Justice 4 Darren Waterhouse
Darren used to the serve with the Cold Stream Guards, and was honoured for his highly commendable actions by way of a Military Cross, and also presented with a Radar People of the Year Award
Darren Waterhouse was convicted in 2005 for the Murder of Craig Barker and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Darren has always professed his innocence to the crime and still does to this day.
This involved the shooting of Craig Barker from Liverpool, Darren had associates from that area, that he had meet whilst in prison previously whilst on a drugs charge, yes he was no angel as far as being involved in drugs was concerned, but he certainly is not a killer.
For one reason and another he became involved in the drug culture having left the army. Whilst serving his prison sentence he met his co-defendant William Moore, they became friends and associated outside of the prison environment. William had a brother John, there appeared to be some discontent with a notorious family "The Gee's" in Liverpool.
On the night Craig was killed, Darren had agreed to attend Liverpool to see William, he travelled up in his own car, using his own mobile phone to keep in contact with William and taking his dog with him. The prosecution allege that Darren attended Liverpool as a contract killer, and that Darren Gee was the intended victim, not Craig. This occurred on Robson Street on the Grizedale estate in Everton on April 6 2004. Craig was in a car with 3 of his friends, Darren Gee, Ian Gee, Mark Richardson, the driver of the car was usually Darren Gee, (the one who the Moore's was having trouble with) Darren Gee has just got In the back of the car as he was playing with a computer game that had just been installed so Craig was the driver. They were driving around the Everton area, when a car was parked up and a male jumped out and opened fire on the galaxy car they were in. Shots were fired all over the car, in what was described as in an uncontrolled manner, Craig was shot several times as he scrambled around in the car, 2 passengers received no injuries, and one (Ian gee) received injuries to his leg/thigh. The gunman left the scene in his car, which was later discovered, burnt out.
The police attended the scene and all parties refused to cooperate with the police. Later that evening Craig died from his injuries. Later on further statements were obtained from the other occupants of the car; Darren Gee gave a description of the gunman as a "red/ginger hair looking male wearing an alpine hat".
Darren was arrested in Luton at his home address. Whilst at the police station Darren was asked to co-operate in an identification parade, which he consented. The ID suite was new at Luton police station, and Darren had been arrested with no clothing on his upper body (it was a hot summers day) and the police ID suite did not have any clothing to offer Darren but the officer investigating the crime had a spare t- shirt. The t- shirt was taken and worn by Darren on the parade (it was a video parade). The T-shirt was navy, and the other volunteers on the parade were specifically selected who wore a navy t-shirt as well to blend in with the t-shirt Darren had been given.
By the time the video had made its way up to Liverpool, the volunteers had been changed by the inspector as not being suitable, and the volunteers wearing a navy t-shirt had now been removed. The video was thereafter shown to the 3 occupants in the car, who had now changed their mind and decided to cooperate with the police, Ian picked out Darren from the video parade albeit in his statement he had said "i didn't see him fire or what he was firing because i ducked down straight away, i can only recall both were white males and that is all really. I can't recall any clothing or ages or sizes, it all happened too fast, my head was down in my lap area. The others did not make a positive identification.
An anonymous witness stood approximately 12 foot from the junction, phoned the police and gave a description of the gunman, as wearing a balaclava hat (cricket style) and coveralls and gloves on.
Darren was charged with the Murder along with William and John Moore.
During the trial, it emerged that Craig's mother had given the police a list of several names that she believed were responsible for killing her son and all the names on this list have since been shot and killed. There was also another male who was ginger haired from the area, and who had a fractured relationship with the "GEE'S" who had secured his alibi as he had been in an off licence around the time of the shooting where his girlfriend worked, and had secured the CCTV footage from the shop and lodged with it his solicitors even before he had been arrested and questioned. Slightly strange behaviour!!
Darren accepted that he was in Liverpool that night but not to shoot or kill any person. During his trial an ex-soldier attended the trial, who was now a serving Police Officer and stated that Darren was an expert with firearms and a uncontrolled shooting was not his style or how they had been trained to shoot, they had been taught a "double tap" when shooting to kill in the Army, two shots to the chest and two to the head, without sounding like boasting, he was too much of an expert to shoot in such a haphazard way.
Darren Waterhouse and William Moore were convicted by the Jury and sentenced each to 30 years in prison. The CPS proceeded to have another trial with John, who then pleaded guilty on the basis he knew harm was going to be caused but not death.
Some years after the conviction, Darren Gee sent Darren Waterhouse a Xmas card stating that his brother had been able to pick him out on the ID parade as the police had told him what t shirt Darren was wearing. A statement was taken from Darren Gee by the solicitor.
During the disclosure of the trial, the CPS refused to disclose the 999 call recording stating "it did not assist the defence or undermine the prosecution case".
Mark Richardson phoned 999 when the car was under attack, and there are specific questions that the operator asks especially in particular to descriptions of suspects.
Based on this new evidence, an application was made to the Court of Appeal (COA) who considered this "new evidence from Darren Gee" and dismissed the application stating that Darren Gee was not a credible witness and could not be believed. An argument was presented by John Cooper QC (acting on behalf of Darren) that the 999 call was relevant in light of this new indication. The COA refused to see the relevance of this and did not agree the 999 call should be disclosed. If the 999 call does not undermine the prosecution or assist the defence, then why has this recording not been disclosed?
The Solicitors stated that in most cases the 999 transcript is served, then why was it not served in this case, this in itself makes it highly suspicious!!
Darren is adamant this 999 tape recording will prove his innocence unless we can find another witness who comes forward who is seen to be credible, or further new evidence is found.
This is a complete Miscarriage of Justice - here is a highly trained solider who on the prosecution's case could not carry out a contract killing on the right victim, used his own car and phone, and had to spray a car with 9 bullets from 3 feet away. The very same man, who, was awarded the military cross for his bravery and leadership, and served 14 years, most of which he was an instructor in weapons tactics. He also served on covert ops.
It's shocking that Darren has to potentially spend the rest of his life in jail until he can prove his innocence. How can this be fair justice?? Why won't the CPS disclose the 999 recording?? This is vital evidence to prove Darren's innocence. Furthermore, Darren had 2 mobile phones on his person when he was arrested, both of which were seized by the police, and yet only evidence was served from one phone, why did they not serve the interrogation report from the second phone?
The prosecution suggested that Darren received money for the killing, there was no evidence that funds had come from William Moore. Yes Darren did have money but that was from cultivating cannabis, the police said that the crop had not come to fruition, and served an account statement from the electricity company which showed money had been put on the electricity meter from November 17th 2003 to January 22 2004 in the sum of £210. After the court case his defence team managed to obtain a full electricity statement which showed that £1650 of electricity had been used from July 2004 and a full crop of cannabis had been grown by this stage, contrary to what the police/prosecution suggested.
If anyone has any information regarding this matter, then please contact us at email@example.com
If you have any information relating to this case we would love to hear from you. Even if you think what you have to say isn't important, it could make a difference. All information provided here will be treated with the strictest of confidence.
Or write directly to Darren