Information request in the interests of justice.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Dear CPS, Home Office, IPCC, Minister Justice and Northumbria
Police

Reference: Information request in relation to which organ of the
government is responsible for supplying the information in relation
my questions below, who sets the powers of the RSPB and who is
responsible to control and oversee the powers of the RSPB?. The
responsibility is being passed about like a hot potato.

Which organ [servants of the people] of the democratically elected
government is responsible for the issues below?
1] Supplying the information in relation to my questions below?
2] Who sets the powers of the RSPB?
3] Who is responsible to control and oversee the powers of the
RSPB?
4] Who do I supply the information in relation to bogus information
being used to get search warrant so the matter can be investigated?
The police are ignoring our letters and the IPCC are allowing the
police not to investigate with the only justification that it has
taken too long to complaint. Given that it is the police, RSPB and
others external bodies to use that are causing the delay by
withhold evidence how can it be justified to say our serious
complaints in relation to a national conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice cannot be investigated as we the victims have
waited too long. Interestingly no one in thirteen year has said
that any element of our complaint is wrong or not truthful instead
there has been a cover up. For example the police have removed a
video from You Tube of the Police and the RSPB kicking some ones
door in, however they did leave the confidential statement from the
RSPB that lied [documented fact backed up by a video] about the
RSPB being asked to leave as the representative of the RSPB was not
on the search warrant, on a Forum called Hunting Life but the
police names were removed. Now if I am not telling the truth I
should be prosecuted for harassment and the RSPB would have taken
their millions of pounds and sued me be now. In other word I have
the shield of truth on my side and various organisations are hoping
it will all go away however it will all be going on a website. A
lot has already been published and no one has ever challenged the
truthfulness of our complaints.
5] HOW IS A PERSON FROM THE RSPB WHO HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE
COMMITTED PERJURY IN THE JOHN DODSWORTH’S CASE IN OCTOBER 2008 [THE
COURT TRANSCRIPT AND POLICE STATEMENTS HAVE ALRERADY BEEN SUPLIED
AND YOU HAVE HEARD THE OPEN COURT STATEMENT FROM THE SOLICITOR
INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY] ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE TO BE ENTRUSTED TO INVESTIGATE AND HANDLE FURTHER EVIDENCE
WHILE THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS CRIMES ARE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER
SEPTEMBER? The matter needs to be looked at immediately to negate
the potential of any new crimes.

In summary I would make the following statement of truth and
challenges all to say where I am wrong. Various people have made
serious complaint about the RSPB and the police but to date the
police are ignoring our complaints or asked the iPCC permission not
to investigate the crimes as the complaints has not been made
within a very short period. This is of course a self fulfilling
agenda as it is the police and others that are withholding the
information that we need which is one of the main reason that the
complaints have been delayed. For example since 1994 I have been
waiting for the report done on me by the RSPB. Other people have
had the reports done on them given to them so why am I different?
The answer is that I am not different; the answer is there are
things in the report that will support my complaints and others. If
this is wrong then show me the report. If there was nothing in the
report to support my claims then the police and CPS, IPCC and Home
Office would simple disclose the report to negate my complaints as
they have done with other people. I would ask the CPS to ANSWER my
letters in relation to this point. Furthermore, all the letters
that are being ignored complaining about the RSPB and the police
need to be answered fully by addressing each element of the
complaints and an explanation of the investigation into each
element and the conclusion. A meeting with all the people that are
complaining would then be useful to expand and explain any
difficult points of evidence.

We do not want confrontation we want the police to investigate our
complaints and we want a Hillsborough type investigation headed by
a senior judge. Most of all we want justice and transparency and
not letters saying there has been a ‘through investigation’ but you
cannot see the report, you just have to trust that we have
correctly investigated ourselves about our organisation breaking
the law. Just like turkeys will never vote for Christmas people
investigating their own organisation need to be completely open to
the complainants for obvious reasons.

Dear Mr Canning

My response is in red next to each question in the list below.

Regards

Lynn Beaufort
1/07 Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6EB
0117 3728591
0117 372 8373 (fax)
1371 ext 8591 (GTN)
From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 05 June 2009 20:29
To: Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity)
Subject: search warrant

Please answer questions that the Home Office say is your remit.

Download original attachment
Attachment to FOI request 'Can you please supply any guidance or
rules covering the following issues especially any instructions
given to the police and the RSPB?' (HTML version)

Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035
4742
E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

[email address]
Mr Ross Errington
Reference: T7363/9
Dear Mr Errington,
Thank you for your e-mail of 28 April 2:13:32 PM seeking copies of
guidance issued to the police and RSPB in relation to search
warrants.
I regret that as the majority of your questions relate to the
powers of RSPB officials the Home Office is not able to respond
fully to your questions. The Home Office does not lead on animal
welfare matters, including the status and enforcement powers, if
any, of animal welfare charities such as the RSPB, RSPCA etc. This
is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs so you will need to send your enquiry to them at [email
address].
What I can advise on is matters relating to the exercise of police
powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and
the accompanying Codes of Practice. These provide the core
framework of investigative powers for the police including the
execution of search warrants.
The Act can be found on the Ministry of Justice Statute Law
database at http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx. PACE Code B,
which covers powers to search premises and seize property, can be
accessed on the Home Office PACE Codes webpage at
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio....
Section 67(9) of PACE states that “Persons other than police
officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or
charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard
to any relevant provision of a [PACE] code.”
This duty is held by Joy v Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd
[1993] Crim.L.R. 588 DC to apply to any type of legal duty whether
imposed by statute, common law or by contract.
The duty only applies in so far as the provisions of the Codes are
relevant. Not all investigating bodies have the same statutory
powers or duties and section 67(9) of PACE does not confer
statutory police powers onto other persons.
In terms of your specific questions:
1] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally
caution me? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on RSPB
powers. Defra do not lead on RSPB powers. The RSPB is a registered
charity, you should ask the RSPB to list any powers they may have.
2] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally swear
out a search warrant at a magistrates Court under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s15? Please refer this question to DEFRA
who lead on RSPB powers. See the answer at question 1.
3] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally and
actively search for evidence without the police next to them even
if the RSPB are mentioned on a search warrant and after they have
been told to leave by the land owner? I cannot advise on search
warrants applied for and executed by RSPB officials. However, where
the police apply for a search warrant paragraph 3.6(f) of PACE Code
B states that the application must, if applicable, seek
authorisation for other persons to accompany the officer who
executes the warrant. See above
Under section 16 of PACE where a warrant authorises other person to
accompany the officer executing the warrant the authorised persons
have the same powers as the officer in terms of the execution of
the warrant and seizure of anything to which the warrant relates.
It also requires that such authorised persons may only exercise
these powers in the company, and under the supervision of, a
constable.
4] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally search
by themselves, without any police officer in site, someone
property, given the fact that the RSPB are only on the premise to
advice on what the police find? Please see the reply to question 3
with regards to search warrants applied for and executed by the
police. Please see the answer to question 1 above
5] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally take
primary evidence and property from the person's home that is being
searched straight to the RSPB Head Quarters or does all evidence
have to be taken to a police station and stay at the police station
involved in the raid where it can be seen and supervised while the
evidence is investigated? Please refer this question to DEFRA who
lead on RSPB powers. If property is seized under a warrant applied
for and executed by the police it must be taken to the police
station. PACE Code B provides further information on the framework
for seizure, retention and return of property. See answer to
question 1 above.
6] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally help
the police search someone's home via a search warrant that does not
name them at all and they have been told to leave by the owner of
the property as he is worried about the RSPB'S motives? Please see
the reply to question 3. See above.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an
independent internal review of our handling of your request by
submitting your complaint within two months to the address below
quoting reference 11982.
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Email: [email address]
During the independent review the department's handling of your
information request will be reassessed by staff who were not
involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain
dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of
complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
I realise that this response may be a disappointment to you.
However I would like to assure you that we do not hold the majority
of the information that you asked for.
Yours sincerely,
Shanaz Khanche
Policing Powers and Protection Unit

