Please provide the legal basis for stopping Perth hunt sabotuers monitoring illegal fox hunts.

Currently waiting for a response from Police Scotland, they should respond promptly and normally no later than (details).

Dear Police Scotland,

I have qualifications in law and after watching this video of hunt monitors getting stopped on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBUybnyH...

and asked to provide their personal details or be arrested, I am requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information Act, (FOI) as I am dubious about the legal grounds for the stop, as well as the legality of the request for personal information and the threat of arrest, as I am about the Officer’s motives for requesting it.

In the video the officer tells the girl that under section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland Act) 1995" any potential witness to an offence is required by law to give their details to the police if required to do. That is true but under section 1 (A) of the self same act, an officer can only do so if they have “reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence.”

As such, can you tell me how your police force enforced the act in 2015 when the video was shot, providing any documents to support it, as I singularly baffled as to what offence the hunt monitors are suspected of committing, or is committing, or what reasonable grounds the police officer would have for thinking so.

I note the police officer’s comments that “the people in the cars were wearing balaclavas, and the people on the horses had complained about them, “which of course they would, if they were illegally fox hunting and wanted a bent police officer to unlawfully detain them while they pursued their illegal fox hunting activities unhindered by the monitors, but alas, I fail to see what offence the hunt monitors are suspected of having committed, or is committing, or what reasonable grounds the police officer would have for thinking so.

As such, police provided the information I have requested as I believe that the hunt monitors are entitle to pursue legal action against you on a number of issues, including harassment and intervening with their right to peaceful protest which is what hunt monitors do at illegal fox hunts.

Yours faithfully,

Andi Ali

Police Scotland

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Freedom of Information request Please provide the legal basis for stopping Perth hunt sabotuers monitoring illegal fox hunts..txt

    3K Download View as HTML

Please accept this message as confirmation that your request has been
received by Police Scotland and will be dealt with under the terms of the
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Please note, this mailbox is FOI request only.
Further details are below if you wish to request personal information,
road traffic incident or crime reports, or other non-FOI related
enquiries.

Requesting personal information held by Police Scotland
Applications must be made under GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018. Please
follow this link -
[1]http://www.scotland.police.uk/access-to-...

Road traffic incident or crime report relating to property which has been
damaged and/or stolen
Please click on this link -
[2]http://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/f....

Non FOI related queries
Please phone 101 or refer to this link -
[3]http://www.scotland.police.uk/contact-us

Kind regards

FOI Team
Police Scotland

References

Visible links
1. http://www.scotland.police.uk/access-to-...
2. http://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/f...
3. http://www.scotland.police.uk/contact-us

Derek Murdoch left an annotation ()

Andi

Think it would be fair to surmise that the alleged offence is more than likely section 38 CJLSA 2010. I am sure most reasonable people on a horse would consider persons following them in a car wearing balaclavas as alarming and to cause them fear wouldn’t you?

But surely by having “qualifications in law” you’d already know this and not need me or Police Scotland to tell you that?

Here’s a link to refresh your law memory if you are a little rusty....

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

Direct from the Scottish Police training material and open source on this website.

Section 1 for the CPSA1995 speaks about high court judges..... so not sure where you’re getting your info about that either. I presume you mean Section 13(1) CPSA1995 regarding potential offences being committed and the requirement for persons to provide details - both witnesses and suspects.

Again here’s another link to brush up on what you actually mean.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/199...

Might be worthwhile just binning this request and considering if it even justifies submission given almost 6 years have now passed? Or if you are personally involved then a complaint through the correct channels and not FOI?

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

Derek,

Given the officer does not state what the alleged offence is, how would I know, or anybody else know for that matter, if section 38 CJLSA 2010 was a more appropriate piece of legalisation to have used here. You can't say what legalisation applies, if you don't know what the offence is.

However, In my view section 38 CJLSA 2010 would not have been more appropriate legalisation to have use because because while under section 1, a person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a)A behaves in a threatening or abusive manner,
(b)the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and
(c)A intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.

Section 2 of the said act states:

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that the behaviour was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

Given the people wearing balaclavas in the cars were hunt monitors following the people on horses because they suspected them of being involved in illegal foxing, I suspect it would not be difficult to prove that the behaviour was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable do you?

I clearly quote section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland Act) 1995" and when I say (!A) of the self same act I mean Section 13 (1A) of the same self act.

Derek Murdoch left an annotation ()

Andi

You clearly have no understanding of Scots law or the powers of Police officers in Scotland to require details. I suggest you reread what I have previously told you and the legislation I have provided you.

However for ease I will say this.

Section 13CPSA1995 gives Police the power to require details of witnesses and suspects if they suspect an offence. The offence here clearly being section 38CJLSA2010. It is an alleged offence by (presumably) the hunts people as they’re being followed in a car by persons wearing masks . The Sergeant in the video clearly knows and uses his powers well.

Wearing a mask and following anybody in a car, hunts person or not, is hardly reasonable to anyone. So I doubt your presumed defence would stand up. But that would be for a sheriff to decide, not the officer who is doing a sterling job. Not to mention the risks of spooking a horse with a car. Perhaps an additional charge of culpable and reckless conduct by the driver of said car?

