Abuse of public money by the police

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

Please supply how much tax payers money was used in the following
case by the police including any money given to pay for Guy
Shorrock's legal cost. Please supply any information that you have
in relation to the case inquestion highlighted in the court
judgement supplied below.

http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/ind...

I would state that Mr West needs to be interviewed by the police as
I believe that he has left the RSPB employment after short period
because he may of been sick of the activities of the RSPB in
various cases involving xxxxxx.

IN THE BASINGSTOKE COUNTY COURT Case No: 9BK01887

3rd Floor
Grosvenor House
Basing View
Basingstoke
Hampshire
RG21 4HG

Friday, 27th November 2009

B E F O R E:
DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES

----------

MR. MARSHALL
(Claimant)

and

MR. SHORROCK
(Defendant)

----------

Transcript from an Official Court Tape Recording.
Transcript prepared by:
MK Transcribing Services
29 The Concourse, Brunel Business Centre,
Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2ES
Tel: 01908-640067 Fax: 01908-365958
DX 100031 Bletchley
Official Court Tape Transcribers.
----------

THE CLAIMANT appeared IN PERSON.

THE DEFENDANT appeared IN PERSON.

----------
PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER 2009
----------

Friday, 27th November 2009.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: (Recording starts abruptly) …taken against
you, and why didn't you respond properly to the claim form that was
issued on 12th June.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes. The claim form, I never rec -- I've never
received particulars of the claim, ever. If I can just -- could I
just explain the chronology to you, sir?

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Mm, mm.

MR. SHORROCK: I received a -- an invoice from Mr. Marshall
originally at my place of work, at my work address. The invoice was
dated 3rd October 2008, I received it on the 8th. And I replied to
that, and I sent a letter back to Mr. Marshall asking him to refer
the matter to Hampshire Police. I notice on the Particulars of
Claim, it actually says following that invoice, he’d had no further
correspondence from me. That’s not actually correct. I wrote back
to him following his initial invoice, asking him to refer the
matter to Hampshire Police. I then had another letter to myself at
my work address, again raising the matter. This time that letter
was responded to by -- by my line manager. Mr. Marshall then wrote
again, this time to my line manager at my work address. There was a
response made to that latter. There was three pieces of
correspondence from Mr. Marshall, all to my works address, two to
myself and one to my line manager. On the last letter from Mr.
Marshall, which was 18th December 2008, there is a remark made,
suggesting it was a mistake to send the invoice to the RSPB
address, which is my place of work. Then on 2nd September, that’s
the first time I became aware of this claim at all. It appears that
the Particulars of Claim had been sent to an address which I had
moved from in May 2001. I hadn’t lived there for over 8 years. I'm
unaware of whether the invoice was actually sent to that address
first, but the first I became aware of it was when Mr. Marshall
sent the judgment made against me in default, was sent to a former
council member of the RSBP, and it came through to my department on
2nd September. I was away at the time, assisting the police at
Knowle, and my line manager was obviously aware of the urgency, and
he sent an application to stay the proceedings. He believe he could
do that as a litigation friend. That was sent through on 4/9, which
was two days later. We then, on 21st September, I received
notification from Basingstoke Magistrates Court, basically saying
that the application couldn't be made by my line manager.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Basingstoke County Court, presumably.

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah. Basingstoke County Court, and that the
application had to be actually made by me. So I then submitted the
application form that same day, the 21st, the date I received the
notification from Basingstoke. So I sent the application that that
be set aside.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: All right. Okay. Well, I accept what you have
said, that you have made a most timely application as you can. Now,
in so far as the merits are concerned, the merits appear to be
undisputed, that this damage was caused -----

MR. SHORROCK: No, I disagree with, you, sir, we’re not aware of any
damage being caused in relation to this claim. At the time, I was
-----

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, the door that you went through was
locked.

MR. SHORROCK: There was a forced entry made by the police with Mr.
Marshall’s premises, that’s right.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, were you on the premises at the time?

