# The Rspb Have Been Up To This For Years



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

THE RSPB MUST STOP STATING THAT SUCH A COMMON BIRD AS PEREGRINE FALCONS ARE STILL RARE.
Thank you for your letter of 19th May 2005 which has been passed to me. Any
releases of peregrine falcons would have to be in accordance with the
provisions of the current legislation: the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981
as amended (WCA). Section 14 of that Act (as amended) is particularly
relevant to your proposal, but other aspects of the law may also be
relevant. It would be an offence to release a peregrine falcon that was of
a kind that is not ordinarily resident in or a regular visitor to Great
Britain in a wild state, or is a hybrid (Scottish legislation). The Nature
Conservation Scotland Act 2004, which amends the WCA in Scotland, states
that guidance is available from the Scottish Ministers on non-native
species, which includes hybrids. For interpretation of the law, I would
advise that you to contact the Scottish Executive, DEFRA or the Welsh
Assembly, depending on the relevant country to your proposed release area.
I am unable to give any more specific advice on interpretation of the legal
context.

We would not currently favour the release of peregrine falcons from captive
breeding programmes as such releases would not meet the IUCN Guidelines for
Re-introductions (www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/reinte.htm), to which
the UK government, its advisors and the wider conservation sector adhere.
In particular, but not exclusively, few suitable release areas exist that
are not already occupied by wild peregrine falcons, and the wild population
is still increasing (10% since 1991) and has recovered to over 60% higher
than it was in the 1930s (before the population crash). A poorly planned
release may be detrimental to any local population of birds in a number of
ways. I would advise you to review your proposals under the IUCN
guidelines.

Depending on where you are considering releases, I would advise you to
contact the relevant conservation agency (Scottish Natural Heritage, English
Nature, or the Countryside Council for Wales) for further guidance.

Yours sincerely

David Stroud



David A. Stroud
Senior Ornithologist
UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Monkstone House, City Road
Peterborough PE1 1JY
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1733


*[email protected]*.​
Dear Watchdog 
*BBC Watchdog, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS*​*would you like to do a follow up programme on Mark Robb about DEFRA conspiring to pervert the course of justice, as it is still going on and they are victimising mark Robb. Please read below.*

*The crimes of the RSPB and Animal Health go back many years. See below. *
*The Watchdog programme and setting Sweetman up by DofE and the RSPB.*
​
*file 1 **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWi7sHRWKzQ*
*file 2 **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCqaibI24Z4*
*file 3 **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcDfc_-TvAo*


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

RIGHT UP TO DATE AND DOCUMENTED FACT NOT IN MY WORD BUT IN THE WORDS OF THE GUILTY PARTIES.
The videos show Guy Shorrock helping the police break into Chris Marshall's property even though he is not on the search warrant. He also refuses to leave when asked to by Mr Marshell even when pointed out he was not legally allowed on the property as his name was not on the search warrant. Shorrock then lied to the police in the following report. 

Please clearly note Guy Shorrock’s confidential report dated 23.03.05 to Hampshire Police and my comments.



Confidential Report to Hampshire Police concerning the execution of a search warrant at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants on 19 January 2005


I am Guy Shorrock, a Senior Investigations Officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) based at their headquarters at Sandy in Bedfordshire. I have been employed as an Investigations Officer for over thirteen years, prior to which I was a Police Officer for over seven years with the Greater Manchester Police. The work of the Species Protection Department in which I am based is primarily concerned with gathering evidence of infringements of the legislation that protects wildlife in the United Kingdom, principally in relation to offences involving wild birds. The Department plays an advisory role, assisting the statutory agencies in their investigations, especially through the Police Wildlife Crime Officers' (WCO) network.

WHY DID guy Shorrock leave the police force?

During the last 21 years, I estimate I have probably been involved with the execution of over 100 search warrants. [ALL THE SEARCH WARRANTS NEED INVESTIGATING] The large majority of these have been during the last 13 years in relation to wildlife offences, many of which have related to egg collecting enquiries. I currently possess probably more experience of egg collecting enquiries than any other person in the UK and have given expert evidence on this area of crime at court on numerous occasions. [PROVE THIS] The RSPB have been instrumental in assisting the statutory agencies to bring many convictions against egg collectors. Consequently, there is often some animosity during search warrants directed towards RSPB staff rather than the police officers actually responsible for executing the warrant. [PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THE RSPB BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TRUST THE RSPB] The RSPB Investigations Section takes considerable care when speaking to the police about search warrants and routinely discusses the following areas: -

• Grounds for the warrant

• Relevant legislation

• Advice on items which should be named as sought

• A request for RSPB staff to be specifically named on the warrant.

[PROVE IT]

Whilst I am not aware of any legislation that specifically states that other persons authorised by the court have to be named on the warrant, the RSPB has always asked this to be done for clarity and in case of objections raised by occupiers.

[UNDER THE CODES OF PRACTISE OF THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT ONLY THE PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN ENTER THE PROPERY COVERED BY THE SEARCH WARRANT. GIVEN SHORROCK’S POLICE PAST AND HIS MANY CLAIMED SEARCH WARRANTS HE MUST KNOW THIS FACT] 

In addition to assisting the police during warrants with advice on what may be relevant evidence in relation to an investigation the RSPB are also able to ensure that many items of property are not unnecessarily seized. This is of benefit to the occupier. [NAME ONE PERSON THAT WAS GLAD TO SEE SHORROCK HELPING TO RAID THEIR PROPERTY AS SHORROCK ONLY LOOKS FOR HIS OWN GOALS TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE [R V BURDEN]

From 1996, the RSPB, later assisted by the police and the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit at NC1S, gathered a considerable amount of intelligence information on individuals believed to be travelling abroad to collect birds' eggs. Whilst the taking of these may have been illegal under the legislation of the country concerned, it was no offence to possess these eggs once brought back into the UK. This problem existed because of a failure by the UK government to properly transpose requirements of EU Regulations into UK law. This situation was rectified in July 2004, which meant possession of birds' eggs in the UK, which had been taken illegally in other EU member states, was now an offence. On the basis of this an operation was put together to execute warrants at the homes of three targets, two in Hampshire and a third in Cheshire. [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?] 

Following considerable consultation with the police and CPS in both Hampshire and Cheshire, on the 4 January 2005 I sent an e-mail to Hampshire and Cheshire Police (enc). This contained the background information for the warrant application and advice about other issues. The information for the warrant application was fairly lengthy as I wanted to ensure any officer making an application would have all the background information should they be asked questions by the court. . [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?]

At 05.55 hours on Wednesday the 19 January 2005, myself and a colleague attended at Winchester Police station for a briefing. The first part was undertaken by PC Geoff Culbertson and Sgt Louise Hubble, both officers seemed well prepared and organised. [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?] I then gave some additional guidance to the officers present about what to expect and the type of items sort. As a matter of routine, I asked Sgt Hubble if I could view the warrants. On examination of the two warrants I noted that on the one for the address of Marshall that the RSPB were not specifically named on the warrant, though an identical warrant for the other Hampshire address had the RSPB named. Sgt Hubble stated she had applied for the warrants and had specifically asked the court for authority for RSPB officers to assist with the search warrants and that this had been granted. It seemed clear this was a minor clerical error by the court. [WHY WAS IT CLEAR TO SHORROCK IT WAS A MINOR CLERICAL? WHY DID SHORROCK CONTINUE ON THE RAID WHEN HE KNEW HE WAS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT? WHY DID THE POLICE ALLOW SHORROCK TO GO ON THE SEARCH WARRANT GIVEN THE FACTS?] There was some discussion as to whether it would be worth contacting a Justice of the Peace in relation to this, but as three simultaneous warrants were planned there was insufficient time for this to be done. In the circumstances, as the officer who had made the application for the warrants was present and could clearly confirm the court had given authority for RSPR to assist, it seemed a reasonable course of action to continue as planned. If it had not been possible to consult with the officer who had taken out the warrant, I would not have entered the premises without the consent of the occupier. [ONLY PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN USE THE SEARCH WARRANT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY. RULES ARE NOT MADE TO BE BROKEN BY GUY SHORROCK AS IT SUITS HIM]

The officers were split into two teams. I was in the team for the address of a Mr Marshall at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants. SP11 7DY. Officers on this team were Sgt Hubble, PC 23615 Andrews, PC 2098 Sard, PC 3331 Mills and PC 3435 Chandler. The warrant was executed at approximately 07.30 hours. There was a female at the address who stated she had recently started lodging at the premises and had no contact details for Mr Marshall. The nature of the warrant was outlined to the occupier and I was not aware of any objections raised about my presence. Two officers spoke to her at some length in an upstairs room (I was not present during this) but she was apparently not able to provide any details of Mr Marshall's whereabouts.

