In the fifth instalment of our exclusive investigation into the safety of Jason Moore's murder conviction, we scrutinise whether the pathology evidence presented at trial was reliable.
A pathologist, whose findings were presented to jurors in an East End murder trial, committed a catalogue of “serious misconduct” in other cases which resulted in innocent people being charged with crimes.
Dr Kenneth Shorrock was deemed by a Home Office tribunal to be so compromised that his appearance at any future trial as a prosecution witness would be discrediting.
But in the case of Jason Moore, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) simply asked a different pathologist to deliver Dr Shorrock’s findings to the jury.
Jurors were not told of Dr Shorrock’s credibility issues.
They were told he didn’t give evidence because he was “ill”.
“There is no question – the court was misled,” claimed Satish Sekar, a miscarriage of justice investigator.
“The right to a fair trial means absolutely nothing if there is no consequence for misleading the court.”
Campaigners are calling for Jason’s conviction to be quashed.
Dr Shorrock conducted the post-mortem examination on Robert Darby, who was stabbed in the heart in August 2005 outside the Valentine pub in Gants Hill.
A jury at the Old Bailey convicted Jason, from Canary Wharf, of Robert’s murder in 2013.
He is nine years into a life sentence.
CATCH UP:
- Part 1 - East End Killing: Is a man doing life for a murder he didn't commit?
- Part 2 - East End Killing: 'My brother is doing life thanks to an ID parade which should never have happened'
- Part 3 - East End Killing: Witness and CCTV evidence never presented in court casts doubt on the case against Jason Moore
- Part 4 - East End Killing: 'I was drunk', confesses star prosecution witness in Jason Moore murder trial
Murder?
The only knife found outside the Valentine was Robert’s own Stanley knife, taken from his own hand, covered in his own blood.
Jason, who admits being nearby when Robert was injured, has always maintained that he neither saw any knife nor saw anybody stab Robert.
His defence argued that Robert could have fallen on his own knife.
But prosecutors claimed that pathology evidence suggested another knife was used.
They called Dr Simon Poole, who admitted the defence theory was “possible” but said it was “highly unlikely”.
He said the depth of Robert’s wound made it unlikely to have been caused by his own blade and no injuries were recorded suggesting the butt of Robert’s knife had impacted his chest.
The prosecution said this corroborated eyewitness Abdul Ahmed, who claimed he saw Robert stabbed with a kitchen knife.
"Free Jason Moore" campaigners protested outside the Royal Courts of Justice last week, after Mr Ahmed told Newsquest he had been “drunk” on the morning in question.
The missing pathologist
Dr Poole was asked at trial: “What you’re doing in this case is looking at a report of Dr Shorrock… taking his findings, as it were, as read?”
“Yes,” Dr Poole replied.
Neither the prosecution nor the defence asked Dr Poole why Dr Shorrock was not giving evidence himself.
But during his closing argument, Jason’s barrister David Howker QC told the jury: “For whatever reason – I think he was ill – he could not come.”
It is unclear why Mr Howker said that. He has since died, so cannot be asked.
Dr Shorrock may well have been ill.
But weeks earlier, he had also been struck off the Home Office Register of Pathologists.
A tribunal panel had warned against ever using him as a prosecution witness again.
Implicating the innocent
In 2012, a tribunal said 27 counts of misconduct against Dr Shorrock had been admitted or proved, over two cases in which his findings resulted in innocent people facing criminal charges.
In one case, Dr Shorrock said the deceased was killed by a blow to the neck, leading to a manslaughter charge.
But peers found he failed to properly examine the body, misinterpreted medical evidence and gave a conclusion without waiting for toxicology results.
The charge was thrown out.
In the second case, he said a man was strangled, resulting in a murder charge.
Experts found “well-recognised alternative explanations”, and said Dr Shorrock was “blinkered and intransigent” when questioned.
The murder charge was thrown out.
Discredited
“Dr Shorrock’s standard of conduct and work prejudiced the criminal investigations that occurred – and we are satisfied that his presence on the register would pose a risk of such prejudice in future,” the tribunal panel wrote, weeks before Jason’s trial.