MR. SHORROCK: I was assisting the police, yes.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, under the terms of the search warrant,
you had no right to be on there, you weren’t a serving police
officer, were you? THEREFORE XXXXXX IS ACTING AS A BURGLAR GIVEN
THE FACT HE IS ON THE POLICE VIDEO DAMAGING THE DOOR, BEING ASKED
TO LEAVE BY THE HOME OWNER AS HE IS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT AND
NOW AS A LIAR, GIVEN HIS CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO HAMPSHIRE POLICE IN
WHICH HE LIES IN SUCH MATTERS AS BEING ASKED TO LEAVE CHRIS
MARSHALL’S PROPERTY AS HE IS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT.

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah. The -- there is an issue regarding -- there is
an issue regarding my presence on that search. YES, THERE IS AN
ISSUE, YOU ARE A TRESPASSER COMMITTING CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND REFUSING
TO LEAVE THE PREMISES AND YOU SHOULD BE PROSECUTED ALONG WITH ALL
OF THE OTHER CRIMES THAT YOU HAVE COMMITTED IN OTHER CASE THAT I
HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR.
I routinely assist the police with search warrants. I've probably
assisted with over 100 search warrants in the last 28 years.
THEREFORE YOU MUST KNOW IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT YOU
CANNOT GO ON CHRIS MARSHALL’S PROPERTY AND COMMIT CRIMINAL DAMAGE
AND THEN REFUSE TO LEAVE. In this particular case, there is an
issue that I -- the police basically went to apply for two warrants
on the same day, for two addresses in connection with the same
inquiry. And there was a mistake, I presume made by the police, in
the fact that half of the officers were named on one of the
warrants, but not on the other. So the Sergeant who applied to the
court for those warrants, obviously asked the court for authority
and the court gave that authority, but it wasn’t endorsed on the
warrant. So yes, there is an issue, and I haven't been able to
resolve it with ----- THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE IS FOR A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND SHORROCK PROSECUTED.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, that, so far as Mr. Marshall’s
concerned, is fundamental, isn’t it, because the warrant that was
issued against his premises, did not entitle you to be on the
premises.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes, that -- well, that’s upon the warrant. I'm not
named on the warrant, that’s correct, yes. THEREFORE WHY DID YOU
NOT LEAVE WHEN YOU WERE TOLD TO BY CHRIS MARSHALL ON THE POLICE
VIDEO?

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So you had no right to be there. As soon as
you were there, you are liable to Mr. Marshall for any damage
occasioned from you, and indeed he could take proceedings against
you for trespass. IN THE WORDS OF THE JUDGE SHORROCK IS BREAKING
THE LAW AS HE IS ACTING AS BURGLAR THEREFORE WE WANT HIM PROSECUTED
ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER CRIMES IN TOTALITY THAT HE HAS COMMITTED
OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES. I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS
AND I WISHED TO BE INTERVIEWED AND SO DO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
SUPPPLIED THE EVIDENCE TO ME SO I CAN PASS ON THE EVIDENCE TO THE
POLICE SO SHORROCK CAN BE PROSECUTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

MR. SHORROCK: If that is the case, then yes, he could, sir, but I
would say it's my case that the damage has not been caused, and I
believe there’s a real chance of getting this -- a defence under
this claim, if I was simply to call Sergeant Hubble, for example, I
believe there’s a police search video, which I'm still trying to
get hold of, and I believe that would show that there was no damage
caused by myself. XXXXXXXX YOU HAVE JUST AGAIN COMMITTED PERJURY AS
YOU ARE ON POLICE VIDEO DAMAGING THE DOOR AT CHRIS MARSHALL HOME
WHERE YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO BE. I PUT THE VIDEO ON YOU TUDE BUT THE
POLICE HAD IT REMOVED TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES AND THEIR’S HOWEVER I
WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER COPY AS IT CLEARLY SHOWS
THAT YOU ARE A LIAR AND THE POLICE SHOULD PROSECUTE YOU. AS THE
POLICE WERE IGNORING ME IN RELATION TO XXXXXX LYING I PUBLISHED THE
FACTS ON THE FORUM ‘HUNTING LIFE’ SEE THE HYPER LINK BELOW
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/ind...
Posted 24 December 2008 - 01:49 AM
The RSPB and the question of an illegal search warrant, burglary,
criminal damage and criminal trespass. The whole situation needs
investigating and the real criminal prosecuted.
http://uk.youtube.co...re=channel_page
http://uk.youtube.co...feature=channel

