‘WITNESS A’ Abdul Ahmed’s video ID parade identification of Jason Moore in October 2012 proved very significant in convicting him – despite eventually picking him out more than SEVEN YEARS AFTER the incident.

In the first ID parade Abdul Ahmed attended, in September 2005, just a few weeks after Rob Darby’s death, when one would expect his recall to be at its best, the witness picked out a volunteer (Pic 1) in the co-defendant's ID set. Although the volunteer obviously wasn’t the stabber.

At his second ID parade, also in September 2005, Ahmed failed to identify anyone as the stabber – even though Moore’s (Pic 2) photo was included in the set that he viewed.

The third ID parade is regarded as suspect by Moore’s original legal team. In November 2005, Warren Mitchell – a close friend and business partner of ***** – was charged with the murder of Darby, his fingerprints were taken and he was told to go to the police station to attend an ID parade with his solicitors, Stokoe Partnership (who also represented). In fact, the Mitchell parade is listed on the ID suite schedule as having taken place. 

Police claim that no ID parade involving Mitchell ever took place. But we believe it did – and Ahmed may have picked out someone other than Jason (although not necessarily Mitchell). 

Police knew that if Moore’s defence team were aware that the Mitchell ID parade did happen, it would have made their main eyewitness, Ahmed, look ridiculous and seriously undermine their case.

 
In fact, the evidence of DC William Cline-Bailey proves that a parade including Mitchell DID take place, because he placed the tape of the pictures in an exhibit bag. But police deny it and have so far withheld this vital material evidence from us.

‘Witness B’ Sally Palmer also attended at least two ID parades in September 2005 but, she didn’t identify anyone as the stabber. However, she did pause to consider one image (pic 3) in the co-defendant's set, but could not be 100% sure, but she said "he looked familiar".

​

She did not pick out anyone in Jason Moore's ID set. 

Warren Mitchell was arrested at his office and charged on suspicion of murder. Mitchell declined to comment when the officers put it to him that one of the mobile numbers registered to his company had made contact with one of *****'s phones on the morning of the murder. When the officers asked Mitchell if he could produce two other phones registered in his name, he said they had recently been "lost" in Wales. 

During the search of Mitchell's office, police found a suitcase belonging to ***** that contained his clothes and paperwork, including spreadsheets, implicating them both in a multi-million pound mortgage fraud for which they both stood trial in 2013. 

​

We would like to make it clear that all charges against Mitchell in relation to Robert Darby's murder were dropped. He played no part in the incident. 

The fourth ID parade again concerns Moore but, by now, it’s September 2012, just days after he walked into Ilford police station to give a voluntary, five-hour interview in order to try and bring the matter to a close. He answered every question police put to him.

Having been shown Moore’s picture seven years earlier and not picked him out, it’s inexplicable that Ahmed even agreed to go on another ID parade all those years later. How could his memory of the stabber have improved in the space of seven years? In fact, Sally Palmer, quite reasonably, refused to attend any further ID parades after those that took place within weeks of the incident.

 

Here is a reminder of the volunteer (pic 1) that Ahmed picked out in 2005. Now look at Moore’s picture (pic 4) shown to Ahmed in 2012. There are absolutely no facial or hair similarities. 

And in the seven years that elapsed between ID parades, Moore says he put on around three-and-a-half stones.

But you’ll be amazed to know that the witness picked out Moore and said “it’s him”, before turning down the offer to view the same set of photos again. If you knew a man’s life was on the line, you would want to have a second look through the pictures, to be absolutely sure in your own mind that you’d made the correct choice. 

​

Bear in mind also that the ID procedure was not carried out along the old lines, where the witness goes along a line-out of suspects and is asked to tap the guilty person in the shoulder. In Moore's case, Ahmed viewed head-and-shoulder still images of Jason and the others on a screen, so he had no sense whatsoever of how tall he was and his overall physical appearance. He didn't have a clue that the man he picked out was 6ft 5ins, compared to the stabber he reckoned was around 5ft 10ins.

There's another very important issue to consider.

 

Ahmed was obviously shown a (different) photograph of Moore during the course of the first ID parade he attended in 2005.

Moore’s solicitor, John Barnes of JD Spicer, put his serious concerns about the procedure in a letter to the MPS, citing a possible violation of Code D. His doubts were never satisfactorily resolved.

​
 

Trial judge instructed jury to ignore ID evidence against Moore

 

Trial judge Nicholas Hilliard QC also acknowledged that something might be amiss, so his honour instructed the jury to disregard the ID parade evidence regarding Moore . . . but to consider it where his co-defendant was concerned.  

