Send Jason Moore's Case Back to the Court of Appeal
The Issue
FREE JASON MOORE
14 YEARS. WHEN DOES DELAY BECOME INJUSTICE?
There is something extraordinary at the heart of Jason Moore’s case. The family of Robert Darby, the man Jason was convicted of murdering, believe the wrong man is in prison.
Robert’s brother Tim has spent years campaigning alongside Jason’s family. Two families who might ordinarily have found themselves on opposite sides of a murder case are now fighting together: for justice for Robert, justice for Jason, and for the truth about what happened that morning. Tim has publicly described the investigation into his brother’s death as “shambolic” and has repeatedly said he believes Jason is innocent.
Robert was fatally stabbed outside The Valentine pub in Ilford, east London, on a wet August morning in 2005. He suffered a single stab wound to the heart and died the following day.
There was no DNA or forensic evidence linking Jason to Robert’s murder, and no CCTV showing Jason commit the stabbing. That meant the eyewitness evidence became particularly important.
There were two independent eyewitnesses, and in 2005 both were shown Jason as part of the police investigation. Neither identified him. That matters because these identification procedures took place close to the time of Robert’s murder, when their memories of what they had seen would have been at their freshest.
One of those witnesses was Abdul Ahmed. He was also shown another identification procedure involving a different suspect. On that occasion, he did identify somebody as the stabber, selecting a thin-faced man with very short hair. The person he selected was an innocent volunteer.
What happened next is one of the most difficult aspects of the investigation to understand. Seven years later, police returned to Ahmed and asked him to take part in another identification procedure. Jason was included again, despite Ahmed having already seen him in 2005 and failed to identify him.
This time Ahmed picked Jason.
By then, seven years had passed. The witness who could not identify Jason when Robert’s murder was fresh in his memory was now identifying him seven years later. It was an identification that would have serious consequences for Jason.
There were also reasons within the original evidence to question whether Jason fitted the man the witnesses had seen. Ahmed described a man around Robert’s height, with very short hair and wearing blue. Sally Palmer, the other independent eyewitness, also described the man she saw in physical contact with Robert as being in a blue zip-up top and around Robert’s height.
Robert was approximately 5ft 11in. Jason is 6ft 4in in bare feet.
The clothing presented another obvious difficulty. The witnesses described blue zip-up clothing, but police did not have to rely on anybody’s memory to establish what Jason had been wearing.
They had CCTV.
A Metropolitan Police CCTV viewing officer examined footage of Jason and recorded him wearing the same clothing before and later that day: a grey Adidas pullover hoodie with the distinctive three stripes running down the sleeves. The police material therefore recorded clothing that did not match the blue zip-up clothing described by the eyewitnesses.
None of those things, taken alone, settles the question of Jason’s conviction. But taken together, they explain why serious questions about it have never gone away.
There is another detail that matters when considering the eyewitness evidence. It might be assumed that, whatever had happened during the identification procedures, the witnesses would eventually have seen Jason in person when they gave evidence at the Old Bailey. They did not. Both gave their evidence from behind screens which prevented them from seeing Jason.
In December 2013, Jason was convicted of Robert’s murder at the Old Bailey and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years. His co-defendant was acquitted.
But the conviction did not bring an end to the questions.
Retired Metropolitan Police detectives examined the case. Investigative journalist Charles Thomson spent months studying the evidence and interviewing witnesses. Eventually, he spoke to Abdul Ahmed.
What Ahmed said years after the trial matters because of everything that had happened before it. He described what he had witnessed as happening in the “blink of an eye”. He said he had been drinking and was drunk. He also expressed doubt about whether he had identified the right person.
That later account has to be considered alongside the history of the identification itself. Ahmed had failed to identify Jason in 2005, selected an innocent volunteer as the stabber, and then identified Jason seven years later. Years afterwards, he was saying that he had been drunk and was unsure whether he had identified the right man.
And these are only some of the questions surrounding Jason’s conviction. His case goes considerably further than the height discrepancy, the clothing evidence and the reliability of one eyewitness identification. These are simply some of the issues that can be understood without knowing every detail of a murder trial and the legal proceedings that followed it.
The concerns are no longer confined to Jason’s family. Robert Darby’s own family believe Jason is innocent. So do retired Metropolitan Police detectives who have examined the conviction. Investigative journalist Charles Thomson has spent years examining the evidence. Lord Botham has publicly backed Jason’s campaign, as has Lord Nicholas Monson. Bishop Joanne Grenfell has supported the campaign, and Jason’s case has also received national television scrutiny.