‘This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by
Hampshire Constabulary. ‘

INSTEAD OF A POLICE COVER UP WE NEED A POLICE INVESTIGATION AND
SHORROCK PROSECUTED FOR HIS TWO DECADES OF CRIMES AGAINST MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC. THIS WOULD ALSO PROTECT FUTURE POTENTIAL VICTIMS OF
SHORROCK.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, I know -- I shall give Mr. Marshall a
opportunity to say something if he wants to, but I know from his
documents, he says he has a DVD to show that it was you causing the
damage to the lock. Now, okay, if I accept, then there’s going to
be a dispute of evidence between you as to who damaged the lock,
but obviously one accepts that damage was occasioned to the lock,
because otherwise you wouldn't be seeking -----

MR. SHORROCK: Well, I've not physically seen the lock, sir, at all,
so ----- STOP LYING YOU ARE ON VIDEO DAMAGING THE DOOR AND YOU HAVE
SAID THAT YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN THE VIDEO BEFORE OF YOU DAMAGING THE
LOCK.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, you’re saying you’re going to get a
police DVD to show that it was the police who broke in.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes. The police did so. YES THEY DID DAMAGE THE DOOR
BUT YOU NOT ONLY HELP THEM, YOU ALSO TOLD THEM WHAT TO DO ON THE
VIDEO IN RELATION TO TO THE DOOR SO STOP LYING IN THE COURT ROOM
FOR ONCE.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: The police presumably broke in -- can't have
broken in without causing damage to the lock, they didn't have the
key. So one way or the other, damage was occasioned.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes, I think damaged was occasioned -----

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Are we really going to spend an hour of court
time arguing over £75?

MR. MARSHALL: Well, could I -----

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: It’s a question I pose to you; you and the
police were there, undoubtedly damage must have been occasioned,
because the lock was damaged, whether by you or whether it was by
the police.
MR. SHORROCK: Yes. Mr. Marshall’s already made a claim against the
police in relation to this at Basingstoke Magistrates Court. That
claim was taken to court in the same year, later that year. I was
asked by the police to attend that. Myself and Sergeant Hubble
didn't actually have to give evidence. That claim was dealt with by
the police’s barrister, and that claim was dismissed by the
District Judge at the time, in relation to the claim for damages
made. YES IT [SEE THE END OF THE COURT TRANSCRIPT BELOW FOR THE
POLICE DEFENCE’S] GIVEN THE AFORESAID POLICE WHY ARE THE POLICE NOW
USING TAX PAYER’S MONEY TO PAY THIS CLAIM WHEN IT SHOULD BE
SHORROCK? I WANT THIS QUESTION ANSWERED AS I AM A TAX PAYER AND THE
POLICE SHOULD NOT BE USING TAX PAYER’S MONEY TO PAY SHORROCK’S
LIABILITIES WHEN THE POLICE HAVE BE FOUND NOT TO BE LIABLE.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, that’s a claim against the police.
We’re talking about a claim against you. SO WHY HAS THE POLICE
USING TAX PAYER’S MONEY TO PAY THE LIABILITY WHEN IT IS SHORROCK’S
DUTY TO PAY?