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
only.
If you have received it in error you have no authority to use,
disclose,
store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and
inform
the sender.
Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked
for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
responsibility once it has left our systems.
Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or
recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for
other
lawful purposes.

Mr Canning

I can repeat that Defra do not lead on RSPB powers and that the
information on execution of warrants as stated by Home Office is
correct. Individual cases cannot be commented on, but the
Magistrate’s Courts, who issue warrants, do follow strict guide
lines when considering applications for a warrant. The Magistrates’
Courts are run through Her Majesty’s Court Services (hmcs) and I
attach a link below for you.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/

Regards

Lynn Beaufort
1/07 Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6EB
0117 3728591
0117 372 8373 (fax)
1371 ext 8591 (GTN)
From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 10 June 2009 18:07
To: Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity); [email address]
Subject: Re: search warrant

In a message dated 10/06/2009 17:17:34 GMT Standard Time, [email
address] writes:
Dear Mr Canning

My response is in red next to each question in the list below.

Regards

Lynn Beaufort
1/07 Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6EB
0117 3728591
0117 372 8373 (fax)
1371 ext 8591 (GTN)
From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 05 June 2009 20:29
To: Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity)
Subject: search warrant

Please answer questions that the Home Office say is your remit.

Download original attachment
Attachment to FOI request 'Can you please supply any guidance or
rules covering the following issues especially any instructions
given to the police and the RSPB?' (HTML version)

Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035
4742
E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

[email address]
Mr Ross Errington
Reference: T7363/9
Dear Mr Errington,
Thank you for your e-mail of 28 April 2:13:32 PM seeking copies of
guidance issued to the police and RSPB in relation to search
warrants.
I regret that as the majority of your questions relate to the
powers of RSPB officials the Home Office is not able to respond
fully to your questions. The Home Office does not lead on animal
welfare matters, including the status and enforcement powers, if
any, of animal welfare charities such as the RSPB, RSPCA etc. This
is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs so you will need to send your enquiry to them at [email
address].
What I can advise on is matters relating to the exercise of police
powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and
the accompanying Codes of Practice. These provide the core
framework of investigative powers for the police including the
execution of search warrants.
The Act can be found on the Ministry of Justice Statute Law
database at http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx. PACE Code B,
which covers powers to search premises and seize property, can be
accessed on the Home Office PACE Codes webpage at
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio....
Section 67(9) of PACE states that “Persons other than police
officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or
charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard
to any relevant provision of a [PACE] code.”
This duty is held by Joy v Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd
[1993] Crim.L.R. 588 DC to apply to any type of legal duty whether
imposed by statute, common law or by contract.
The duty only applies in so far as the provisions of the Codes are
relevant. Not all investigating bodies have the same statutory
powers or duties and section 67(9) of PACE does not confer
statutory police powers onto other persons.
In terms of your specific questions:
1] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally
caution me? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on RSPB
powers. Defra do not lead on RSPB powers. The RSPB is a registered
charity, you should ask the RSPB to list any powers they may have.
2] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally swear
out a search warrant at a magistrates Court under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s15? Please refer this question to DEFRA
who lead on RSPB powers. See the answer at question 1.
3] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally and
actively search for evidence without the police next to them even
if the RSPB are mentioned on a search warrant and after they have
been told to leave by the land owner? I cannot advise on search
warrants applied for and executed by RSPB officials. However, where
the police apply for a search warrant paragraph 3.6(f) of PACE Code
B states that the application must, if applicable, seek
authorisation for other persons to accompany the officer who
executes the warrant. See above
Under section 16 of PACE where a warrant authorises other person to
accompany the officer executing the warrant the authorised persons
have the same powers as the officer in terms of the execution of
the warrant and seizure of anything to which the warrant relates.
It also requires that such authorised persons may only exercise
these powers in the company, and under the supervision of, a
constable.
4] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally search
by themselves, without any police officer in site, someone
property, given the fact that the RSPB are only on the premise to
advice on what the police find? Please see the reply to question 3
with regards to search warrants applied for and executed by the
police. Please see the answer to question 1 above
5] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally take
primary evidence and property from the person's home that is being
searched straight to the RSPB Head Quarters or does all evidence
have to be taken to a police station and stay at the police station
involved in the raid where it can be seen and supervised while the
evidence is investigated? Please refer this question to DEFRA who
lead on RSPB powers. If property is seized under a warrant applied
for and executed by the police it must be taken to the police
station. PACE Code B provides further information on the framework
for seizure, retention and return of property. See answer to
question 1 above.
6] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally help
the police search someone's home via a search warrant that does not
name them at all and they have been told to leave by the owner of
the property as he is worried about the RSPB'S motives? Please see
the reply to question 3. See above.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an
independent internal review of our handling of your request by
submitting your complaint within two months to the address below
quoting reference 11982.
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Email: [email address]
During the independent review the department's handling of your
information request will be reassessed by staff who were not
involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain
dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of
complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
I realise that this response may be a disappointment to you.
However I would like to assure you that we do not hold the majority
of the information that you asked for.
Yours sincerely,
Shanaz Khanche
Policing Powers and Protection Unit