The “self same act” you refer to is still wrong! Despite me pointing this out. Section13 1A CPSA1995 states -

1A) That information is—

(a)the person's name;

(b)the person's address;

(c)the person's date of birth;

(d)the person's place of birth (in such detail as the constable considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of establishing the person's identity); and

(e)the person's nationality

What you actually should read again is Section 13(1) CPSA1995

As for bent copper!! You’ve clearly been watching too much line of duty.....

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

Derek,
But alas, section 13 1 (A) paragraph B of the self same act says,

(b) any other person whom the constable finds at that place or at any place where the constable is entitled to be and who the constable believes has information relating to the offence.

Given the girl in the back seat has not been told what the offence is, because no offence is being committed, which is why the officer fails to say so, when he was asked to state the offence on several occasions, then the law is being applied wrongly here.

I would suggest to you that the officer knew full well that no offence had being committed, or was being committed, which is why he failed to state what the offence was, despite being asked on several occasions to do so. That is not the behaviour of an "officer doing a sterling job" as you put it, but one who is either at best, grossly incompetent or at worst downright corrupt.

As for your other arguments,

1) Following huntsman around in a car, wearing a mask, on a public highway is not an offence. If it was, then hunt monitors would be arrested all the time - I know of no case, of any hunt monitor being convicted on those grounds. If you do, please state the case. I would be very interested to read it.

2) It is for parliament and not the hunts people to decide what lawfully constitutes an offence, and wearing a mask, in a car, on the public highway is no offence at all, no matter how much the hunt may disapprove.

3) As much as I sympathise with the horse if he was spooked by the people in the car, the fact remains the horse was on a public highway and the people had every right to be there. If you are suggesting, however, the officer had reason to suggest they had been cruel to the horse, he should have said so, and stated the offence he was accusing them of. He did not.

4) As for your claim of "an additional charge of culpable and reckless conduct by the driver of said car?" On what grounds could this charge be brought may I ask?

Dear Police Scotland,

I would just like to clarify that when I say "that is true under section 1 (A) of the self same act," I am referring to section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland Act) 1995 sub section (1) (a) and (b). In particular, part (b) which states or stated at the time:

"any other person whom the constable finds at that place or at any place where the constable is entitled to be and who the constable believes has information relating to the offence,

Yours faithfully,

Andi Ali

Police Scotland

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Re Freedom of Information request Please provide the legal basis for stopping Perth hunt sabotuers monitoring illegal fox hunts..txt

    2K Download View as HTML

Please accept this message as confirmation that your request has been
received by Police Scotland and will be dealt with under the terms of the
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Please note, this mailbox is FOI request only.
Further details are below if you wish to request personal information,
road traffic incident or crime reports, or other non-FOI related
enquiries.

Requesting personal information held by Police Scotland
Applications must be made under GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018. Please
follow this link -
[1]http://www.scotland.police.uk/access-to-...

Road traffic incident or crime report relating to property which has been
damaged and/or stolen
Please click on this link -
[2]http://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/f....

Non FOI related queries
Please phone 101 or refer to this link -
[3]http://www.scotland.police.uk/contact-us

Kind regards

FOI Team
Police Scotland

References

Visible links
1. http://www.scotland.police.uk/access-to-...
2. http://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/f...
3. http://www.scotland.police.uk/contact-us

Derek Murdoch left an annotation ()

Andi

Yet again you’re wrong. Your loose, self gratifying grip of Scots law is making you look continually foolish on this very public platform This will be my last reply to you as I have tried to assist your FOI by pointing out errors which I see you’ve taken on board by clarifying to Police Scotland your errors. But it’s clear no matter what anyone says you wont accept an answer showing you to be wrong.

Admittedly I have not watched the whole youtube video as it’s clear from the outset the officer is 100% correct and it’s just another anti Police video. But to answer your points in chronological order.

The officer informs the “witness” twice in the first 2 minutes why she’s being spoken to. At time stamp 12 seconds and again at 1 minute 10 seconds.

Section 13(5)(b) CPSA1995 states “general nature” of the offence. Nowhere does it state he must give section, subsection and act. The conduct alleged here which the officer is investigating is clearly section 38CJLSA2010 from what he tells her of the allegation.

No matter what the video taker demands is irrelevant. She has been told the general nature. That is sufficient for her to be aware and the section 13CPSA1995 requirement to apply.

Now to your numbered points

1) any reasonable person would be fair to be in a state of fear or alarm being followed in a car by mask wearing persons. A “hunt monitor” or “hunt sab(otager)” as per their youtube account is not above the law due to their beliefs in animal rights.

2) Wrong yet again. Parliament lays down statutes on behalf of the people. The courts interpret the legislation. So as I previously told you, sheriffs would rule on what is illegal and what is tickety boo.

3) see the highway code rules 214 and 215 regarding horses. The driver having passed a driving test should be well aware of this and the contents of the highway code.

4) research Culpable and reckless conduct Scotland. A horse being spooked presents a real risk of injuring the rider or others. A deliberate act of following a horse in a car for extended periods increases this risk. A clear offence of culpable and reckless as to act in this manner shows no regard for horse or rider safety. Regardless of actual injury or not.

I think Ive covered all of your points so on that note I am bowing out. Good luck on your legal career. Toodle pip....

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

So you cannot state what the alleged offence is, they are suspected of potentially witnessing. Well don't worry about it as neither can I?
Toodle pip....