MR. SHORROCK: Yes.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Which Mr. Marshall is saying was your
responsibility, cause he has evidence to show that damage was
occasioned. All you are going to be able to do in your defence, as
I understand it from you, is to produce evidence from the police
that damage was occasioned, but they did it, not you.

MR. SHORROCK: Certainly, yes, the police did cause damage. Whether
that damage was caused to this lock or not, I've not seen the lock.
The police forced the door, and the video will show the nature of
how the door was forced.
SHORROCK YOU ARE ON VIDEO CAUSING CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO THE DOOR AND
ADVISING THE POLICE ON THE DOOR IN QUESTIONS WHEN YOU HAVE NO
BUSINESS TELLING THE POLICE WHAT TO DO? IN SHORT XXXXXXXX YOU ARE
OUT OF CONTROL AND DRUNK ON YOUR OWN PERCEIVED POWERS.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, it's common sense, isn’t it, the door
is forced, damaged can be occasioned.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Because the whole purpose of the lock, is to
prevent anyone else opening the door unless you have the key. So as
soon as the door is forced open, damage is occasioned, and it would
be rather ridiculous for anyone to complain that damage wasn’t
occasioned if a door was forced. So the issue in this case, it
seems to me, is simply a matter of was it you or the police who did
the damage. OR BOTH. THE POLICE VIDEO SHOWS IT WAS BOTH HOWEVER WHO
GAVE THE BOGUS INFORMATION FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THE FIRST
PLACE? IT IS A COMMON COMPLAINT THAT XXXXXXXXX HAS SUPPLIED TO THE
POLICE FALSE INFORMATION TO SECURE A SEARCH WARRANT. IN MY CASE
XXXXXXXX EVEN SWEAR OUT A SEARCH WARRANT ON MY HOME WHICH HE DOES
NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO.

MR. SHORROCK: That’s fair, sir, yes.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: And now what I'm saying to you is that for
the sake of £75, are you really saying that we’re going to occupy
an hour or so of court time to watch one video or two videos, which
may be conclusive, may be inconclusive, but will take considerably
longer if they show two different sides, because there’s some
explanation will be then necessary as to why there’s two different
videos allegedly of the same incident. WE ARE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH
SERIOUS CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY XXXXXXXX THEREFORE WE
NEED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE WHOLE HISTORY OF
XXXXXX XXXXXX.

MR. SHORROCK: No, one video, sir. I think Mr. Marshall’s is an
exact copy of the police video.

MR. MARSHALL: I've got 41 seconds of Mr. Shorrock, nobody else,
with a screwdriver in his hand ----- THEREFORE XXXXXXX IS LYING TO
THE JUDGE AND HE MUST BE PROSECUTED NOW ALONG WITH ALL OF HIS OTHER
CRIMES AGAINST MANY PEOPLE OVER THE MANY YEARS THAT THE POLICE HAVE
ALLOWED THIS LAIR TO CONTROL THEM. I WOULD NOT BE MAKING SUCH A
STATEMENT IF I DID NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHAT I HAVE JUST
SAID THEREFORE I WILL ATTEST AGAIN I WANT THE POLICE TO INTERVIEW
ME SO I CAN PASS ON THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE AGAINST XXXXXXXXXX
OVER THE YEARS THAT HE HAS WORKED FOR THE RSPB.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Who’s video is that? Is that the police
video?

MR. MARSHALL: The police gave it to me, yeah.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So that’s the same copy really that you’re
trying to -----

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah.

MR. MARSHALL: They asked me not to give a copy to Mr. Shorrock,
because it was a contentious issue. I WILL GIVE YOU A COPY
XXXXXXXXXX PERSONAL JUST TELL ME WHERE TO SEND IT HOWEVER I FIND IT
STRANGE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO MANY TIMES AS I SENT A
NUMBER OF COPIES TO THE RSPB AND I ALSO SENT THE HYPERLINK ON YOU
TUBE BEFORE THE POLICE HAD IT REMOVED TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES AND
THEIR ACTIONS IN ALLOWING YOU TO BREAK THE LAW.