Here below, in italics, is the relevant (unedited) passage from the judge’s summing-up to verdict:

One part of Mr Ahmed’s evidence consists of his identification of Mr Moore as the stabber when he viewed the identification procedure in 2012. It is only one part of his evidence because he also says that the stabber was the person who came from the passenger side of the car and that he was the taller of the two people who came from that car. 

But as to one part of his evidence, namely, the visual identification of Mr Moore as the stabber from the procedure in 2012, I need to give you some important directions. 

It comes to this, and I will explain why. When you are considering Mr Moore’s case, and giving that the separate consideration that you must, you should not put the identification into the scales against Mr Moore. So will you please just make a note of that? One of you at least or more than one, but just write this down. Mr Ahmed’s 2012 identification does not go into the scales against Mr Moore.

As I say, you still have Mr Ahmed’s evidence that the passenger was the stabber to consider, but not in Mr Moore’s case the 2012 identification, and the reason for that is this, experience in the courts over many years, is that mistakes have undoubtedly occurred when a witness has purported to identify someone visually as the culprit of a crime. And miscarriages of justice have undoubtedly occurred as a result of those mistaken visual identifications. 

Because a witness genuinely believes in his or her own mind that they are correct, a mistaken witness can be a very convincing witness even though they are in fact wrong. Accordingly, there is a special need for caution before relying on the correctness of a visual identification. If the prosecution had relied upon the visual identification by Mr Ahmed in 2012, in fact you know they do not, but had they done so, then I would have directed you about the special need for caution, the reasons for it as I have told you, and I would have directed you to consider very carefully the circumstances in which the identification was made.

 
So for example, how long he was watching the person for. We have got not precise time but it was all quick. 

What view did he have of him? Well we know he had to turn his head to watch. 

At what distance? Well we know that he was by the pub, the cars were on the road. When we were in one of the other bigger courts he said that he was really the distance across the court from him to you away. 

In what light? Well we know that it was daytime. 
Was anything obstructing his view? He said the black BMW car was. 

Had he ever seen the person before? Answer, no. 

Was there any difference between any description he gave of the person and the description of the defendant? Well he said the passenger had short dark hair, a number 2, and that it was the driver who had dark brown hair, which was not short, long hair up to his collar, longer on top, fluffy big hair. Mr (inaudible) said as you know that the description of the hair of the passenger does not fit Mr Moore and what you can see of him in Mr Moore’s photograph, Mr Moore had longer hair, not short hair. So there is that about the description.  

Did he have any special reason for remembering the person? Was it a significant event, you may think, that was going on, and how long was it before he identified him? Well the answer to that last question is of course seven years.  

In addition, he had identified an innocent volunteer as the stabber. Do you remember? In 2005, much nearer the time. So if you wanted an example of what I was saying to you about the experience of the courts as showing people can make mistakes in visual identifications, do not just take it from me, do, but there is one, there is an example for you, is it not.  Picked out an innocent volunteer as the stabber in 2005.  

And in any event Mr Moore’s defence say that come 2012 he is simply identifying, this is their submission, someone he had seen at the time but had got the role wrong. 

So in all those circumstances the prosecution can see that you should not put the 2012 identification into the scales against Mr Moore, and as I have directed you, you must not do so.  

That is not the end of the matter because of course there is Mr *****'s case to consider. Whilst when you are giving separate consideration to each defendant’s case, you must not use the 2012 identification against Mr Moore. A much lower threshold applies for it to be relevant to Mr *****s case. 

You can consider the 2012 identification of Mr Moore as the stabber when you are considering whether it is proved that Mr ***** was the stabber as Mr Moore and his witnesses allege he was.  The question in Mr *****s case is not are you sure Mr Ahmed was correct in identifying Mr Moore as the stabber in 2012, it only may Mr Ahmed have been correct about that, because if he only may have been correct about it, even with the dangers of identification evidence I have told you about and those features I mentioned about opportunity to see, description, passage of time and so on, if he only may have been correct, then that would be an important point in Mr *****s case as casting doubt upon evidence that Mr ***** was the stabber.

 
The way you have to look at this evidence is an example of the requirement that you consider the evidence in the case of each defendant separately. So after your note of Mr Ahmed’s 2012 identification does not go into the scales against Mr Moore, will you add please, it is to be considered, it is to be considered in Mr *****’s case in deciding whether ****** may not have been the stabber. So it is to be considered in Mr *****s case in deciding whether ***** may not have been the stabber.  

Whether all members of the jury fully understood Judge Hilliard’s somewhat convoluted directions, only they can say.

What is without argument is that Moore's defence case was dealt a serious blow by allowing the ID evidence to be heard in open court. The jury were told that Ahmed had picked him out in the last ID parade, so it would have been extremely difficult for them to erase it from their thoughts and totally disregard it.

 

The inestimable damage had been done.