Refusal to prosecute hunting crime by claiming there is 'Insufficient Evidence'.
Thames Valley Police
With reference to:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho... and the Kimblewick hunt captured on CCTV 12/12/20
Specifically:
'Somerset Wildlife Crime said Dorset Police told members they would not press charges because the video did not show proof of “intent” to hunt the animal.'
1. As the Kimblewick investigation also astoundingly resulted in a failure to prosecute, please provide all policy, training and instruction documentation referencing 'intent to hunt an animal' and how it can be demonstrated if video and witness evidence is 'insufficient'.
2. Please also explain why decisions not to prosecute are delayed until the approach of the six-month time limit on summary offences as this is now a standard practice across all forces, allowing no time for the reporters of crime to take action in response. This practice shows unprofessional conduct and a level of unacceptable bias that protects the hunt reported at the expense of the wildlife they kill.
3. On December 12 2020 there was an identical report of illegal hunting made to your force re the Kimblewick. The excellently-high quality CCTV footage, some with sound, was deemed 'insufficient evidence' after that force interviewed the huntsman involved, as he successfully claimed that he had no intention to hunt a wild animal that day despite being captured on video actively encouraging hounds to a successful kill.
4. The inference is that something as subjective as 'intent' is decided by police without reference to the actual reporters of such crimes and in a way which clearly benefits the hunts reported for breaches of the Hunting Act, which is the least-enforced legislation on the statute book.
It thus appears there is a national agreement across all police forces to avoid prosecution costs by this questionable method of excluding inarguable evidence on the word of hunts who will naturally use any means of avoiding justice. This is unacceptable to any reasonable member of the public and calls the policing of hunts into disrepute.
S Rhosier
Thank you for contacting the Joint Information Management Unit. Please accept this reply as acknowledgement that we have received your email and will respond to you in due course.
If you have made an Freedom of Information request, please take this email as acknowledgement that we will respond in due course in accordance with the law. The statutory timeframe is 20 working days.
Please see below a link to the relevant area of our force website which may also assist:- https://www.hampshire.police.uk/rqo/requ... https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/rqo/r...
Internal staff - Although we will aim to get back to you as quickly as possible, please find relevant material on the JIMU intranet/knowzone pages.
Dear sir/madam
Please find the attached response from Thames Valley Police to your
request for recorded information.
Regards
Darren Humphries | Public Access Officer
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police
[email address] | Address Thames Valley Police
Headquarters, Oxford Road, Kidlington, Oxfordshire, OX5 2NX
Thames Valley Police
In response to the latest deliberate refusal to address the matter on which I sought protocols, I have one final question:
How on earth did Chief Constable John Campbell QPM acquire a QPM, [extraneous material removed]
S Rhosier
Public Access TV
Again your force manages to slither away from addressing the fact that you are NOT accountable to anyone. Give yourselves a pat on the back for being so openly corrupt.
S Rhosier
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now