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
only.
If you have received it in error you have no authority to use,
disclose,
store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and
inform
the sender.
Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked
for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
responsibility once it has left our systems.
Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or
recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for
other
lawful purposes.
SO THE HOME OFFICE IS WRING?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please refer my information request to an internal review as I am
being ignored.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Stephens, Dee,

Information request in the interests of justice.
A Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice by Derek
Canning LLB [HONS]

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Derek Canning
LLB [HONS] to read a recent response and update the status.
Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

12 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Dear CPS, Home Office, IPCC, Minister Justice and Northumbria
Police

Reference: Information request in relation to which organ of the
government is responsible for supplying the information in relation
my questions below, who sets the powers of the RSPB and who is
responsible to control and oversee the powers of the RSPB?. The
responsibility is being passed about like a hot potato.

Which organ [servants of the people] of the democratically elected
government is responsible for the issues below? 1] Supplying the
information in relation to my questions below? 2] Who sets the
powers of the RSPB? 3] Who is responsible to control and oversee
the powers of the RSPB? 4] Who do I supply the information in
relation to bogus information being used to get search warrant so
the matter can be investigated? The police are ignoring our letters
and the IPCC are allowing the police not to investigate with the
only justification that it has taken too long to complaint. Given
that it is the police, RSPB and others external bodies to use that
are causing the delay by withhold evidence how can it be justified
to say our serious complaints in relation to a national conspiracy
to pervert the course of justice cannot be investigated as we the
victims have waited too long. Interestingly no one in thirteen year
has said that any element of our complaint is wrong or not truthful
instead there has been a cover up. For example the police have
removed a video from You Tube of the Police and the RSPB kicking
some ones door in, however they did leave the confidential
statement from the RSPB that lied [documented fact backed up by a
video] about the RSPB being asked to leave as the representative of
the RSPB was not on the search warrant, on a Forum called Hunting
Life but the police names were removed. Now if I am not telling the
truth I should be prosecuted for harassment and the RSPB would have
taken their millions of pounds and sued me be now. In other word I
have the shield of truth on my side and various organisations are
hoping it will all go away however it will all be going on a
website. A lot has already been published and no one has ever
challenged the truthfulness of our complaints. 5] HOW IS A PERSON
FROM THE RSPB WHO HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED PERJURY IN THE
JOHN DODSWORTH’S CASE IN OCTOBER 2008 [THE COURT TRANSCRIPT AND
POLICE STATEMENTS HAVE ALRERADY BEEN SUPLIED AND YOU HAVE HEARD THE
OPEN COURT STATEMENT FROM THE SOLICITOR INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND
WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY] ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO BE ENTRUSTED TO
INVESTIGATE AND HANDLE FURTHER EVIDENCE WHILE THE INVESTIGATION
INTO HIS CRIMES ARE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER SEPTEMBER? The matter
needs to be looked at immediately to negate the potential of any
new crimes.

In summary I would make the following statement of truth and
challenges all to say where I am wrong. Various people have made
serious complaint about the RSPB and the police but to date the
police are ignoring our complaints or asked the iPCC permission not
to investigate the crimes as the complaints has not been made
within a very short period. This is of course a self fulfilling
agenda as it is the police and others that are withholding the
information that we need which is one of the main reason that the
complaints have been delayed. For example since 1994 I have been
waiting for the report done on me by the RSPB. Other people have
had the reports done on them given to them so why am I different?
The answer is that I am not different; the answer is there are
things in the report that will support my complaints and others. If
this is wrong then show me the report. If there was nothing in the
report to support my claims then the police and CPS, IPCC and Home
Office would simple disclose the report to negate my complaints as
they have done with other people. I would ask the CPS to ANSWER my
letters in relation to this point. Furthermore, all the letters
that are being ignored complaining about the RSPB and the police
need to be answered fully by addressing each element of the
complaints and an explanation of the investigation into each
element and the conclusion. A meeting with all the people that are
complaining would then be useful to expand and explain any
difficult points of evidence.

We do not want confrontation we want the police to investigate our
complaints and we want a Hillsborough type investigation headed by
a senior judge. Most of all we want justice and transparency and
not letters saying there has been a ‘through investigation’ but you
cannot see the report, you just have to trust that we have
correctly investigated ourselves about our organisation breaking
the law. Just like turkeys will never vote for Christmas people
investigating their own organisation need to be completely open to
the complainants for obvious reasons.

Dear Mr Canning

My response is in red next to each question in the list below.

Regards

Lynn Beaufort 1/07 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6EB
0117 3728591 0117 372 8373 (fax) 1371 ext 8591 (GTN) From: [email
address] [mailto:[email address]] Sent: 05 June 2009 20:29 To:
Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity) Subject: search warrant

Please answer questions that the Home Office say is your remit.

Download original attachment Attachment to FOI request 'Can you
please supply any guidance or rules covering the following issues
especially any instructions given to the police and the RSPB?'
(HTML version)

Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035
4742 E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