The loft was searched, I believe only one or two officers may have entered the loft. I was not aware of any damage being caused and heard no reference made by any of the officers to any sort of damage relating to the search of this area. The rear ground floor

room was locked and the key appeared to be in the lock from the other side. I assisted with an attempt to dismantle the front of the lock and to try and push the key out onto a piece of newspaper pushed under the door but this was not possible [WHY DID SHORROCK GET INVOLVED IN SMASHING DOWN A DOOR WHEN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM AND WHEN HE HAD NO RIGHT TO GET INVOLVED?] 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

As Mr Marshall could not be contacted, and no key could be located, this was forced at around 08.35 hours. [YOU MEAN SMASHED OPEN, SEE YOU TUBE!]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE



The room was about four metres square and fairly untidy. There was furniture in the room including a desk, and various items stored on shelves and on the floor. It did not appear to be being used as any sort of living space but more likely as storage and an office area. The officers present started to search this room to the left of the door and proceeded around the room in a methodical fashion. A number of items were brought to my attention and I gave advice on the relevance of items to the enquiry. I gave some assistance with the physical searching of the property, this was mainly confined to looking through items passed to me by the police. This is a normal level of involvement for the warrants I assist with. I was wearing a pair of disposable gloves, this is again standard practice [IS THIS TRUE, AS ALL THE OTHER VIDEOS THAT I HAVE SEEN SHORROCK WAS NOT WEARING GLOVES?] to protect my hands and reduce the chances of contaminating items that may be needed for fingerprint examination. I also helped with putting back some of the items into the areas from where they had been found. The room was generally untidy with a numerous documents on surfaces and in drawers. Whilst it is never possible to put items back in exactly the same position as found, it was abundantly clear to myself the officers were being responsible and making efforts to ensure any items examined were being returned to the same area from where they were found. I did not get the impression that any real disruption was being caused to the contents of the room. In fact, in some areas of the room, the replacing of items appeared to constitute some tidying of the room. [THIS IS NOT WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS] 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

During the warrant, Mr Marshall arrived, I gather he had been phoned by the female lodger despite her claims of having no contact number. He appeared angry and aggressive. I always consider this is partly to be expected in the circumstances and let the police speak with him to outline the nature of the warrant. As Mr Marshall entered the rear ground floor room he stormed across towards me with his arms raised. I

Avoided eye contact and quietly continued what I was doing. A female police officer did aan excellent job of calming Mr Marshall down and his behaviour, though a little erratic at times, was fairly reasonable after this point. He did not ask me to leave or stop what I was doing at any point [confirmed by the police video that has been put on you tube to show Shorrock has lied to the police you will notice on the police video from 9.30 am that Chris Marshall ordered Shorrock off his property as Shorrock was not named on the search warrant. This is matter of fact and clear proof Shorrock is a liar and cannot be trusted by the police, moreover there needs to be a police investigation into all of the complaints made about Shorrock over the years, see you tube for conclusive proof of Shorrock’s lying to the police]. 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

At one point, he asked why the police were seizing a particular item and I outlined that it was based on advice I had given to the police, Mr Marshall seemed satisfied with this explanation. [DID HE SEEM SATISFIED, I SUGGESTED GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDECE HE WAS NOT SATISFIED] Mr Marshall did complain about the mess being caused, but having been present throughout the search of this room I struggled to understand what 'mess' he was actually referring to. Mr [VIEW THE VIDEO AND YOU WILL SEE WHY CHRIS MARSHALL WAS UPSET AT THE WAY HAS BUSINNES DOCUMENTS WERE BEING MIXED UP]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE



Marshall did ask on two occasions a rather unusual question of why we had not been to the address previously. This tended to suggest he thought a warrant was likely to be executed at some stage. Mr Marshall also denied having another residence claiming to be living in B&B accommodation.

I was aware that two vehicles outside were checked but I was not involved in a search of these. Other than the minor damage to the door of the rear ground floor room, I was not aware of any other damage being caused. [‘MINOR DAMAGE’ THIS IS NOT TRUE THE DOOR WAS DISTROYED AND THE FRAME WAS NEARLY KICKED FROM THE WALL, SEE THE POLICE VIDEO FOR PROOF] http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

The warrant concluded at 10.53 hours and I returned to Andover and then Winchester Police Station for a de-briefing and to sort out exhibits. I took away a number of items for further examination.

The items seized from Marshall, whilst offering some corroboration with the original intelligence, were not evidence of specific offences and I returned these to Hampshire Police. [THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED] The items seized from the other two suspects in the enquiry, provide considerable corroboration of the original intelligence. It is my professional opinion that all the intelligence gathered for the search warrants is accurate and that Mr Marshall is likely to hold an illegal egg collection at some location. I believe Mr Marshall probably uses the Edgeways address as a business and mailing address to reduce the chances of his own residence being located. [GIVEN THE FACTS WHAT SHORROCK HAS JUST SAID IS CLEARLY WRONG AND AN OUTRAGUS COMMENT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED]


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

Mr Marshall is also heavily involved with a group called the Jourdain Society, and I believe he is the current chairman. The members of this group are specifically interested in the nests, eggs and breeding behaviour of wild birds. It is no secret that several current and former members of this society are convicted egg collectors and several, including the other two individuals subject of this enquiry, are suspected to be involved in the illegal taking of eggs. In 1993, the RSPB instigated and assisted the Wiltshire Police with an investigation into the Society, which led to the conviction of six individuals. Understandably, the RSPB is not popular with this group. [WHAT HAS THE AFORESAID GOT TO DO WITH TARGETING CHRIS MARSHALL AND THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE?]

Having assisted the police with a large number of search warrants I considered all the officers to have behaved professionally and that their conduct and behaviour was exemplary throughout. After the conclusion of the warrant, I did in fact mention to Sgt Hubble that I had been impressed with the enthusiasm and efforts of all the officers present and asked if she would pass on the thanks of the RSPB [WELL SHORROCK WOULD SAY THAT THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS A DISGRACE AND CRIMINALLY WRONG].

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Guy Shorrock

Senior Investigations Officer

23.03.05

--------------------
OPEN YOUR EYES
IN THE CROWN COURT AT NEWCASTLE
The Crown Court
Quayside
Newcastle upon Tyne
13th 
October 2008 Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE LANCASTER
REGINA
-v-
JOHN DODDSWORTH
EXTRACT OF EVIDENCE OF GUY SHORROCK
APPEARANCES:
For the Prosecution: MR. T. MORAN
For the Defence: MR. P. WALSH
From the audio transcription of
J.L. Harpham Limited
Official Court Reporters and Tape Transcribers
55 Queen Street
Sheffield SI 2DX

My comments are in red and the important bits are in blue from the court transcript.

1] REGINA -v- JOHN DODDSWORTH

GUY SHORROCK WAS CALLED BACK TO THE WITNESS BOX BY PETER WALSH IN RELATION A VITAL LETTER AND A VITAL RECEIPT FROM MIKE DAWSON THAT APPEARED TO HAVE GONE MISSING IN A VERY RECENT COURT CASE.