MR. SHORROCK: I had a call from the police this morning, saying,
‘Trying to source the video,’ (Inaudible) but as I say, it’s my
clear impression that the dam -- any damage caused was certainly
not caused by myself, and if there is a fair claim, then that
should be addressed to Hampshire Police. THE POLICE HAVE BEEN FOUND
NOT LIABLE AS YOU STATED. THE VIDE SHOWS YOU ARE A LIAR AND
THEREFORE MUST BE PROSECUTED.

MR. MARSHALL: That’s clearly what was in the lock, and it’s
extremely clear on there, it shows Mr. Shorrock spending over half
a minute, with a large screwdriver in his hand, you can actually
see him, you can actually hear him audibly trying to graunch the
lock open, and it’s there. I mean, if there’s a opportunity, we
could both watch it. THEREFORE THE POLICE MUST INVESTIGATE THE
CRIMINAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY XXXXXXXXXX SHOWN ON THE POLICE VIDEO. I
HAVE THE VIDEO WHICH I HAVE SENT MANY TIMES TO THE POLICE BUT I AM
BEING IGNORED AND IT AMOUNTS TO CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE AS THERE IS A POLICE COVER UP ALONG WITH THE OTHER CRIMES
COMMITTED BY SHORROCK OVER THE YEARS.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, have you seen this video or not, Mr.
Shorrock?

MR. SHORROCK: I saw -- I saw the video three, four years ago, I've
not seen it since. SO YOU HAVE NOW SEEN THE VIDEO. TO BE A GOOD
LIAR YOU NEED A GOOD MEMORY AND YOUR MEMORY SEEMS TO BE IN
QUESTION.

MR. MARSHALL: In the court, just -- I hadn’t seen the video until
the day before the court hearing, so I didn't realise Mr. Shorrock
had done the damage to the lock, not the door. And District Judge
Carney, it will be on tape, he said, ‘You clearly should pursue Mr.
Shorrock about this,’ because Mr. -- a barrister that the police
employed, stood up and said, ‘Mr. Shorrock is not seen on the video
doing any damage whatsoever,’ so the judge said, ‘Well, if the best
thing is, we’ll play the video,’ and it showed Mr. Shorrock with a
-- something that looked like about that long in his hand, spending
41 seconds, and you can actually hear him kind of lever the lock
open, and lever the key out of the door, and that’s the key, and it
actually broke one chain off of that key.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, I'm not going to see any evidence
today, because that’s not the purpose of today’s hearing, but with
41 seconds of Mr. Shorrock going -----WE NEED THE POLICE TO GO
THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND PROSECUTE XXXXXXX.

MR. MARSHALL: And -----

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: ----- like that on the door, I’d find it very
surprising whether it’s two years, three years, four years, ten
years, that Mr. Shorrock can't remember doing it. THAT IS BECAUSE
HE IS LYING AS HE DOES ALL OF THE TIME AND WE WANT HIM INVESTIGATED
BY THE POLICE THROUGHOUT THE UK.

MR. SHORROCK: No, I remember the incident, sir, but as I say,
without going into the details of the defence, I wasn’t trying to
force the door. What we were -- myself and the police were
endeavouring to do, was push the key out of the back of the lock,
so that it could be retracted from under the door, and the door
could be opened without damage. It was because that process wasn’t
possible, that the police then forced the door open. So I was
actually assisting the police to try and prevent damage. THE VIDEO
PROVES OTHERWISE.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, the very fact that you accept that you
were assisting the police, when you had no authority under the
warrant ----- YES YOU WERE ILLEGALLY IN CHRIS MARSHALL’S HOUSE AND
YOU WOULD NOT LEAVE EVEN WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT YOU
WERE ILLEGAL IN CHRIS MARSHALL’S HOME THEN YOU LIED ABOUT BEING
ASKED TO LEAVE IN YOUR CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO HAMPSHIRE POLICE. I
HAVE THE REPORT IN QUESTION AND THE POLICE VIDEO. IF THE REPORT IS
COMPARED TO THE POLICE VIDEO THEN THERE IS ONLY ONE CONCLUSION THAT
CAN BE DRAWN WHICH IS XXXXXXXXXXXX IS A LIAR AND THERE MUST BE A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah. SO YOU NOW ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A BURGLAR AND THE
POLICE HELPED YOU?