[email address] Mr Ross Errington Reference: T7363/9 Dear Mr
Errington, Thank you for your e-mail of 28 April 2:13:32 PM seeking
copies of guidance issued to the police and RSPB in relation to
search warrants. I regret that as the majority of your questions
relate to the powers of RSPB officials the Home Office is not able
to respond fully to your questions. The Home Office does not lead
on animal welfare matters, including the status and enforcement
powers, if any, of animal welfare charities such as the RSPB, RSPCA
etc. This is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs so you will need to send your enquiry to them at
[email address]. What I can advise on is matters relating to the
exercise of police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act (PACE) 1984 and the accompanying Codes of Practice. These
provide the core framework of investigative powers for the police
including the execution of search warrants. The Act can be found on
the Ministry of Justice Statute Law database at
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx. PACE Code B, which covers
powers to search premises and seize property, can be accessed on
the Home Office PACE Codes webpage at
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio....
Section 67(9) of PACE states that “Persons other than police
officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or
charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard
to any relevant provision of a [PACE] code.” This duty is held by
Joy v Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd [1993] Crim.L.R. 588
DC to apply to any type of legal duty whether imposed by statute,
common law or by contract. The duty only applies in so far as the
provisions of the Codes are relevant. Not all investigating bodies
have the same statutory powers or duties and section 67(9) of PACE
does not confer statutory police powers onto other persons. In
terms of your specific questions: 1] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally caution me? Please refer this question
to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers. Defra do not lead on RSPB powers.
The RSPB is a registered charity, you should ask the RSPB to list
any powers they may have. 2] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally swear out a search warrant at a
magistrates Court under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
s15? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers.
See the answer at question 1. 3] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally and actively search for evidence
without the police next to them even if the RSPB are mentioned on a
search warrant and after they have been told to leave by the land
owner? I cannot advise on search warrants applied for and executed
by RSPB officials. However, where the police apply for a search
warrant paragraph 3.6(f) of PACE Code B states that the application
must, if applicable, seek authorisation for other persons to
accompany the officer who executes the warrant. See above Under
section 16 of PACE where a warrant authorises other person to
accompany the officer executing the warrant the authorised persons
have the same powers as the officer in terms of the execution of
the warrant and seizure of anything to which the warrant relates.
It also requires that such authorised persons may only exercise
these powers in the company, and under the supervision of, a
constable. 4] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
legally search by themselves, without any police officer in site,
someone property, given the fact that the RSPB are only on the
premise to advice on what the police find? Please see the reply to
question 3 with regards to search warrants applied for and executed
by the police. Please see the answer to question 1 above 5] Can the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally take primary
evidence and property from the person's home that is being searched
straight to the RSPB Head Quarters or does all evidence have to be
taken to a police station and stay at the police station involved
in the raid where it can be seen and supervised while the evidence
is investigated? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on
RSPB powers. If property is seized under a warrant applied for and
executed by the police it must be taken to the police station. PACE
Code B provides further information on the framework for seizure,
retention and return of property. See answer to question 1 above.
6] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally help
the police search someone's home via a search warrant that does not
name them at all and they have been told to leave by the owner of
the property as he is worried about the RSPB'S motives? Please see
the reply to question 3. See above. If you are dissatisfied with
this response you may request an independent internal review of our
handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two
months to the address below quoting reference 11982. Information
Rights Team Information and Record Management Service Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Email:
[email address] During the independent review the department's
handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff
who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should
you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established
by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. I realise that
this response may be a disappointment to you. However I would like
to assure you that we do not hold the majority of the information
that you asked for. Yours sincerely, Shanaz Khanche Policing Powers
and Protection Unit

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to
use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should
destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated
attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within
Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our
systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be
monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the
system and for other lawful purposes.

Mr Canning

I can repeat that Defra do not lead on RSPB powers and that the
information on execution of warrants as stated by Home Office is
correct. Individual cases cannot be commented on, but the
Magistrate’s Courts, who issue warrants, do follow strict guide
lines when considering applications for a warrant. The Magistrates’
Courts are run through Her Majesty’s Court Services (hmcs) and I
attach a link below for you. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/

Regards

Lynn Beaufort 1/07 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6EB
0117 3728591 0117 372 8373 (fax) 1371 ext 8591 (GTN) From: [email
address] [mailto:[email address]] Sent: 10 June 2009 18:07 To:
Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity); [email address] Subject: Re: search
warrant

In a message dated 10/06/2009 17:17:34 GMT Standard Time, [email
address] writes: Dear Mr Canning

My response is in red next to each question in the list below.

Regards

Lynn Beaufort 1/07 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6EB
0117 3728591 0117 372 8373 (fax) 1371 ext 8591 (GTN) From: [email
address] [mailto:[email address]] Sent: 05 June 2009 20:29 To:
Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity) Subject: search warrant

Please answer questions that the Home Office say is your remit.

Download original attachment Attachment to FOI request 'Can you
please supply any guidance or rules covering the following issues
especially any instructions given to the police and the RSPB?'
(HTML version)

Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035
4742 E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

[email address] Mr Ross Errington Reference: T7363/9 Dear Mr
Errington, Thank you for your e-mail of 28 April 2:13:32 PM seeking
copies of guidance issued to the police and RSPB in relation to
search warrants. I regret that as the majority of your questions
relate to the powers of RSPB officials the Home Office is not able
to respond fully to your questions. The Home Office does not lead
on animal welfare matters, including the status and enforcement
powers, if any, of animal welfare charities such as the RSPB, RSPCA
etc. This is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs so you will need to send your enquiry to them at
[email address]. What I can advise on is matters relating to the
exercise of police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act (PACE) 1984 and the accompanying Codes of Practice. These
provide the core framework of investigative powers for the police
including the execution of search warrants. The Act can be found on
the Ministry of Justice Statute Law database at
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx. PACE Code B, which covers
powers to search premises and seize property, can be accessed on
the Home Office PACE Codes webpage at
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio....
Section 67(9) of PACE states that “Persons other than police
officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or
charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard
to any relevant provision of a [PACE] code.” This duty is held by
Joy v Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd [1993] Crim.L.R. 588
DC to apply to any type of legal duty whether imposed by statute,
common law or by contract. The duty only applies in so far as the
provisions of the Codes are relevant. Not all investigating bodies
have the same statutory powers or duties and section 67(9) of PACE
does not confer statutory police powers onto other persons. In
terms of your specific questions: 1] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally caution me? Please refer this question
to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers. Defra do not lead on RSPB powers.
The RSPB is a registered charity, you should ask the RSPB to list
any powers they may have. 2] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally swear out a search warrant at a
magistrates Court under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
s15? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers.
See the answer at question 1. 3] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally and actively search for evidence
without the police next to them even if the RSPB are mentioned on a
search warrant and after they have been told to leave by the land
owner? I cannot advise on search warrants applied for and executed
by RSPB officials. However, where the police apply for a search
warrant paragraph 3.6(f) of PACE Code B states that the application
must, if applicable, seek authorisation for other persons to
accompany the officer who executes the warrant. See above Under
section 16 of PACE where a warrant authorises other person to
accompany the officer executing the warrant the authorised persons
have the same powers as the officer in terms of the execution of
the warrant and seizure of anything to which the warrant relates.
It also requires that such authorised persons may only exercise
these powers in the company, and under the supervision of, a
constable. 4] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
legally search by themselves, without any police officer in site,
someone property, given the fact that the RSPB are only on the
premise to advice on what the police find? Please see the reply to
question 3 with regards to search warrants applied for and executed
by the police. Please see the answer to question 1 above 5] Can the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally take primary
evidence and property from the person's home that is being searched
straight to the RSPB Head Quarters or does all evidence have to be
taken to a police station and stay at the police station involved
in the raid where it can be seen and supervised while the evidence
is investigated? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on
RSPB powers. If property is seized under a warrant applied for and
executed by the police it must be taken to the police station. PACE
Code B provides further information on the framework for seizure,
retention and return of property. See answer to question 1 above.
6] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally help
the police search someone's home via a search warrant that does not
name them at all and they have been told to leave by the owner of
the property as he is worried about the RSPB'S motives? Please see
the reply to question 3. See above. If you are dissatisfied with
this response you may request an independent internal review of our
handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two
months to the address below quoting reference 11982. Information
Rights Team Information and Record Management Service Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Email:
[email address] During the independent review the department's
handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff
who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should
you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established
by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. I realise that
this response may be a disappointment to you. However I would like
to assure you that we do not hold the majority of the information
that you asked for. Yours sincerely, Shanaz Khanche Policing Powers
and Protection Unit