REGINA -v- JOHN DODDSWORTH
2 13th October 2008
3 (In the absence of the Jury)
4 GUY SHORROCK Recalled
5 Further examined bv MR. MORAN:
6 Q. Mr. Shorrock, you have heard about the purple folder where it is said these two letters were? - A.
7 That is correct.
THE ABOVE PURPLE FILE THAT WAS IN SHORROCK’S CONTROL SHOULD HAVE CONTAINED THE VITAL LETTER AND A VITAL RECEIPT FROM MIKE DAWSON. 
8 Q. Do you know the exhibit number that is attached to that? - A. Yes reference AW2.
9 Q. And have you examined that? - A. I have examined it several times, including during the break.
10 Q. How did you first receive that? - A. It was received along with other exhibits in sealed bags with
11 Police tags on, it passed into possession of the RSPB I believe in November 2006. The bags were
12 opened by myself and a colleague in January 2007.
13 Q. And are there letters of the description described by Mr. Doddsworth that are now missing? - A.
14 There are not.
15 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: There were two items weren't there as I understood it. The first
16 item was a receipt to Mr. Doddsworth from Mr. Dawson, acknowledging that he had paid £600 for
17 the cabinet? - A. Yes that's not... The first time I was aware of the apparent existence of that I think
18 was on 16th of February when Mr. Doddsworth raised it in interview. I subsequently checked the
19 exhibits again after that interview and again I have not seen those documents.
20 Q. And the second one purported to be a letter written by Mr. Dawson, a copy of a letter written by
21 him to the RSPB inviting the RSPB to inspect the egg collection? - A. Again that is not present.
22 There are several letters from Mr. Dawson which are actually in the jury bundle but that letter is
23 not contained there.
NOTE THE GREAT LENGTH TIME THAT SHORROCK HAD THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE POLICE MAKING ANY COUNTER CHECKS TO SEE IF THERE WAS NO ANY ACTIVITIES THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. THIS ATTITUDE AND BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE HAS ALLOWED SHORROCK TO DISTROY OR WITHHOLD VITAL EVIDENCE. THERE IS A LOT MORE EVIDENCE FROM OTHER CASES TO FURTHER SUPPORT THIS FACT THAT CAN BE SUPPLIED ON REQUEST.
24 Q. MR. MORAN: Has there been some communication about certificates that relate to a
25 Peregrine Falcon? - A. Yes I received a call from Inspector Peter Sutton several months ago asking
26 about some documents for Peregrines. We were not quite sure at the time whether this was
27 registration documents or certificates. I contacted a colleague, because these items were stored at
28 Newcastle, and I was led to believe that the registration documents were not with the exhibits.
29 Following a further call... Sorry, I then received information from my colleague that he had found
30 the documents. He contacted Inspector Sutton and those documents have been returned by
31 recorded delivery. Again I spoke to Inspector Sutton during the lunch break and he confirmed he
32 had received those documents.
33 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: So those documents then, the Peregrine Falcon certificates, were
34 with you all the time? - A. Yes, we certainly didn't tell Inspector Sutton we had lost them, we just
35 said we couldn't find them. That was an error on our part.
WAS THIS A DELIBERATE ACT?

1 Q. Well what has happened to them? - A. They have been returned to Inspector Sutton and I know he
2 has received them. From there I presume they have been returned to Mr. Doddsworth, but I can't
3 say.
4 Q. MR. MORAN: Now Mr. Dawson, the Prosecution in 1996, are you aware of the detail of
5 that? - A. I am. It was a colleague of mine who was the main RSPB officer assisting the Police,
6 although I had some involvement with the case.
7 Q. And he was acquitted we know and some eggs were returned to him? - A. That is correct.
8 Q. Now all the eggs that are in the cabinet there, TAS2, do all of those relate to the eggs that were
9 returned to Dawson? - A. It is mostly the 12 year old, it is most of the eggs in the top two drawers
10 and those are predominantly skylarks eggs. There are some other songbird eggs in there but it is
11 most predominantly most of the top two drawers of eggs.
12 Q. And the eggs on Count 1 the Golden Eagle, the Honey Buzzard, the Egyptian Vulture, were those
13 eggs that were returned to Mr. Dawson? - A. No, those never featured in that case.
14 Q. That was 1996? - A. That is correct, yes.
15 Q. Were you involved in the 1998 case involving Mr. Doddsworth? - A. Yes, I effectively compiled.
Does SHORROCK COMPILES ALL THE CASES HE GETS INVOLVED IN FOR THE POLICE________? 
16 the Doddsworth prosecution evidence for the Police.
17 Q. And were you present when evidence was read out during that case? - A. That is correct. I have this
18 original document that was put to Mr. Dawson in the presence of Mr. Doddsworth.
19 Q. About the conversation between Dawson and Braithwaite? - A. That is correct, yes.
20 Q. Which has given rise to the agreed facts that the Jury have heard about? - A. That is correct.
21 Q. Knowledge of scams and the like? - A. That is correct.
22 Q. The suggestion is I think that the eggs in this box here are accompanied by data cards that match
23 the eggs, is that correct? - A. There are 238 clutches in the Hills cabinet. There are 40 clutches for
24 which I can find no relevant data, about 15 percent of the collection.
25 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: How many? - A. 40 clutches.
26 Q. 40? - A. 40, yes.
27 Q. MR. MORAN: Go on? - A. There are 57 clutches of eggs where the data is perfectly
28 genuine and would suggest the eggs are legally held. The remaining data, which is about
29 three-quarters of the collection, I don't consider the data to be of a satisfactory standard. Not the
30 standard I would expect of a collection or perhaps a museum would expect.
31 Q. Are you aware of the RSPB ever receiving a request to inspect Dawson's collection? - A. No I not.
32 I am certainly aware of the original visit by two of my colleagues to see Mr. Dawson when they
33 were apparently briefly shown these two trays of skylark eggs, but I am certainly not aware of any

1 follow up request and I am sure I would have been aware of that, it would have been an unusual
2 event to happen within the office.
3 MR. MORAN: Can you wait there and answer any questions.
4 Cross-examined by MR. WALSH:
5 Q. Well as I understand it, and it is certainly admitted because we have had a statement read out,
6 Mr. Shorrock, from Mr. Wilkinson and the letters are marked AW1 and AW2. That is correct, isn't
. 
7 it? - A. I am sorry sir, what are you referring to?
8 Q. The letters that were recovered from Mr. Dawson, the letters recovered written by Mr. Dawson
9 that were found in the premises were recovered by an officer called Wilkinson are you aware of
10 that? - A. I'm not aware of that. As I say the first time I saw them they were in sealed property
11 bags.
12 Q. Right, just give me one second please. Do you recall the letters being marked AW1 and AW2? - A.
13 AW1 and AW2 are a generic pile of exhibits, those exhibits contain documentary items containing
14 including letters.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

15 Q. Where were the receipts? - A. Sorry?
16 Q. Where were the receipts? - A. Sorry which?
17 Q. The receipts recovered in AW2. You have produced letters but you haven't produced the receipts?
18 - A. Sorry, which receipts are you referring to?
19 Q. The receipts recovered by the officer? - A. (No reply).
20 JUDGE LANCASTER: To be fair I think Mr. Shorrock should see a copy of his statement.
21 MR. WALSH: Certainly.
22 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: It is at page 38. Mr. Shorrock, what you should have been handed
23 is the statement of Andrew Wilkinson dated 10th of October, and you will see that he is the man
24 who searches the kitchen, finds several items and places them into exhibit bags? - A. Okay.
25 Q. And in particular he finds documents and papers which he puts in AW1 ? - A. Yes.
26 Q. And "documents and receipts (verifications)" in AW2? - A. Right.
27 Q. What you are being asked is where are these, where are the receipts, the verifications which were
28 part of AW2? - A. I mean, I didn't make this document obviously.
29 Q. No, I know you didn't. - A. There is other paperwork in AW2 so there could be receipts in relation
30 to certain items, so I will need to check that.
31 JUDGE LANCASTER: Do you want him to look at them, AW2?


