The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred the murder convictions of Rupert Ross and Leon de St Aubin to the Court of Appeal. This decision comes more than a decade after their conviction and follows persistent legal efforts to address serious issues with the conduct of their trial. Both applicants have always denied being involved in this murder in any way.

Greg Stewart, Partner and Head of Criminals Appeals at GT Stewart, led the review of these convictions with the assistance of James Wood KC and Emma Goodall KC of Doughty Street Chambers. He identified breaches of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in the failure to conduct an identification procedure to test the description of an anonymous witness and he obtained a witness statement that confirmed that the ‘witness’ in the case had not seen or signed their purported statement. That statement had led to a jury question at the trial.

Background

The court convicted Mr Ross and Mr De-St-Aubin on 8 November 2011 for the murder of Darcy Austin-Bruce. Darcy was shot outside the visitor centre of HMP Wandsworth in May 2009. The judge sentenced both men to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years.

The Single Judge rejected their initial appeals in December 2012, and the Full Court rejected them in May 2013.

CCRC review

In November 2017, the CCRC received detailed applications for review and legal submissions supporting the case. The Commission initially indicated that they were minded to decline to refer the cases in July 2022.

Following further representations, including oral submissions by all members of the team, the CCRC reconsidered the matter. In July 2025, eight years after receiving the initial applications, the Commission concluded there is now a real possibility the Court of Appeal will quash both convictions.

Failure to hold an identification parade

The central issue relates to the fact that police failed to hold an identification parade, in breach of Code D of the PACE 1984. Code D sets out safeguards to ensure the fairness of visual identification evidence. In this case, an ID procedure was a mandatory requirement due to the reliance on eyewitness testimony.

However, no such procedure was carried out which affected the fairness of the trial. Additionally, the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the absence of this identification procedure. The trial judge should have explained the Code D breach and its impact on the evidence. The judge did not give such a direction.

The CCRC concluded that there is a strong possibility that the Court of Appeal will find these failings significantly undermined the fairness of Mr Ross and Mr De-St-Aubin’s trial, rendering their convictions unsafe.

The Court of Appeal will now re-examine the convictions in light of these serious procedural failings.

Additionally, the CCRC took the view that, combined with the above breaches of PACE, the admission of an unattested witness statement supported the view that these convictions are unsafe.

Both applicants look forward to having the opportunity to draw attention to the failings of the normal safeguards at their trial and the tenuous basis of the case against them.

Code D outlines police procedures for identifying suspects, including the use of identification parades. Breaches of Code D can undermine a fair trial.

Identification parades protect against mistaken identity by ensuring that eyewitness identification is as reliable and impartial as possible.

It means the CCRC believes there is a real possibility the convictions are unsafe and should be reviewed.