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to
use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should
destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated
attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within
Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our
systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be
monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the
system and for other lawful purposes. SO THE HOME OFFICE IS WRING?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's
handling of my FOI request 'Information request in the interests of
justice.'.

Please comply with your legal obligations and supply the
information requested.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/in...

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Wright, Hannah,

If you look at this forum you will see that I have made an
information request. Also note the letter below.

----- Original Message -----
From: Granville Rooley
Subject: analysis of information GR

Mark Robb --- Analysis of information.

1. On 21st June of 2006 it is apparent that Defra have decided to
carry out a full inspection, apparently based upon the “report”
(not seen) of a person called Martine who apparently suggests that
MR does not know what birds he has. This appears to be connected to
A10 applications. Internally they were content that this should be
an announced visit.
Such a visit would be in accordance with the powers granted by the
act and although perhaps unusual, would not be inconsistent with
their duties.

2. Such a visit was not arranged, nor was there any attempt to make
any such arrangements.

3. The next documented event is that on 3/10/06 PC Rasbeary upon
the authority of Police Inspector Hunter applies for the warrant,
which states that Northumbria Police received information in July
of peregrine eggs being passed to MR. On the face of it this
warrant is properly applied for and granted. However, the original
source of the information is not known.
(i) Assuming that Northumbria received “anonymous” information I
would not normally expect that to be acted upon. The first question
that any police officer would wish to know is how reliable the
source of the information was. It is also clear that for the
information to be passed to NY police someone has recorded what was
said, considered it and then sent it on.
(ii) If the information was received in July – the question is then
why does it take until 3/10 to process? When did NYP receive the
information?
(iii) The possibilities are that there was delay in Northumbria or
in NY / or both. Alternatively, the information was not in fact
received in July, but about events in July.
(iv) The key question is who was the source of the information? It
may be anyone and you suggest that it was Shorrock, but there is no
evidence of this, that I have seen.

4. If the police did not receive the information until close upon
the application for the warrant and in view of the decision on 21st
June (but not actioned), it is a reasonable inference that a
different approach has been decided upon. The question is who was
involved in those discussions? The possibilities are:
Members of WLRS: JNCC: DEFRA: RSPB or Police.

5. Assuming that there was an agreement to provide the police with
false information, in order to obtain the warrant, it is fairly
clear that the NY police would not themselves be in the know.
Although, this does not rule out the possibility that some senior
officer was consulted. However, this seems unlikely because the
only reason that makes sense of reporting it in Northumbria is to
ensure that NYP are not “tainted” or that NYP do not ask any
embarrassing questions.
The story is clearly wrong and depends upon the police “ignorance”
of any detailed knowledge of the breeding habits of peregrines.
This suggests a person reporting who is “knowledgeable” about the
limitations of the police and whom the police may consider to be
reliable.
It may be self evident that any such agreement would be a
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The parties to it are
agreeing to a course of conduct whereby the Court system is being
used to further an investigation, that ultimately leads to arrest
and detention at a police station. In between, evidence on oath is
given by a police officer to obtain the warrant, based upon a
fabricated story.

6. The timing of the event is peculiar, but is also suggestive of a
degree of knowledge and also of a wider agenda.
(i) It is a fact that WLRS have the information as to the export
licences granted. This is significant because any egg stolen in the
earlier part of the year would by this stage have hatched. But as a
fact they do not concentrate upon the only birds that may have had
relevance to the stated reason for the necessity of the warrant.
(ii) If they were interested in the young birds then the obvious
point at which to enter is prior to those birds being exported. If
they really did have concerns about ensuring that they were captive
bred birds then the more birds that could be tested the better.
(iii) It is a fact that if one were wishing to “launder” wild
bred/caught birds then these would, logically, be the ones to
export sooner rather than later.
(iv) If, however, the intention was to cause as much disruption as
possible to a breeding programme, then with the necessary knowledge
this would be an ideal time of year to begin such activity. I say
“begin”, because on the face of it there is no logical explanation
for the further 2 visits and the necessity for birds to be caught
on each of those occasions. The only explanation that makes sense,
is that either the investigation was completely inept or from the
beginning it was intended that there should be more than one visit.
Ignoring the police, all other persons involved were supposedly
experienced or had the necessary knowledge. It follows that either
they were ignorant or that the investigation and evidence gathering
was deliberately “bungled”, knowing that the police would not know
any better!
I do not believe that with all the persons from WLRS and supposedly
experienced bird handlers that this was conducted by incompetents.
I consider that it is a reasonable inference that this was part of
the plan by those involved in the creation of it in the first
place.
In expressing this view I do not mean to imply that all present
were aware of what was intended. There appears to be a core of 3/4
persons involved.
(v) The evidence of the “wider” agenda arises not only from the
timing of the visits (in particular) the last visit, but also from
the conduct (for example) of Mr. Bedman. He was there as
representative of animal health and can be presumed to have all
necessary knowledge. He was unable to recognise a pure bred Saker
falcon and thus caused it to be caught up when it was not required
by law to be registered. Further he was the person who was cutting
off rings of registered birds. This suggests that these actions
were deliberate and accords with what had happened to some dead
birds from the earlier visit. The only purpose of doing this would
be to create “illegal” possession or to require the owner to stress
the birds further by necessitating micro-chipping. Was this a
“bungled attempt” at setting the owner up to have illegal birds
when all the evidence gathered to that point proved the opposite?
(vi) It is a matter of record that WLRS/ Defra are not approving of
this client.