1 MR. WALSH: Well it has to be checked, your Honour, because it is fundamental.
NOTE THE EVIDENCE WAS FUNDERMENTAL THAT SHORROCK WITHHELD AND DISTROYED.
2 JUDGE LANCASTER: Do you want to look at them now. I mean it is a live issue and you
3 have asked him where are the receipts, do you want to satisfy yourself, Mr. Walsh, that they are in
4 there?
5 MR. WALSH: Well Mr. Shorrock has been in possession of that and it appears he cannot
6 tell without looking in there.
7 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: He probably can't, no. Can you say without looking? - A. No I
8 can't, but there are lots of pieces of paper. There are certainly letters in there and data cards, I know
9 that much.
10 Q. Well we will need to have a look won't we? - A. Will it be okay if I just get them out?
11 JUDGE LANCASTER: Are there any you particularly want him to search for?
12 MR. WALSH: The receipt from Mr. Dawson:
13 Q. Forgive me interrupting your efforts, Mr. Shorrock, is that the purple folder you are referring to? -
14 A. Yes, that is right.
15 Q. Thank you? - A. I suppose that is sort of a receipt.
16 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: What is that then? - A. The letter from the Sussex Police to
17 Mr. Dawson. I don't know if I would class it as a receipt but it is confirmation of property.
18 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well this might unlock part of the mystery, Mr. Walsh. It is an
19 undated letter addressed to the Sussex Police.
20 "Please be careful with these birds eggs they are all legally held. The top
21 two drawers were taken by the Police and were returned to me by the
22 Magistrates Court as legally held."
23 So that is consistent with what we have just heard from Mr. Shorrock.
24 "The other drawers are of eggs which I had given away a few years ago. The
25 person asked me if I would like them returned as he was now nearly 80 and
26 did not require them any more. If I did not want them he would destroy
27 them. I took them back and wrote to the RSPB to say I now had them in my
28 possession and that they could come and view them should they wish to. So
29 far they have not been."
30 Then he makes a complaint about smashing in the front door and he wants compensation for it,
31 MR. WALSH: May I see that please?
1 JUDGE LANCASTER: Yes. I mean in fact that might be a reference, that might be the
2 letter that your client has referred to as an invitation by Mr. Dawson to inspect,
3 THE WITNESS: Also maybe Mr. Hemmings as well. He gives the age of the person, 801
4 think is mentioned, that could be Mr. Hemmings, he is quite elderly.
5 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: That could be Mr. Hemmings could it, the 80 years old? - A. Yes.
6 MR. WALSH: Can I just take instructions?
7 JUDGE LANCASTER: Yes.
8 MR. WALSH: That is certainly one of the documents, your Honour.
9 JUDGE LANCASTER: Okay, so it is not missing at all then.
10 MR. WALSH: Not missing but it certainly has not been produced. Now it has been
11 produced. Could you look again please, it is the letter from Mr. Dawson?
12 JUDGE LANCASTER: The receipt is what you want now, isn't it, for the eggs?
13 MR. WALSH: Yes.
14 JUDGE LANCASTER: Sorry a receipt for the £500 or £600 for the cabinet.
15 THE WITNESS: I've been through it three times, but I'll have another look.
16 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, wouldn't it be better if my learned friend did, otherwise the
17 Defendant might think that something has not been revealed that is there.
18 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well do you want Mr. Walsh to do it?
19 MR. MORAN: I would prefer it, yes.

SO THE LETTER WAS NOT LOST. NOW WHERE IS THE RECEIPT.
20 JUDGE LANCASTER: All right. Well stop now please for a minute, Mr. Shorrock.
21 Q. MR. WALSH: Can I just clarify, there is another piece of evidence I might be able to clarify
22 quickly. Evidence was read out in the presence of Mr. Doddsworth to Mr. Dawson, is that correct?
23 - A. That is correct, yes. It was a transcript of a TV programme, a two page transcript.
24 Q. When you say evidence, do you mean sworn evidence? - A. It was put to him in cross-
25 examination.
26 Q. Put to who in cross-examination? - A. It was put to Mr. Dawson in cross-examination.
27 Q. I want to be clear about this, did Mr. Dawson give evidence in that case? - A. Yes he did, yes.
28 MR. WALSH: Your Honour, can I just take instructions on that?

1 JUDGE LANCASTER: Yes.
2 MR. WALSH: If you would just give me one second. Your Honour, that was a short poin
3 in relation to that.
4 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well look, just sit down for a minute will you, Mr. Shorrock. Yo
5 had better take hold of these and have a look with your solicitor.
6 MR. WALSH: Yes, and also Mr. Doddsworth.
7 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well I will leave them in court, they will have to go on the exhib
8 bench here. I will rise. If you tell me when you are ready.
9 (Short break)
10 MR. WALSH: Your Honour, I have one more question to put to Mr. Shorrock and then
11 perhaps adjourn Mr. Shorrock temporarily while my learned friend and I perhaps see if we can
12 short circuit what could be a very lengthy process.
13 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well what have you just shown Mr. Shorrock?
14 MR. WALSH: I have just shown Mr. Shorrock the note that was contained on the evidence
15 bag.
16 THE WITNESS: The Police exhibit label, your Honour.
17 Q. MR. WALSH: Now, Mr. Shorrock, it is quite clear what is said in that exhibit label, it
18 mirrors what you have been told is in the statement of the officer who filled in that exhibit label'


----------



## LoveForLizards

Wait, is somebody saying wild peregrine falcons are common?


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

19 A. I believe so yes, it has Mr. PC Wilkinson as the person originally seizing the item, yes.
20 Q. And he has clearly put in letters with the same prominence as the letters that mark the fact that
21 documents were received but that receipts were also received? - A. Yes it says "Documents and
22 receipts." Documents and receipts in the plural, then in brackets it says "Verification."
23 Q. Yes. It is right to say, well I don't want to give evidence, but there appear to be no receipts
24 whatsoever in that bundle of document that you took from that bag? - A. Yes, apart from the '
25 Sussex Police letter, but apart from that I can't see any what I would classify as a receipt.
26 Q. The Sussex Police letter appears to be the letter in terms that Mr. Doddsworth is referring to in
27 interview. Do you want to read it. Sorry, Mr. Shorrock, I don't think I have given you a chance t
28 read that? - A. I thought the letter was reference to £600.
29 JUDGE LANCASTER: There is no point in keeping the Jury hanging around is there?
30 MR. WALSH: No.
31 JUDGE LANCASTER: Can we send the Jury home?

1 MR. WALSH: We may be able to short circuit this, your Honour, I know Mr. Moran just
2 has his speech to make.
3 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well he hasn't now, he is going to have to call this witness, isn't
4 he?
5 MR. WALSH: This is what we are trying to resolve, your Honour.
6 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well you will not get your speech in tonight anyway.
7 MR. MORAN: I don't know whether your Honour could just as it were wait to see whether
8 we might fit in Mr. Shorrock's rebuttal evidence. The reason I mention it is there is a trial which I
9 am due to do in Teesside which was supposed to start today which was put back until tomorrow
10 because of this case overrunning. It is now 12 o'clock tomorrow, I was going to ask if your Honour
11 would first of all consider sitting at 10 o'clock tomorrow, and also whether your Honour would be
12 prepared to release me if I had the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service. Obviously that does
13 not arise if your Honour were to say well this is not a case where I should leave, but I will be
14 asking whether your Honour would be prepared to allow me, subject to me being contactable,
15 should something arise?
16 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well I can't see there is a problem with that.
17 MR. MORAN: So any more evidence we can complete today, your Honour, would assist,
18 although I am not going to get my speech in tonight, I can see that.
19 JUDGE LANCASTER: No, you are not.
20 MR. MORAN: Thank you.
21 Q. MR. WALSH: So you have had a chance to read it? - A. Yes I have now, yes.
22 Q. It appears to be a declaration by Mr. Dawson to the effect that he has had some eggs investigated,
23 two trays of eggs? - A. Yes, that is correct, and I am presuming these are the ones which are
24 predominantly the Skylark eggs.
25 Q. He is also making a declaration there that he has invited the Royal Society for the Protection of
26 Birds to examine his collection. I am not saying it is correct but that is—? - A. Yes, just let me
27 read it sorry. Right it's referring to the other drawers and it is saying he wrote to the RSPB and
28 asked if they wanted to come and view them.
29 Q. Right, so that is the information that Mr. Dawson is giving to Mr. Doddsworth? - A. Yes it would
30 appear so, yes. It is addressed to the Sussex Police but it was obviously written to
31 Mr. Doddsworth.
32 MR. WALSH: I don't want to ask any more questions because I think it might be better at
33 this stage if we just adjourn and see where we are going in terms of rebuttal evidence. It may be
34 that my learned friend and can I agree much of it.