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: ----- leaves you well and truly up the garden
path, Mr. Shorrock, and liable for this. Now, I am saying to you,
for the sake of £75, if you want to come back to court on another
day, and if the matter is as clear as that on evidence, I shall
leave a clear direction on the court file, that the court, although
this is a small claim’s matter, should consider that it may be a
situation where the court can make an order for costs. Because if
the matter is as clear as that, you on the premises which you had
no authority, you were doing something to the door, it seems to me
there can be no defence to this claim that you were responsible for
the damage. WHAT MORE DO THE POLICE WANT BEFORE A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION IS SET IN MOTION?

MR. SHORROCK: Well, I believe that the damage was caused by the
police, sir. I don't believe any damage to that lock was actually
caused by myself. BUT YOU ARE ON VIDEO DAMAGING THE LOCK AND THE
DOOR BY CHIPPING BITS OF THE DOOR OFF THEREFORE YOU ARE ALSO
COMMITTING PERJURY BY STATING OTHERWISE.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Shorrock was taking part in a forced entry, when
he shouldn't have even been on the premises. He was trespassing.
I've got five different solicitor’s comments and legal advice about
it, and the court clerk, Jennifer Atwell, will confirm that Mr.
Shorrock wasn’t asked to be allowed on to the premises. THEREFORE
XXXXX IS A BURLAR.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: (Pause) Well, clearly although it’s £75, we
can't deal with the evidence today, and so -----

MR. SHORROCK: Sorry? TOO LATE NOW XXXXXXX YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT OUT
AND YOU SHOULD BE PROSECUTED BY THE POLICE. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE
THE LAW INCLUDING XXXXXXXX.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Although it’s only £75, we clearly can't deal
with it today, because I'm in no position to deal with the
evidence, I haven't got time to do it this afternoon. So I’ll set
aside the judgment, I’ll set it down for a small claim’s hearing,
which will take place on the first available day. It seems
perfectly clear to me, and I'll make sure that I don’t deal with
the final hearing of this, so it would not be prejudiced, that your
chances of succeeding on this must be very slim. If there is a
clear DVD showing you on the premises, doing something to the door,
it seems to me to be an absolutely open and shut case, that the
judge will find you responsible for any damage occasioned, because
you shouldn't have been there, and you will have a huge difficulty
in explaining that you were doing something to the door and weren’t
causing any damage. For you to simply say to me today that you
don't remember the incident of doing anything to the door, I find
somewhat -----
NEED WE SAY MORE OTHER THAN WE WANT THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THE
MATTER IN CONTEXT OF EVERY ONE’S COMPLAINT AGAINST XXXXXXXXX?

MR. SHORROCK: No, I'm not saying I don't remember the incident to
the door.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So I am going to warn you -----

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: ----- and it will be part of the court order,
that although in small claims matters costs do not normally follow
the event, a judge has a opportunity of making orders for costs
against parties, if their behaviour is unreasonable. It seems to me
that if the DVDs clearly show you doing something to the door and
the judge on the future occasion finds you responsible for the
damage, it seems to me that Mr. Marshall should be entitled to all
the costs he’s incurred in this matter, because your conduct by
definition will have been totally and utterly unreasonable in this
matter. So I'm giving you that very clear warning, which is on the
tape, it is recorded on the court order, and we shall see what
happens at the next hearing. But as I have said, it will not be me,
because I have voiced an opinion today, based upon what has been
said to me, which of course is not the evidence itself. It seems to
me that for £75, this matter shouldn't really go as far as this, it
ought to be resolved, and one way or the other, somebody ought to
be compensating Mr. Marshall for the £75, because he is the
innocent party in this who has had damage occasioned to his door,
and it must be down to either the police, the RSPB or you, and I
would have thought it's incumbent upon you to try and persuade
someone to foot the bill for £75 or do it yourself, because quite
frankly, the likely costs are going to far exceed that, because I
assume Mr. Marshall’s has come all the way from Hampshire today?
Have you come from Hampshire today?