7. All of the information leads to the reasonable inference that
this was a conspiracy to try to bring this client down, either in
the hope that an offence would be revealed or to make his breeding
programme so uneconomic that the business had to close. It may even
have been a combination of both. However, the problem lies in
trying to identify who was involved in this conspiracy and having
the evidence to prove it.
(i) I discount the idea that there was police involvement in what
has happened. It seems to me that all of the information shows that
they were merely the tools used by those who made the decisions.
This is to an extent supported by the fact, that on none of the
visits do the police seem to have tried to direct the
investigation. They appear to have used their authority (perhaps
inappropriately at times) to effect entry and then left those they
considered experienced in these matters to get on with it.
(ii) The most likely scenario in my view involves the combination
of RSPB and Defra and or WLRS. I realise that Defra and WLRS are
part of the same organisation, but they are different
“sub-sections” and thus involvement of the different parts needs to
be considered. A reasonable inference from the information is that
at some point in June or July there was a meeting between a member
of the enforcement department of Defra, WLRS and RSPB. Possibly the
JNCC may also have been represented. At such a suggested meeting, a
discussion took place as to what to do about our client. At that
meeting in the end there was an agreement that a complaint be made
concerning taking eggs from the wild and that this should be made
to Northumbria, so as to ensure that no one tipped off the client
and to ensure that NYP were kept in the dark.
I consider that the precise details were not then worked out as the
manner in which this happened seems to have elements of “making it
up as you go along”. I do consider that the actual unlawful
agreement was entered into, with the realisation that if the matter
was stated clearly enough to the operatives (not involved directly
in the agreement), then they would simply do what they normally do.
This is evidenced by the police clear belief that the client had
“illegal birds” and their determination that this was the position.
For the police to be “certain” before their visits this must have
been clearly stated to them. The only possible sources of this are
RSPB as represented by Shorrock and the representatives of Animal
Health. It is for this reason that I identify the potential
participants of the conspiracy.
(iii) This is in my view supported by the fact that the police
insist that the further review by CPS was at the instigation of
“another agency”. Was this RSPB or Defra (in its widest context)?

8. Whilst I am convinced that this analysis is correct, I have not
seen any evidence that any one individual can be identified as
being a party to this conspiracy. Clearly the identity of the
Northumbria informant should be able to be established and he or
she must be part of the conspiracy. I say this because even if that
person were not directly involved he/she had to be given the story
and told to report it. That person was clearly knowingly giving
false information. If one person can be identified then it would be
possible to mount a prosecution upon the basis that person
conspired with other unknown persons to pervert the course of
justice.
The evidence in connection with this should be able to be
discovered by the police investigation into our clients’ complaint.
However, the problem then is whether the police will be prepared to
disclose those details.
I would hope that the police have in fact followed the evidence
trail to discover who was involved with the “conspiracy” meeting
where all of this was planned – at least in principal. If they have
then the participants can be identified, but again will they share
this information?
I do not know a way of voluntarily being able to get this
information disclosed, short of some legal proceedings being
commenced. I can only imagine some kind of civil procedure, perhaps
allied to or linked with suing the police and or Defra in
connection with a claim for damages arising from the negligent
manner in which the investigation was handled. I am not a civil
lawyer and do not therefore advise in any respect concerning any
such course of action.

9. To begin a private prosecution for an offence of conspiracy will
require appropriate “criminal justice act” statements that show
that prima facie there was an agreement the terms of which, if
carried through, would amount to the commission of an offence.
Clearly if Mr X agrees with Mr. Y to make false reports to the
police so that officers on oath mislead a Court to gain entry to
premises by the obtaining of a warrant then a criminal conspiracy
occurs at the time of the agreement, even if it were not followed
through. In view of the fact that such an offence can only be tried
at Crown Court and there is a necessity to serve statements to
“prove” the offence prior to any such trial, it is essential that
all evidence is obtained and is in place, prior to the commencement
of any such action.
There is no time limit on the bringing of such proceedings, but the
Court has the inherent power to stop any proceedings if it amounts
to an abuse of the process of the Court. Also, under the
Prosecution of Offences Act the CPS have the right to take over any
private prosecution even if only for the purposes of “dropping” it.
It follows that any private prosecution must be as close to perfect
before issuing any summons.

10. In conclusion I would advise that the police complete their
enquiries into the complaint that has been made and then see what
they propose to do. In the mean time consideration can be given to
how the necessary evidence can be obtained. It may be that as this
is essentially revolving around the conduct of government
department employees further contact with the MP may be appropriate
to see what (if any) influence he has that may gain answers to some
of the “thorny” issues. However, it is fairly likely that until the
police have completed their enquiries that no one will wish to
interfere.
In due course there is a right to interview (for a fee) any serving
police officer to obtain a statement. That officer is entitled to
have present a senior officer during such an interview. If they do
not voluntarily supply copies of any statements that they have
already made, this may be a way of getting evidence from them, but
would be a long and expensive process.
________________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1521 - Release Date:
26/06/2008 11:20
________________________________________
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database:

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Wright, Hannah,

Here it is again.

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

12 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

Dear CPS, Home Office, IPCC, Minister Justice and Northumbria
Police

Reference: Information request in relation to which organ of the
government is responsible for supplying the information in relation
my questions below, who sets the powers of the RSPB and who is
responsible to control and oversee the powers of the RSPB?. The
responsibility is being passed about like a hot potato.