Then there is the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The CCRC considered Jason’s case previously and in 2021 declined to refer his conviction to the Court of Appeal. Serious errors in that earlier consideration have since been challenged, while further information has emerged since that decision.
But there is another part of this case which has become increasingly difficult to ignore: time.
The CCRC has now known about Jason’s case for six years. His latest application was submitted in November 2023, and he is still waiting to learn whether his conviction will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
During that time, Jason has remained in prison. His position has never changed: he did not murder Robert Darby.
That position has consequences. Jason has refused prison courses that would require him to accept responsibility for Robert’s murder or demonstrate remorse for it. Such decisions can count against a prisoner when progression and eventual release are considered. Jason’s position, however, is straightforward: he cannot accept responsibility for something he says he did not do.
Earlier this year, Jason became seriously ill. He collapsed, was rushed to intensive care and placed on life support. He survived and was eventually returned to prison.
Jason was sentenced to a minimum term of 18 years. He has now served fourteen. Six of those years have passed with his case known to the CCRC.
At the centre of all of this remains Robert Darby. His family have lived with his murder for more than twenty years and still want justice for him. They believe Jason is innocent and have stood alongside Jason’s family asking for his conviction to be looked at again.
If the wrong man is in prison, neither family has received justice.
And that is why this petition matters.
Signing it does not require anyone to decide that Jason Moore is innocent. It does not ask the public to substitute its judgement for that of a court. It asks for something much more fundamental: that the serious questions surrounding Jason’s conviction are given the opportunity to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
A justice system should be capable of examining itself again when there are serious reasons to question whether something has gone wrong. Asking for Jason’s case to return to court is not asking for special treatment. It is asking the justice system to do what it was created to do.
Robert’s family are still seeking justice for Robert. Jason’s family are still fighting for justice for Jason. And after fourteen years in prison and six years with his case known to the CCRC, Jason is still waiting for the decision that could allow these questions back before a court.
14 YEARS. WHEN DOES DELAY BECOME INJUSTICE?
If you believe Jason Moore’s conviction deserves to be looked at again by the Court of Appeal, please sign and share this petition.
#FREEJASONMOORE
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jason-moore-robert-darby-murder-ccrc-b2670659.html
3,072
The Issue
FREE JASON MOORE
14 YEARS. WHEN DOES DELAY BECOME INJUSTICE?
There is something extraordinary at the heart of Jason Moore’s case. The family of Robert Darby, the man Jason was convicted of murdering, believe the wrong man is in prison.
Robert’s brother Tim has spent years campaigning alongside Jason’s family. Two families who might ordinarily have found themselves on opposite sides of a murder case are now fighting together: for justice for Robert, justice for Jason, and for the truth about what happened that morning. Tim has publicly described the investigation into his brother’s death as “shambolic” and has repeatedly said he believes Jason is innocent.
Robert was fatally stabbed outside The Valentine pub in Ilford, east London, on a wet August morning in 2005. He suffered a single stab wound to the heart and died the following day.
There was no DNA or forensic evidence linking Jason to Robert’s murder, and no CCTV showing Jason commit the stabbing. That meant the eyewitness evidence became particularly important.
There were two independent eyewitnesses, and in 2005 both were shown Jason as part of the police investigation. Neither identified him. That matters because these identification procedures took place close to the time of Robert’s murder, when their memories of what they had seen would have been at their freshest.
One of those witnesses was Abdul Ahmed. He was also shown another identification procedure involving a different suspect. On that occasion, he did identify somebody as the stabber, selecting a thin-faced man with very short hair. The person he selected was an innocent volunteer.
What happened next is one of the most difficult aspects of the investigation to understand. Seven years later, police returned to Ahmed and asked him to take part in another identification procedure. Jason was included again, despite Ahmed having already seen him in 2005 and failed to identify him.
This time Ahmed picked Jason.
By then, seven years had passed. The witness who could not identify Jason when Robert’s murder was fresh in his memory was now identifying him seven years later. It was an identification that would have serious consequences for Jason.
There were also reasons within the original evidence to question whether Jason fitted the man the witnesses had seen. Ahmed described a man around Robert’s height, with very short hair and wearing blue. Sally Palmer, the other independent eyewitness, also described the man she saw in physical contact with Robert as being in a blue zip-up top and around Robert’s height.
Robert was approximately 5ft 11in. Jason is 6ft 4in in bare feet.