1 JUDGE LANCASTER: Right, if you could just stand down for a moment, Mr. Shorrock.
2 MR. WALSH: It may be better if he leaves court at the moment, your Honour.
3 JUDGE LANCASTER: You want him to leave court?
4 MR. WALSH: Yes please.
5 JUDGE LANCASTER: Not leave the building?
6 MR. WALSH: No, not leave the building but just leave the room.
7 JUDGE LANCASTER: Right, well if you could just leave the Courtroom for a few


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

8 minutes, Mr. Shorrock. Could you just leave that document with the exhibits on the exhibits
9 bench. All right, I will rise.
10 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, it may be quicker if you stay.
11 JUDGE LANCASTER: Fine.
12 MR. WALSH: We do not want you to leave, your Honour.
13 (Matter of law discussed in the absence of the Jury)
14 (In the presence of the Jury)
15 GUY SHQRROCK recalled
16 Examined bv MR. MORAN:
17 Q. Mr. Shorrock, the Defendant has referred to Peregrine Falcon documentation that he says is lost? -
18 A. Yes, that is in relation to live Peregrines.
19 Q. Yes, can you explain the history of that from your point of view? - A. Yes, earlier this year I was
20 contacted by the Police and informed that Mr. Doddsworth was asking for some documents for
21 some live Peregrine Falcons. There was some uncertainty as to what documents they were after
22 initially. I spoke to a colleague in Newcastle, which is where the exhibits were held. As a result of
23 that I informed the Police that I didn't believe we had the documents. I did not tell the Police that
24 we had lost the documents. At a later date I was contacted by my colleague in Newcastle to say
25 they had located the documents. As a result of that I re-contacted Police Inspector Sutton, had a
26 conversation with him and the documents were returned to Inspector Sutton by recorded delivery.
27 Q. Now on a similar theme it is part of the Defence case you will have gathered that within a purple
28 folder, exhibit AW2, there were two records that are now missing. Do you have the purple folder?
29 - A. The purple folder is here on the bench in front of us.
30 Q. Can I pass that to you? - A. Thank you.

1 Q. Have you had a chance to go through those letters again and everything that is in there? - A. I have,
2 yes.
3 Q. Now first of all I think dealing with what we call the first alleged letter, is there a letter in there
4 indicating that the price of the sale was £600 and that the eggs came free? - A. No, I examined this
5 prior to the interview with Mr. Doddsworth, subsequently interviewing Mr. Doddsworth, in
6 September of this year when I received the copy from Newcastle, and also on Saturday. I have
7 examined it four times and I haven't found that document.
Q. Right. You were not present at the search, were you? - A. Not at the original search no. When I first saw the property it had been transported from the Police to our Newcastle office into the property store there and it was still in a sealed evidence bag with a police seal around it.
Q. And who was the first person to take the seal off? - A. It was myself and Mr. Leonard.
Q. Right. Now a second letter was referred to in these sort of terms, that it is a letter in which Mr. Dawson offers his collection of eggs for his examination by the RSPB. Have you had a look at this letter? - A. Yes, that is correct.
15 Q. Broadly speaking may that be the letter that is referred to? - A. Yes. I was only aware of that today
16 when Mr. Doddsworth raised it and I didn't recognise the letter from the description he gave this
17 morning, but it probably is that letter.
Q. It is going to be copied for the Jury in due course but would you mind just reading it out? - A. Yes, it is addressed to the Sussex Police: "Please be careful with these birds eggs they are all legally held. The top two drawers were taken by the Police and were returned to me by the Magistrates as legally held." The other drawers are of eggs which I had given away a few years ago. The person asked me if I would like them returned as he was now nearly 80 years old and did not require them any more. If I did not want them he would destroy them. I took them back and wrote to the RSPB to say I now had them in my possession and that they could come and view them should they wish to do so. So far they have not been. The last time the Police smashed in my front door they had to pay me £350,1 shall be claiming compensation again. Please be careful with the eggs they are very fragile. Mike Dawson." And typed underneath his name M. J. Dawson.
Q. It is touched upon in the letter a previous case involving Dawson and eggs that were returned to him? - A. That is right, it was a colleague of mine who did most of the investigative work although I did have some involvement with that case.
Q. Right. Of the eggs in that cabinet are some of the eggs in that cabinet eggs that were returned to Mr. Dawson? - A. Yes, a fairly small number. There is 12 drawers in that cabinet, virtually the entire contents of the top drawer, which I think are nearly all Skylark eggs, and probably just over half the contents of the second drawer were the eggs subject to that original investigation of Mr. Dawson which were returned to him.
Q. And the eggs on Count 1 on the indictment, the Golden Eagle, Egyptian Vulture and Honey Buzzard? - A. None of those feature in the eggs involving the investigation of Mr. Dawson.
MR. MORAN: Yes, would you wait there and answer any more questions please.

1 Cross-examined bv MR. WALSH:
2 Q. That letter clearly refers to another episode, doesn't it, it doesn't refer to the episode where the
3 skylarks eggs were examined, because if you look at the top line? - A. Sorry, could you just repeat
4 that please?
5 Q. "Please be careful with the birds eggs, they are all legally held."? - A. Yes.
6 Q. That implies that the Sussex Police have the eggs in their possession? - A. Yes it does, yes.
7 Q. "The top two drawers were taken by the Police and returned."? - A. That is correct, yes.
8 Q. Past tense, previous enquiry? - A. That is right, that is what it suggests.
9 Q. "The other drawers are of eggs given away a few years ago."? - A. That is right, yes.
10 Q. Now this is where, "A person asked if I would take them back or he would destroy them."? - A.
11 Yes, that is what it says.
12 Q. And there is a reference to a man of 80 years of age and an earlier occasion you have referred to
13 your belief as that refers to a Mr. Hemmings? - A. Yes, the name of Mr. Hemmings was mentioned
14 I think this morning by Mr. Doddsworth and I consider that could be Mr. Hemmings given the age,
15 yes.
16 Q. So on the face of it, it appears to be a letter that accompanied a collection of eggs to Sussex Police
17 for examination? - A. Yes, it looks like that. It is undated of course but it does look like that, yes.
18 Q. And it is signed by Mr. Dawson? - A. Yes it is, yes.
19 Q. There was clearly a period of time, and I know you took umbrage at the description, but there was
20 clearly a period of time which the certificates in relation to the falcons were lost? - A. No they
21 were not lost, they were still in the original exhibit bag.
22 Q. They could not be found? - A. Yes, that is correct.
23 Q. And I am sure inadvertently, Mr. Shorrock, you wrongly told the Police you didn't have them, or
24 the RSPB you did not have them? - A. Yes, that was an error on our part.
25 Q. It is just to illustrate the point, when dealing with lots of documentation recording of that
26 documentation is important, isn't it? - A. Yes, that is right. Those particular documents were not
27 relevant to this enquiry, but again we should have noted them and they should have been returned.
28 Q. They should have been recorded? - A. Sony?
29 Q. The fact that you had possession of those documents should have been recorded somewhere? - A.
30 Well it is recorded as a police exhibit, as an original item that was seized.