Which organ [servants of the people] of the democratically elected
government is responsible for the issues below? 1] Supplying the
information in relation to my questions below? 2] Who sets the
powers of the RSPB? 3] Who is responsible to control and oversee
the powers of the RSPB? 4] Who do I supply the information in
relation to bogus information being used to get search warrant so
the matter can be investigated? The police are ignoring our letters
and the IPCC are allowing the police not to investigate with the
only justification that it has taken too long to complaint. Given
that it is the police, RSPB and others external bodies to use that
are causing the delay by withhold evidence how can it be justified
to say our serious complaints in relation to a national conspiracy
to pervert the course of justice cannot be investigated as we the
victims have waited too long. Interestingly no one in thirteen year
has said that any element of our complaint is wrong or not truthful
instead there has been a cover up. For example the police have
removed a video from You Tube of the Police and the RSPB kicking
some ones door in, however they did leave the confidential
statement from the RSPB that lied [documented fact backed up by a
video] about the RSPB being asked to leave as the representative of
the RSPB was not on the search warrant, on a Forum called Hunting
Life but the police names were removed. Now if I am not telling the
truth I should be prosecuted for harassment and the RSPB would have
taken their millions of pounds and sued me be now. In other word I
have the shield of truth on my side and various organisations are
hoping it will all go away however it will all be going on a
website. A lot has already been published and no one has ever
challenged the truthfulness of our complaints. 5] HOW IS A PERSON
FROM THE RSPB WHO HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED PERJURY IN THE
JOHN DODSWORTH’S CASE IN OCTOBER 2008 [THE COURT TRANSCRIPT AND
POLICE STATEMENTS HAVE ALRERADY BEEN SUPLIED AND YOU HAVE HEARD THE
OPEN COURT STATEMENT FROM THE SOLICITOR INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND
WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY] ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO BE ENTRUSTED TO
INVESTIGATE AND HANDLE FURTHER EVIDENCE WHILE THE INVESTIGATION
INTO HIS CRIMES ARE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER SEPTEMBER? The matter
needs to be looked at immediately to negate the potential of any
new crimes.

In summary I would make the following statement of truth and
challenges all to say where I am wrong. Various people have made
serious complaint about the RSPB and the police but to date the
police are ignoring our complaints or asked the iPCC permission not
to investigate the crimes as the complaints has not been made
within a very short period. This is of course a self fulfilling
agenda as it is the police and others that are withholding the
information that we need which is one of the main reason that the
complaints have been delayed. For example since 1994 I have been
waiting for the report done on me by the RSPB. Other people have
had the reports done on them given to them so why am I different?
The answer is that I am not different; the answer is there are
things in the report that will support my complaints and others. If
this is wrong then show me the report. If there was nothing in the
report to support my claims then the police and CPS, IPCC and Home
Office would simple disclose the report to negate my complaints as
they have done with other people. I would ask the CPS to ANSWER my
letters in relation to this point. Furthermore, all the letters
that are being ignored complaining about the RSPB and the police
need to be answered fully by addressing each element of the
complaints and an explanation of the investigation into each
element and the conclusion. A meeting with all the people that are
complaining would then be useful to expand and explain any
difficult points of evidence.

We do not want confrontation we want the police to investigate our
complaints and we want a Hillsborough type investigation headed by
a senior judge. Most of all we want justice and transparency and
not letters saying there has been a ‘through investigation’ but you
cannot see the report, you just have to trust that we have
correctly investigated ourselves about our organisation breaking
the law. Just like turkeys will never vote for Christmas people
investigating their own organisation need to be completely open to
the complainants for obvious reasons.

Dear Mr Canning

My response is in red next to each question in the list below.

Regards

Lynn Beaufort 1/07 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6EB
0117 3728591 0117 372 8373 (fax) 1371 ext 8591 (GTN) From: [email
address] [mailto:[email address]] Sent: 05 June 2009 20:29 To:
Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity) Subject: search warrant

Please answer questions that the Home Office say is your remit.

Download original attachment Attachment to FOI request 'Can you
please supply any guidance or rules covering the following issues
especially any instructions given to the police and the RSPB?'
(HTML version)

Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035
4742 E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

[email address] Mr Ross Errington Reference: T7363/9 Dear Mr
Errington, Thank you for your e-mail of 28 April 2:13:32 PM seeking
copies of guidance issued to the police and RSPB in relation to
search warrants. I regret that as the majority of your questions
relate to the powers of RSPB officials the Home Office is not able
to respond fully to your questions. The Home Office does not lead
on animal welfare matters, including the status and enforcement
powers, if any, of animal welfare charities such as the RSPB, RSPCA
etc. This is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs so you will need to send your enquiry to them at
[email address]. What I can advise on is matters relating to the
exercise of police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act (PACE) 1984 and the accompanying Codes of Practice. These
provide the core framework of investigative powers for the police
including the execution of search warrants. The Act can be found on
the Ministry of Justice Statute Law database at
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx. PACE Code B, which covers
powers to search premises and seize property, can be accessed on
the Home Office PACE Codes webpage at
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio....
Section 67(9) of PACE states that “Persons other than police
officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or
charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard
to any relevant provision of a [PACE] code.” This duty is held by
Joy v Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd [1993] Crim.L.R. 588
DC to apply to any type of legal duty whether imposed by statute,
common law or by contract. The duty only applies in so far as the
provisions of the Codes are relevant. Not all investigating bodies
have the same statutory powers or duties and section 67(9) of PACE
does not confer statutory police powers onto other persons. In
terms of your specific questions: 1] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally caution me? Please refer this question
to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers. Defra do not lead on RSPB powers.
The RSPB is a registered charity, you should ask the RSPB to list
any powers they may have. 2] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally swear out a search warrant at a
magistrates Court under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
s15? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers.
See the answer at question 1. 3] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally and actively search for evidence
without the police next to them even if the RSPB are mentioned on a
search warrant and after they have been told to leave by the land
owner? I cannot advise on search warrants applied for and executed
by RSPB officials. However, where the police apply for a search
warrant paragraph 3.6(f) of PACE Code B states that the application
must, if applicable, seek authorisation for other persons to
accompany the officer who executes the warrant. See above Under
section 16 of PACE where a warrant authorises other person to
accompany the officer executing the warrant the authorised persons
have the same powers as the officer in terms of the execution of
the warrant and seizure of anything to which the warrant relates.
It also requires that such authorised persons may only exercise
these powers in the company, and under the supervision of, a
constable. 4] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
legally search by themselves, without any police officer in site,
someone property, given the fact that the RSPB are only on the
premise to advice on what the police find? Please see the reply to
question 3 with regards to search warrants applied for and executed
by the police. Please see the answer to question 1 above 5] Can the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally take primary
evidence and property from the person's home that is being searched
straight to the RSPB Head Quarters or does all evidence have to be
taken to a police station and stay at the police station involved
in the raid where it can be seen and supervised while the evidence
is investigated? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on
RSPB powers. If property is seized under a warrant applied for and
executed by the police it must be taken to the police station. PACE
Code B provides further information on the framework for seizure,
retention and return of property. See answer to question 1 above.
6] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally help
the police search someone's home via a search warrant that does not
name them at all and they have been told to leave by the owner of
the property as he is worried about the RSPB'S motives? Please see
the reply to question 3. See above. If you are dissatisfied with
this response you may request an independent internal review of our
handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two
months to the address below quoting reference 11982. Information
Rights Team Information and Record Management Service Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Email:
[email address] During the independent review the department's
handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff
who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should
you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established
by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. I realise that
this response may be a disappointment to you. However I would like
to assure you that we do not hold the majority of the information
that you asked for. Yours sincerely, Shanaz Khanche Policing Powers
and Protection Unit