“Dr Shorrock’s credibility as an expert witness in future proceedings concerning suspicious deaths would inevitably be undermined.
“It seems to us likely that if Dr Shorrock… were to be called as a prosecution witness in future criminal proceedings, our findings would have to be disclosed to defence representatives.
“The significant failings… would be capable of undermining his credibility as a forensic pathologist called by the prosecution.”
“Misled”
“If Shorrock is unreliable then you can’t rely on his conclusions,” said Satish Sekar, whose past work has been credited with helping to free the Cardiff Three.
He studied Jason’s case as part of a wider investigation into flawed forensic pathology in the criminal justice system.
“The jury has the right to know what evidence they can rely on – and this was evidence you absolutely plainly could not rely on,” he said.
He questioned why Jason’s defence did not contest the pathology, which he believes could have seen the case thrown out before it even went to trial.
Jason’s family believes the defence was misled.
The 2013 tribunal judgment, disclosed to the defence shortly before the trial, said: “We were not informed that Dr Shorrock had any discipline record, or that his behaviour had ever, before these proceedings, been a cause for concern.”
The surgeon
But at the time of Robert’s 2005 death, Dr Shorrock was already awaiting a General Medical Council (GMC) “fitness to practice” hearing over a third, earlier case in which his conclusions led to a faulty criminal charge.
After conducting a post-mortem on a woman who died following an operation, Dr Shorrock said her surgery was “necessary” and found no definite evidence of deficiency in her treatment.
But he later u-turned, saying it was “likely” her death was “contributed to by inadvertence, both before and during the operation”.
Her surgeon was charged with manslaughter, but a judge threw out the case and raised concerns about Dr Shorrock.
Despite his fitness to practice being in question, he continued conducting post-mortems, including Robert’s.
In 2007, the GMC ruled Dr Shorrock's u-turn in the case involving the surgeon had been “unprofessional, inconsistent, unreasonable, inappropriate and not based upon the medical and pathological information available to him”.
The GMC found him “guilty of serious professional misconduct”.
Failed appeal
“In 2017, Jason went to the Court of Appeal and raised concerns about the reliability of Abdul Ahmed’s memory,” said his sister Kirstie.
“They rejected that appeal because they said Ahmed was corroborated by the pathology. We never accepted that.
“The wound was only said to be a few millimetres too deep to have been caused by the Stanley knife. Dr Poole even said at trial that it was possible for the Stanley knife to have caused the wound.
“But Ahmed remembered seeing Robert stabbed with a much larger kitchen knife. To us, that never fit the facts.
“Six years on, everything has changed. We now have Ahmed claiming he was drunk and saying his memory might be faulty after all.
“Plus, after the family received all the disclosure, we discovered these huge questions over the pathology. At the time of the appeal, we didn’t know all this about Dr Shorrock.
"It appears the Court of Appeal didn’t know either. They never mentioned it in their judgment. Both courts should have been told that the pathologist had been struck off and deemed unreliable.
“There was no hard evidence against Jason. No DNA, no fingerprints, no knife, no CCTV. The case against Jason was built on two foundations – Ahmed’s eyewitness account and Dr Shorrock’s pathology. We say neither is safe. And if you take away those two things, what have you actually got?”
Get the latest crime investigations straight into your inbox by signing up to our new FREE weekly newsletter
Response
The CPS said: “The findings presented in court by the pathologist, Dr Poole, would have been based on his judgement, Dr Shorrock’s notes and photographs from the post-mortem.
“If there is evidence that Dr Poole’s conclusions were inaccurate then that evidence should be submitted through the appropriate channels.”
Newsquest Investigations attempted to contact Dr Shorrock through the GMC, but it wouldn’t pass our message to his last known address as he was no longer registered.
We wrote to both Kenneth Shorrocks who appeared on the public electoral register in 2022. One replied to deny being Dr Shorrock. The other did not respond.
Dr Poole was approached for comment but did not respond.
The Home Office would not comment on why Dr Shorrock remained on the register after the 2007 GMC ruling.
The GMC would not say why Dr Shorrock was deemed a proper person to conduct Robert’s post-mortem when his fitness to practice was the subject of a live investigation.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here