1 Q. Now we eventually got you to look inside the folder and that is how we discovered that letter. Now
2 the letter came with an evidence bag? - A. Yes, that is right.
3 Q. Have you still got that yellow label, that might be it there. If you can just give me that. Because
4 Mr. Doddsworth is still adamant that there is a document missing, isn't he, and the document
5 missing is the verification of the sale, the receipt of sale of the cabinet given to him by
6 Mr. Dawson? - A. Yes I definitely haven't seen that document. It is such a significant document
7 that had I seen it on any of at least the four times I have been through it, it would have jumped out
8 immediately.
9 Q. But just look at what is written by the police officer, Mr. Wilkinson, on the sealed bag that he sent
10 to you. Read it out please? - A. This is a police exhibit label from Northumbria Police, it has got
11 description of the item. It says "Documents" in the plural and "receipts" in the plural and in
12 brackets "verification." It is given an identifying mark of AW2 which is the police officer's initials,
13 his second exhibit.
14 Q. There is no single receipt in the documents that you have produced today or at any other stage, is
15 there? - A. I have been through here, and other than that letter which I suppose could be classed as
16 sort of a receipt, other than that there is nothing that obviously jumps out as a receipt, no.
17 Q. So it appears something must be missing or something has gone wrong? - A. Well I mean I
18 obviously was not there, it could be just the way the police officers have recorded it.
19 Q. Well a receipt is fairly unambiguous? - A. Well I don't know, I don't know what was in the police
20 officer's mind when he wrote it out. I mean, for example, there were the list of eggs that were in
21 there as well.
22 Q. He is using the English language? - A. Yes, but I can't look inside the Police officer's head.
23 Q. No, but he is using the English language, you know what receipt means? - A. I know what receipt
24 means obviously, yes.
25 Q. Have you seen or discovered anything that fits the English language description of receipts? - A. In
26 here, no.
27 MR. WALSH: Thank you.
28 MR. MORAN: Does your Honour have any questions?
29 JUDGE LANCASTER: No, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Shorrock. 30


--------------------

OPEN YOUR EYES


----------



## Amalthea

Ok... Somebody needs to lock this... Nobody wants to read somebody else's conversations.


----------



## Shell195

And the point is???????????????????????:whistling2:


----------



## KathyM

You just know when someone puts all those letters after their name that they are those people who know it all and can never, ever be wrong. I gave up reading two lines in. You win 1st in the boring competition. :no1::2thumb:


----------



## ditta

Shell195 said:


> And the point is???????????????????????:whistling2:


 
my thoughts exactly:whistling2:but mine had swear words innit:lol2:


----------



## Amalthea

Yup... People who insist on posting with their full name including all the extras (like people with PHDs in nothing who insist on being called Dr and will aggressively correct anybody who makes the mistake of calling them Mr or Mrs *shock horror*) tend to be up their own ass... I managed to read a couple lines, too, Kathy...


----------



## pgag_1_york

snap, 2 line in for me too :zzz:


----------



## vonnie

And your point is?

In a paragraph and in words of no more than two syllables please as I am 

a) blonde
b) easily confused (see point a :lol2
c) knackered after work and can't be bother reading all that waffle


----------



## Emmaj

vonnie said:


> And your point is?
> 
> In a paragraph and in words of no more than two syllables please as I am
> 
> a) blonde
> b) easily confused (see point a :lol2
> c) knackered after work and can't be bother reading all that waffle


LOL that made me giggle :no1::2thumb:

but seriously wtf man :bash::lol2:


----------



## shrek090

i really enjoyed evey part of that.:whistling2:


----------



## Natonstan

Lol was he trying to say RSPB Are bad???


----------



## Tehanu

I guess it's along the lines of how most herpers aren't best friends with the RSPCA. 

Fundamental flaw tho... assuming anyone here would initially be intrigued enough to read it to get the idea of what was being said.

A first post summing up what the jig is would have been much more successful.

Speak to the common man!

As it is I stopped reading too once it said something about peregrines being common, the rspb lying about them being rare and that's about it!
Lotte***


----------



## sparkle

i dont have 10 years to read a post im not even sure is relevant to me..

can someone summarise PLS


----------



## sandmatt

Natonstan said:


> Lol was he trying to say RSPB Are bad???


I think so... either that or peregrines are common:whistling2: which umm yeah how do you comment on that.


----------



## sparkle

sandmatt said:


> I think so... either that or peregrines are common:whistling2: which umm yeah how do you comment on that.


 
how about..

Oh right thanks for that :lol2:


----------



## Soulwax

Chill out... I've been scrolling through the original post since thursday afternoon... And I wasn't even reading it!


----------



## sandmatt

sparkle said:


> how about..
> 
> Oh right thanks for that :lol2:


 Lol nicely said:2thumb:


----------



## Nerys

background info:

Bird-nest raider jailed for trade in wild chicks | Independent, The (London) | Find Articles at BNET

please note the DATE of this article.

please also note that derek has always contested what went on, to the point of becoming a self taught lawyer during (i believe) his time in jail. in order to fight back when he got out.

rory used to hear a lot from derek, if you think the post is big, you should see some of the emails.

google is also quite busy regarding derek:

"derek canning" rspb - Google Search

N


----------



## sandmatt

Oh after reading that i have to say i cant agree with anything he says.


----------



## pigglywiggly

i managed slightly more than two lines

have i got it right that his main argument is:-

commom bird ( sparrow/peregrine etc ) = ok to steal the eggs?


----------



## GlasgowGecko

Ok, So in summary Derek Canning appears to be aggrieved about his conviction, and has gone through other old cases in an attempt to discredit one of the officers in the case. This is fine, but WHY IS IT RELEVANT ON HERE? Just a few old letters and emails copy and pasted here with no back story will win you no support.

I don't disagree that peregrines are not rare in the UK anymore, I would go so far as to say that they are not an extinction risk, but they ARE classified as such, and so to take the eggs is a crime. If you commit a crime, you should accept the punishment. You stole the eggs, you went to prison. On a positive note, it appears you got a law degree, however this ridiculous attempt to discredit other cases is not demonstrating a good understanding of what you learnt.

I say feel aggrieved, thats natural. But if you care for the birds more than the profit let it go, and stop taking eggs from the wild. Its that simple.


----------



## retri

GlasgowGecko said:


> Ok, So in summary Derek Canning appears to be aggrieved about his conviction, and has gone through other old cases in an attempt to discredit one of the officers in the case. This is fine, but WHY IS IT RELEVANT ON HERE? Just a few old letters and emails copy and pasted here with no back story will win you no support.
> 
> I don't disagree that peregrines are not rare in the UK anymore, I would go so far as to say that they are not an extinction risk, but they ARE classified as such, and so to take the eggs is a crime. If you commit a crime, you should accept the punishment. You stole the eggs, you went to prison. On a positive note, it appears you got a law degree, however this ridiculous attempt to discredit other cases is not demonstrating a good understanding of what you learnt.
> 
> I say feel aggrieved, thats natural. But if you care for the birds more than the profit let it go, and stop taking eggs from the wild. Its that simple.


What they said :lol2:

Actually the above post has given me a better understanding of what went on compared to that pointless waffle.

dont break the law and you wont get punished dumass:bash:


----------



## sandmatt

If peregrines wern't classified as they are, then egg collecters would take eggs willy nilly as theres big money to be made in falconry, and its not just peregrines.. most birds of prey would be at risk if they wern't protected in some way.


----------



## 9Red

KathyM said:


> *You just know when someone puts all those letters after their name that they are those people who know it all and can never, ever be wrong.* I gave up reading two lines in. You win 1st in the boring competition. :no1::2thumb:


I think this is unfair, and actually a bit offensive. When someone has spent years working their b*llocks off to gain these qualifications (and it really is bloody hard work) they have every right to use their Letters. I am B.Sc. (Hons) BioVet AnSci, and I use my letters in my sig. when it is relevant to the matter being discussed as it illustrates that I have actually studied the subject and aren't just talking out of my arse. 

Case in point - On a matter of animal husbandry/bioveterinary science, would you be more inclined to take advice from Dr. B.Sc. (Hons) BioVet AnSci, or Mr. Bloke-in-the-pub-world-expert-on-everything?


