Dear Sir or Madam,

Given what I have just found in Hansard could you please supply the
information on what you can do in relation to investigating the
fact that Parliament intended that the burden of proof should be on
the prosecution in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 however it
has been wrongly placed on the defendant for many years?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE HL Deb 15
March 1983 vol 440 c718WA 718WA

§ Lord Melchett

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why, in respect of the shooting of a barnacle goose on Islay on
25th October 1982, the procurator fiscal decided that no
proceedings should be taken, and whether the procurator fiscal
decided, as with an incident that occurred on 27th January 1983 on
Islay, that no offence had been committed.

§ The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

In deciding whether the facts as disclosed to the procurator fiscal
justified the taking of proceedings under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, the procurator fiscal had to decide whether
an offence had been committed, whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove the alleged offence against the accused and
whether there was any excuse for the accused's conduct. The
decision in respect of the incident of 25th October 1982 involved
the exercise of a judgment by the procurator fiscal taking all the
circumstances into consideration. It would not be appropriate to
give the detailed grounds upon which the decision was taken. I have
examined the circumstances of the case, and am satisfied that the
procurator fiscal exercised his judgment in a proper manner.

Forward to CIDER: PRODUCTION AND TAXATION

Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Mr Canning,

Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

We have had a look at your request and we are quite unclear as to what information you are seeking. I would, therefore, be grateful if you could clarify your request so that we can it forward.

I propose to take no further action until I hear from you.

Kind regards,

Yasmine Edwards
FOI Team
Cabinet Office

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

I want the information on the powers of your organisation to
investigate the fact the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has
wrongly put the burden of proof on the defendant even though
Hansard said it should be on the prosecution to prove the offence.
I also want an investigation into the matter and how the RSPB have
controlled the situation.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Mr Canning,

Thank you for your email.

Please note the FOI Act is about access to recorded information. The Act
does not cover creating new information to respond to requests. Your
email asking for an investigation into the RSPB is, therefore, not a
valid request under the FOI Act.

If you would like to refine your request taking into consideration that
the Act only covers recorded information and not opinions, we would be
happy to take it forward.

Please get in touch if you have any further queries. I propose to take
no further action unless I hear otherwise from you.

Kind regards,

Yasmine Edwards
FOI Team
Cabinet Office
Tel: 020 7276 2473

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply all the information on burden of proof in relation to
the areas that I have mentioned and the role of the RSPB in
achieving the reversed burden of proof.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Are you going to continue to break the law or are you going to
supply the information requested as I have waited too long already?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you please tell me what has occurred to the internal review
and the information requested?

Yours sincerely,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]