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to
use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should
destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated
attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within
Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our
systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be
monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the
system and for other lawful purposes.

Mr Canning

I can repeat that Defra do not lead on RSPB powers and that the
information on execution of warrants as stated by Home Office is
correct. Individual cases cannot be commented on, but the
Magistrate’s Courts, who issue warrants, do follow strict guide
lines when considering applications for a warrant. The Magistrates’
Courts are run through Her Majesty’s Court Services (hmcs) and I
attach a link below for you. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/

Regards

Lynn Beaufort 1/07 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6EB
0117 3728591 0117 372 8373 (fax) 1371 ext 8591 (GTN) From: [email
address] [mailto:[email address]] Sent: 10 June 2009 18:07 To:
Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity); [email address] Subject: Re: search
warrant

In a message dated 10/06/2009 17:17:34 GMT Standard Time, [email
address] writes: Dear Mr Canning

My response is in red next to each question in the list below.

Regards

Lynn Beaufort 1/07 Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6EB
0117 3728591 0117 372 8373 (fax) 1371 ext 8591 (GTN) From: [email
address] [mailto:[email address]] Sent: 05 June 2009 20:29 To:
Beaufort, Lynn (Biodiversity) Subject: search warrant

Please answer questions that the Home Office say is your remit.

Download original attachment Attachment to FOI request 'Can you
please supply any guidance or rules covering the following issues
especially any instructions given to the police and the RSPB?'
(HTML version)

Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035
4742 E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

[email address] Mr Ross Errington Reference: T7363/9 Dear Mr
Errington, Thank you for your e-mail of 28 April 2:13:32 PM seeking
copies of guidance issued to the police and RSPB in relation to
search warrants. I regret that as the majority of your questions
relate to the powers of RSPB officials the Home Office is not able
to respond fully to your questions. The Home Office does not lead
on animal welfare matters, including the status and enforcement
powers, if any, of animal welfare charities such as the RSPB, RSPCA
etc. This is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs so you will need to send your enquiry to them at
[email address]. What I can advise on is matters relating to the
exercise of police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act (PACE) 1984 and the accompanying Codes of Practice. These
provide the core framework of investigative powers for the police
including the execution of search warrants. The Act can be found on
the Ministry of Justice Statute Law database at
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx. PACE Code B, which covers
powers to search premises and seize property, can be accessed on
the Home Office PACE Codes webpage at
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operatio....
Section 67(9) of PACE states that “Persons other than police
officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or
charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard
to any relevant provision of a [PACE] code.” This duty is held by
Joy v Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd [1993] Crim.L.R. 588
DC to apply to any type of legal duty whether imposed by statute,
common law or by contract. The duty only applies in so far as the
provisions of the Codes are relevant. Not all investigating bodies
have the same statutory powers or duties and section 67(9) of PACE
does not confer statutory police powers onto other persons. In
terms of your specific questions: 1] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally caution me? Please refer this question
to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers. Defra do not lead on RSPB powers.
The RSPB is a registered charity, you should ask the RSPB to list
any powers they may have. 2] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally swear out a search warrant at a
magistrates Court under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
s15? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on RSPB powers.
See the answer at question 1. 3] Can the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds legally and actively search for evidence
without the police next to them even if the RSPB are mentioned on a
search warrant and after they have been told to leave by the land
owner? I cannot advise on search warrants applied for and executed
by RSPB officials. However, where the police apply for a search
warrant paragraph 3.6(f) of PACE Code B states that the application
must, if applicable, seek authorisation for other persons to
accompany the officer who executes the warrant. See above Under
section 16 of PACE where a warrant authorises other person to
accompany the officer executing the warrant the authorised persons
have the same powers as the officer in terms of the execution of
the warrant and seizure of anything to which the warrant relates.
It also requires that such authorised persons may only exercise
these powers in the company, and under the supervision of, a
constable. 4] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
legally search by themselves, without any police officer in site,
someone property, given the fact that the RSPB are only on the
premise to advice on what the police find? Please see the reply to
question 3 with regards to search warrants applied for and executed
by the police. Please see the answer to question 1 above 5] Can the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally take primary
evidence and property from the person's home that is being searched
straight to the RSPB Head Quarters or does all evidence have to be
taken to a police station and stay at the police station involved
in the raid where it can be seen and supervised while the evidence
is investigated? Please refer this question to DEFRA who lead on
RSPB powers. If property is seized under a warrant applied for and
executed by the police it must be taken to the police station. PACE
Code B provides further information on the framework for seizure,
retention and return of property. See answer to question 1 above.
6] Can the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds legally help
the police search someone's home via a search warrant that does not
name them at all and they have been told to leave by the owner of
the property as he is worried about the RSPB'S motives? Please see
the reply to question 3. See above. If you are dissatisfied with
this response you may request an independent internal review of our
handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two
months to the address below quoting reference 11982. Information
Rights Team Information and Record Management Service Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Email:
[email address] During the independent review the department's
handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff
who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should
you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established
by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. I realise that
this response may be a disappointment to you. However I would like
to assure you that we do not hold the majority of the information
that you asked for. Yours sincerely, Shanaz Khanche Policing Powers
and Protection Unit

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient
only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to
use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should
destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated
attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within
Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our
systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be
monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the
system and for other lawful purposes. SO THE HOME OFFICE IS WRING?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]