The clothing presented another obvious difficulty. The witnesses described blue zip-up clothing, but police did not have to rely on anybody’s memory to establish what Jason had been wearing.
They had CCTV.
A Metropolitan Police CCTV viewing officer examined footage of Jason and recorded him wearing the same clothing before and later that day: a grey Adidas pullover hoodie with the distinctive three stripes running down the sleeves. The police material therefore recorded clothing that did not match the blue zip-up clothing described by the eyewitnesses.
None of those things, taken alone, settles the question of Jason’s conviction. But taken together, they explain why serious questions about it have never gone away.
There is another detail that matters when considering the eyewitness evidence. It might be assumed that, whatever had happened during the identification procedures, the witnesses would eventually have seen Jason in person when they gave evidence at the Old Bailey. They did not. Both gave their evidence from behind screens which prevented them from seeing Jason.
In December 2013, Jason was convicted of Robert’s murder at the Old Bailey and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years. His co-defendant was acquitted.
But the conviction did not bring an end to the questions.
Retired Metropolitan Police detectives examined the case. Investigative journalist Charles Thomson spent months studying the evidence and interviewing witnesses. Eventually, he spoke to Abdul Ahmed.
What Ahmed said years after the trial matters because of everything that had happened before it. He described what he had witnessed as happening in the “blink of an eye”. He said he had been drinking and was drunk. He also expressed doubt about whether he had identified the right person.
That later account has to be considered alongside the history of the identification itself. Ahmed had failed to identify Jason in 2005, selected an innocent volunteer as the stabber, and then identified Jason seven years later. Years afterwards, he was saying that he had been drunk and was unsure whether he had identified the right man.
And these are only some of the questions surrounding Jason’s conviction. His case goes considerably further than the height discrepancy, the clothing evidence and the reliability of one eyewitness identification. These are simply some of the issues that can be understood without knowing every detail of a murder trial and the legal proceedings that followed it.
The concerns are no longer confined to Jason’s family. Robert Darby’s own family believe Jason is innocent. So do retired Metropolitan Police detectives who have examined the conviction. Investigative journalist Charles Thomson has spent years examining the evidence. Lord Botham has publicly backed Jason’s campaign, as has Lord Nicholas Monson. Bishop Joanne Grenfell has supported the campaign, and Jason’s case has also received national television scrutiny.
Then there is the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The CCRC considered Jason’s case previously and in 2021 declined to refer his conviction to the Court of Appeal. Serious errors in that earlier consideration have since been challenged, while further information has emerged since that decision.
But there is another part of this case which has become increasingly difficult to ignore: time.
The CCRC has now known about Jason’s case for six years. His latest application was submitted in November 2023, and he is still waiting to learn whether his conviction will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
During that time, Jason has remained in prison. His position has never changed: he did not murder Robert Darby.
That position has consequences. Jason has refused prison courses that would require him to accept responsibility for Robert’s murder or demonstrate remorse for it. Such decisions can count against a prisoner when progression and eventual release are considered. Jason’s position, however, is straightforward: he cannot accept responsibility for something he says he did not do.
Earlier this year, Jason became seriously ill. He collapsed, was rushed to intensive care and placed on life support. He survived and was eventually returned to prison.
Jason was sentenced to a minimum term of 18 years. He has now served fourteen. Six of those years have passed with his case known to the CCRC.
At the centre of all of this remains Robert Darby. His family have lived with his murder for more than twenty years and still want justice for him. They believe Jason is innocent and have stood alongside Jason’s family asking for his conviction to be looked at again.
If the wrong man is in prison, neither family has received justice.
And that is why this petition matters.
Signing it does not require anyone to decide that Jason Moore is innocent. It does not ask the public to substitute its judgement for that of a court. It asks for something much more fundamental: that the serious questions surrounding Jason’s conviction are given the opportunity to be heard by the Court of Appeal.
A justice system should be capable of examining itself again when there are serious reasons to question whether something has gone wrong. Asking for Jason’s case to return to court is not asking for special treatment. It is asking the justice system to do what it was created to do.
Robert’s family are still seeking justice for Robert. Jason’s family are still fighting for justice for Jason. And after fourteen years in prison and six years with his case known to the CCRC, Jason is still waiting for the decision that could allow these questions back before a court.
14 YEARS. WHEN DOES DELAY BECOME INJUSTICE?
If you believe Jason Moore’s conviction deserves to be looked at again by the Court of Appeal, please sign and share this petition.
#FREEJASONMOORE
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jason-moore-robert-darby-murder-ccrc-b2670659.html
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 28 November 2022