MR. MARSHALL: I've come from Bordeaux. On Sunday I came back. We
work abroad all the time, and I'm doing a big land reclamation job
just outside Bordeaux at the moment. And I've got -----

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: What are your expenses I coming here?

MR. MARSHALL: Well, 270 Euros ferry fare, and 700 miles petrol
costs, and coming up here as well. I stayed in Dunstable last night
at a bed and breakfast.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Where are you going tomorrow, back to
Bordeaux?

MR. MARSHALL: No, no, I shan’t go back there until another two or
three weeks, to find out what -- I shall wait to see what happens
about this court case.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, it's going to be more than two or three
weeks before you get -----

MR. MARSHALL: Sorry?

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: It will be more than two or three weeks
before the court finds another day.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I'm sure, yes.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So you’re saying coming back from Bordeaux,
you’d have been coming back in any event at some stage?

MR. MARSHALL: I would have come before Christmas, yes, certainly.
I’m not expecting -- claiming costs.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, you’ll certainly have your costs from
Hampshire here, and back again, so what’s the mileage?

MR. MARSHALL: To her, about, I do know, ballpark figure, 100 miles
each way.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: And what was -----

MR. MARSHALL: £45 bed and breakfast.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: You stayed -- you stayed overnight?
MR. MARSHALL: In Dunstable, yes.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: But presumably you could have driven from
home?

MR. MARSHALL: I could have done, but it’s the traffic problem, sir,
you know, it was just my desire to get here at the appropriate
hour.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, Mr. Shorrock, I have given Mr. Marshall
40 pence a mile, which is the amount we allow, for a 200 round
trip, that’s £80, isn’t it.

MR. MARSHALL: I would like to add one thing, I don't intend
pursuing Mr. Shorrock for trespass or criminal damage, I just would
like the repayment for the damage to the lock and the time it took
me to repair it.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, Mr. Shorrock, you’ll pay Mr. Marshall
his travelling expenses of £80 in any event, which -- is there any
reason why it can't be paid within 14 days?

MR. SHORROCK: No, your Honour, no reason. Is that made through the
court or -----

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: No, you pay it direct.

MR. SHORROCK: Direct.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: The court doesn’t these days deal with money.
That’s 10th December. All right. So it’s £80 it’s cost you already.
And when you talk about another £80 plus court fees on top of it, I
would sincerely hope that whilst you’re here, you can perhaps have
a conversation about the matter, and bring it to a conclusion,
because quite frankly, it is stupid to contemplate coming back here
for another day, an hour’s hearing, the travelling that Mr.
Marshall’s going to encompass, the time you’re going to have off
work to argue about £80, I don't see any commercial sense in that
whatsoever.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes, I appreciate what you’re saying, but however
(Inaudible).

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, I think your principles may cost you
far more than it’s worth. That’s a matter for you, but I would have
thought the sensible thing to do is to try and find some way to
resolve the matter before that happens.

MR. SHORROCK: Right. Okay.

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: All right. Okay. Thank you very much then.

Yours faithfully,

Ross errington

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

It is a police cover up as well as an abuse of public by public
servants. I want the information request sent for an internal
appeal and I want a copy of the final letter so I can appeal to the
ICO. I a feel the situation must be investigated as in effect tax
payer's money has been stolen to pay a judgement and the police are
covering it up.

Yours faithfully,

ross errington