----------



## Moshpitviper

9Red said:


> I think this is unfair, and actually a bit offensive. When someone has spent years working their b*llocks off to gain these qualifications (and it really is bloody hard work) they have every right to use their Letters. I am B.Sc. (Hons) BioVet AnSci, and I use my letters in my sig. when it is relevant to the matter being discussed as it illustrates that I have actually studied the subject and aren't just talking out of my arse.
> 
> Case in point - On a matter of animal husbandry/bioveterinary science, would you be more inclined to take advice from Dr. B.Sc. (Hons) BioVet AnSci, or Mr. Bloke-in-the-pub-world-expert-on-everything?


What they said.... :2thumb:


----------



## GlasgowGecko

9Red said:


> I think this is unfair, and actually a bit offensive. When someone has spent years working their b*llocks off to gain these qualifications (and it really is bloody hard work) they have every right to use their Letters. I am B.Sc. (Hons) BioVet AnSci, and I use my letters in my sig. when it is relevant to the matter being discussed as it illustrates that I have actually studied the subject and aren't just talking out of my arse.
> 
> Case in point - On a matter of animal husbandry/bioveterinary science, would you be more inclined to take advice from Dr. B.Sc. (Hons) BioVet AnSci, or Mr. Bloke-in-the-pub-world-expert-on-everything?


Agreed, but my B.Sc M.Sc P.hD does make me big and clever....

Andy


----------



## 9Red

GlasgowGecko said:


> Agreed, but my B.Sc M.Sc P.hD does make me big and clever....
> 
> Andy


Exactly! And you should be damn proud lol! I'll be glad in a year when I can add M.Sc. to my name and get a proper lecturing job instead of faffing about in the labs. :yeahright:


----------



## Chris Newman

GlasgowGecko said:


> Ok, So in summary Derek Canning appears to be aggrieved about his conviction, and has gone through other old cases in an attempt to discredit one of the officers in the case. This is fine, but WHY IS IT RELEVANT ON HERE? Just a few old letters and emails copy and pasted here with no back story will win you no support.
> 
> I don't disagree that peregrines are not rare in the UK anymore, I would go so far as to say that they are not an extinction risk, but they ARE classified as such, and so to take the eggs is a crime. If you commit a crime, you should accept the punishment. You stole the eggs, you went to prison. On a positive note, it appears you got a law degree, however this ridiculous attempt to discredit other cases is not demonstrating a good understanding of what you learnt.
> 
> I say feel aggrieved, thats natural. But if you care for the birds more than the profit let it go, and stop taking eggs from the wild. Its that simple.


I think you will find the point is that the law applies to both those that enforce it, as well as members of the public! 

The relevant to us ‘reptile keepers’ is that after this case the RSPB were forced to drop there private prosecutions and work thro an independent prosecuting authority. Today the RSPCA still peruse private prosecutions!


----------



## gaz

and by the way in suitable locations peregrines are quite a common bird,here in port talbot(an industrial town) its not uncommon to have up to 7 peregrines visible from my house at any one time,along with buzzards,kites and sparrow hawks. birds of prey populations have increased manyfold over the last 20 years,also the point of the "waffle" is that charities such as the RSPB and RSPCA are bending the law to obtain convictions,here its birds in other cases its reptiles,so its wholly relevant to all of us here on this forum
regards gaz


----------



## sandmatt

gaz said:


> and by the way in suitable locations peregrines are quite a common bird,here in port talbot(an industrial town) its not uncommon to have up to 7 peregrines visible from my house at any one time,along with buzzards,kites and sparrow hawks. birds of prey populations have increased manyfold over the last 20 years,also the point of the "waffle" is that charities such as the RSPB and RSPCA are bending the law to obtain convictions,here its birds in other cases its reptiles,so its wholly relevant to all of us here on this forum
> regards gaz


Yes but birds of prey hang in the balance, a bad winter and alot could be gone, and if egg collecting of peregrines especially wasn't prosecuted i think you'd find their numbers would dwinde immediately. And yes they are common in certain areas... around where i am there maybe about 1 or 2 at any time which is hardly numerous and one pair of buzzards... So you can argue which part of country the crime happened to how seroius it is.


----------



## GlasgowGecko

Chris Newman said:


> I think you will find the point is that the law applies to both those that enforce it, as well as members of the public!
> 
> The relevant to us ‘reptile keepers’ is that after this case the RSPB were forced to drop there private prosecutions and work thro an independent prosecuting authority. Today the RSPCA still peruse private prosecutions!


I don't disagree with any of your points, but he did still break the law, are we supposed to say "Ok its fine to steal bird eggs and sell them on for huge profit?".

Andy


----------



## Chris Newman

GlasgowGecko said:


> I don't disagree with any of your points, but he did still break the law, are we supposed to say "Ok its fine to steal bird eggs and sell them on for huge profit?".
> 
> Andy


That is the question did he? What is clear is that the evidence used to convict him was unsafe. The DNA evidence used was known by the prosecuting authority to be flawed.


----------



## GlasgowGecko

Chris Newman said:


> That is the question did he? What is clear is that the evidence used to convict him was unsafe. The DNA evidence used was known by the prosecuting authority to be flawed.


Well i'm i ntrigued, I can only go on the limited amount of evidence I have read (and I do mean limited). So tell me how was it flawed. My understanding is that he could not provide parents which matched the rflp (i'm assuming this was the technique used) results for birds he was selling, thus he could not have bred them.
I'm not nieve enough to suggest this was the only evidence, from the sounds of it, it was not his first arrest for this type of crime.

If you know different, then please tell us. He was however convicted by a jury of his peers, courts have been wrong, but not as frequently as they are right. I think to suggest this was a stich up is a little far fetched, but i'm willing to listen.

Andy


----------



## Chris Newman

GlasgowGecko said:


> Well i'm i ntrigued, I can only go on the limited amount of evidence I have read (and I do mean limited). So tell me how was it flawed. My understanding is that he could not provide parents which matched the rflp (i'm assuming this was the technique used) results for birds he was selling, thus he could not have bred them.
> I'm not nieve enough to suggest this was the only evidence, from the sounds of it, it was not his first arrest for this type of crime.
> 
> If you know different, then please tell us. He was however convicted by a jury of his peers, courts have been wrong, but not as frequently as they are right. I think to suggest this was a stich up is a little far fetched, but i'm willing to listen.
> 
> Andy


The evidence used to convict him was DNA testing, however, the prosecuting body new prior to the Court case that the DNA probes were inaccurate, or rather simply did not work. This case is extremely complicated, what has been posted here is a fraction of all the information.

I am not suggesting that I know if Derek is innocent or not, what I am prepared to state is that the evidence used to convict him was known to be unsafe at the time by the prosecuting body. In essence the only evidence against him was in forum of the DNA and that was known not to be correct. 

In terms of proving parentage of breeding stock, I would suggest that 95% of people keeping reptiles would be unable to provide , in the eyes of the law, parentage of there animals!


----------



## GlasgowGecko

I'm still not sure how the DNA results were inacurate or know not to be correct, I'd really like to know what you mean by this. Which technique did they use, and how exactly was it flawed?

Pehaps you are right that 95% of people keeping reptiles could not provide perentage of their animals, but of the animals they are saying they bred, in that case I suggest they could. 

If you are saying the only evidence to convict him was the DNA evidence, I would be dubious, but i'll take your word for that.

Andy


----------



## Chris Newman

GlasgowGecko said:


> I'm still not sure how the DNA results were inacurate or know not to be correct, I'd really like to know what you mean by this. Which technique did they use, and how exactly was it flawed?
> 
> Pehaps you are right that 95% of people keeping reptiles could not provide perentage of their animals, but of the animals they are saying they bred, in that case I suggest they could.
> 
> If you are saying the only evidence to convict him was the DNA evidence, I would be dubious, but i'll take your word for that.
> 
> Andy


It is, as you might suspect very complicated. Also bear in mind this case is quite old, ten or so years ago. At that time DNA probes were being developed to test the DNA of birds of pray, however, the developers of these probes new they the results given were inaccurate. Nevertheless the prosecution body decided to press ahead with the prosecution even thought they new the DNA results were unreliable. 

