makes cases like this one possible at all, where there was never an appeal against conviction because a guilty plea removed the right to bring one.

In this case the CCRC concluded there was a real possibility the Crown Court would not uphold the convictions, given the new evidence that Ridgewell has since been discredited.

Why this case is unusual

It would be wrong to read this as a general reopening of guilty pleas, and the CCRC's own words point the other way.

The Commission's chair, Dame Vera Baird KC, described the case as "particularly challenging" because most of the material had been destroyed, and said earlier Court of Appeal referrals had "paved the way" for it. In other words, the ground had already been laid by fifteen previous cases involving the same officer.

The new evidence here is not a new account of what happened at Tottenham Court Road. It is documented proof that the officer whose evidence secured the conviction was corrupt. That is about as strong as new evidence gets, and most cases do not have anything like it.

The CCRC has asked anyone else who was prosecuted on Ridgewell's evidence to get in touch so their conviction can be considered.

What this means for you

A guilty plea in the magistrates' court is not an absolute bar. It removes the ordinary right of appeal against conviction, but it does not stop a CCRC reference under section 11.

Age of the conviction is not the obstacle people think it is. These convictions are from 1972. What stops most applications is the absence of anything new, not the passage of time.

The question is always: what is new? Not "was it unfair" but "what argument or evidence was not before the court, and why not". Fresh expert evidence, material that was never disclosed, a witness who has since been discredited, a change in the law — those are the shapes new evidence usually takes.

Where there is documented misconduct by an officer in your case, that is a point worth taking seriously. The Ridgewell cases show that where an officer is discredited, convictions built on their evidence become vulnerable regardless of how the case ended at the time.

If you were convicted on Ridgewell's evidence, contact the CCRC directly. The CCRC is at 23 Stephenson Street, Birmingham B2 4BH, on 0121 233 1473, or at info@ccrc.gov.uk.

What this case does not mean is that a guilty plea you now regret can be undone. The route exists, but it is narrow, and it needs something new to walk through it.

Talk to Case Review UK

Case Review UK provides independent written assessments of criminal cases by senior UK lawyers and barristers, including CCRC Application Guidance. If you are considering an application, the useful work is done before you send it: identifying whether there is anything in your case that meets the "real possibility" test and the requirement for new argument or evidence, and saying so plainly if there is not.

Fixed fee, no hourly billing. Documents are submitted securely and the written report follows in 7 to 14 days. We are independent of the police, the CPS and the court that dealt with the case.

WhatsApp: +44 7417 361696
Email: enquiries@casereviewuk.co.uk

This article is general information about the law in England and Wales, correct at the date of publication. It is not legal advice on any individual case, and Case Review UK is not a substitute for a solicitor or for representation before a court.