All of the information to the above is in the public domain – somewhere. When I find the relevant links I will post them here. However, in the mean time you might be interested in this link: 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LWi7sHRWKzQ&feature=related


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

MY CONVICTION WAS DUE TO PERJURY AND LIES AND IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME HOW TO PUT DOCUMENTS ON THE THIS Forum I WILL OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE RSPB BUT HERE IS A TASTER FOR NOW. BY THE WAY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CRITCISE ME FOR USING LETTERS AFTER MY NAME ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE ANY, AS THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW HARD GETTING LETTTERS AFTER YOUR NAME IS.


If you are not going to read the evidence then do not comment 


THANK YOU



DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] IF YOU DO NOT MIND.

*The following evidence should be noted in relation to Guy Shorrock under your duty of care. You will note the unacceptable behaviour of Guy Shorrock therefore I would suggest that there should be a police inquiry in to the enclosed evidence and the other evidence that I have supplied before Guy Shorrock is allowed to control evidence again given the duty of care that is owed to members of the public. *

*The evidence supplied is matter of fact in documented form that supports my claim that there must be a police inquiry into the enclosed evidence and the evidence I have supplied in the past*


*Given the evidence that has been supplied you are personally liable for the actions of Guy Shorrock in the future as you have an increased duty of care due to being informed of the evidence against Guy Shorrock. *

The Complaints Officer
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn

26 January 2009



Please read the enclosed letter that I am still waiting for a positive reply to in relation to investigating Shorrock. 



*Sir William Hague*


William Hague​ 

House of Parliament​ 

London​ 



Ede House ​ 





143 Westoe Road ​ 
South Shields ​ 
NE33 3PD​ 





Telephone​ 

(0191) 456 8910​ 







*Home Office*​ 
Direct Communications Unit​ 
2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF​







Ministry of Justice​ 
102 Petty France​ 
London

SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom​









The Complaints Officer​ 
Independent Police Complaints Commission​ 
90 High Holborn

London
WC1V 6BH and the CPS. Please forward to every Police station in the UK​










*Nicola Reasbeck*​ 
Chief Crown Prosecutor​ 



St Ann’s Quay​ 
122 Quayside​ 
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3BD DX 61006 Newcastle Upon Tyne Tel: 0191 260 4200

Fax: 0191 260 4240​







Hampshire Constabulary 
Police Headquarters
West Hill
Romsey Road
Winchester
Hampshire
SO22 5DB


6 January 2009​ 




Dear Chief Constable Alex Marshall,

Reference: My Open letter in relation to further conclusive evidence of Guy Shorrock lying to the police and the need for a criminal inquiry in totality IN RELATION TO THE crimes of Guy Shorrock. 


*2008/019265.*​ 

*ENQ15778E*​ 

*PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED FURTHER SPECIFIC CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF GUY SHORROCK LYING TO THE POLICE IN A SECRET DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY GUY SHORROCK. This is to FURTHER SUPPORT OF MY COMPLAINTS and OTHERS ABOUT GUY SHORROCK THAT IS MATTER OF FACT AND COGENTLY SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT GUY SHORROCK. THERE IS A NEED FOR A POLICE ENQUIRY SO THAT SHORROCK CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR NUMEROUS CRIMES AGAINST MANY PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS, WHILE THE POLICE TURNED A BLIND EYE. *

*PLEASE SIT DOWN AND READ THIS SHORT LETTER AND AFTER YOU HAVE READ THE OTHER LETTERS ABOUT GUY SHIORROCK AND NOTE HOW MUCH INJUSTICE THERE IS IN THE UK DUE TO THE MISGUIDED LOYALTIES PEOPLE IN POWER HAVE TOWARDS THE RSPB. JUSTICE SHOULD START AT HOME BEFORE WE ASK THE WORLD TO EMBRACE JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS. *

*WE THE VICTIMS WANT QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ABOUT WHY SHORROCK IS CONTINUALLY ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH HIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT A POLICE INVESTIGATION AND TO ASK THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO ASK THE POLICE TO INTERVIEW ALL OF THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT SHORROCK AND TO ASK THE POLICE TO INVISTIGATE SHORROCK’S CRIMES THROUGHOUT THE UK.*

*Note there is a mass of information that has been collected about the crimes of Guy Shorrock over 13 years that the victims from 1 to 10 and others want investigated in the public interests as if we ignore the crimes of Shorrock’s past we are domed to have HIS CRIMES repeated in our future.*


*THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.*



*Yours truly from the following,*



*1] Mark Robb*

*2] Terry Burden, *

*3] David Myatt *

*4] Ken Smith. *

*5] DEREK CANNING*

*6] Cameron Hannah*

*7] Chris Marshall [See letters below]*

*8] Tony Weddell [See letters below]*

*9] JOHN DODSWORTH,*

*10] Peter Gurr.*
*Please clearly note Guy Shorrock’s confidential report dated *23.03.05 to Hampshire Police and my comments in red.

*Confidential Report to Hampshire Police concerning the **execution of a search warrant at Edgeways, Campbell Close, **Grateley, Andover, Hants on 19 January 2005*
I am Guy Shorrock, a Senior Investigations Officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) based at their headquarters at Sandy in Bedfordshire. I have been employed as an Investigations Officer for over thirteen years, prior to which I was a Police Officer for over seven years with the Greater Manchester Police. The work of the Species Protection Department in which I am based is primarily concerned with gathering evidence of infringements of the legislation that protects wildlife in the United Kingdom, principally in relation to offences involving wild birds. The Department plays an advisory role, assisting the statutory agencies in their investigations, especially through the Police Wildlife Crime Officers' (WCO) network.
WHY DID guy Shorrock leave the police force?
During the last 21 years, I estimate I have probably been involved with the execution of over 100 search warrants. [ALL THE SEARCH WARRANTS NEED INVESTIGATING] The large majority of these have been during the last 13 years in relation to wildlife offences, many of which have related to egg collecting enquiries. I currently possess probably more experience of egg collecting enquiries than any other person in the UK and have given expert evidence on this area of crime at court on numerous occasions. [PROVE THIS] The RSPB have been instrumental in assisting the statutory agencies to bring many convictions against egg collectors. Consequently, there is often some animosity during search warrants directed towards RSPB staff rather than the police officers actually responsible for executing the warrant. [PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THE RSPB BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TRUST THE RSPB] The RSPB Investigations Section takes considerable care when speaking to the police about search warrants and routinely discusses the following areas: -
•Grounds for the warrant
•Relevant legislation
•Advice on items which should be named as sought
•A request for RSPB staff to be specifically named on the warrant.
[PROVE IT]
Whilst I am not aware of any legislation that specifically states that other persons authorised by the court have to be named on the warrant, the RSPB has always asked this to be done for clarity and in case of objections raised by occupiers.
[UNDER THE CODES OF PRACTISE OF THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT ONLY THE PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN ENTER THE PROPERY COVERED BY THE SEARCH WARRANT. GIVEN SHORROCK’S POLICE PAST AND HIS MANY CLAIMED SEARCH WARRANTS HE MUST KNOW THIS FACT]


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

In addition to assisting the police during warrants with advice on what may be relevant evidence in relation to an investigation the RSPB are also able to ensure that many items of property are not unnecessarily seized. This is of benefit to the occupier. [NAME ONE PERSON THAT WAS GLAD TO SEE SHORROCK HELPING TO RAID THEIR PROPERTY AS SHORROCK ONLY LOOKS FOR HIS OWN GOALS TO PROSECUTE PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE SEE THE CASE R V BURDEN]
From 1996, the RSPB, later assisted by the police and the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit at NC1S, gathered a considerable amount of intelligence information on individuals believed to be travelling abroad to collect birds' eggs. Whilst the taking of these may have been illegal under the legislation of the country concerned, it was no offence to possess these eggs once brought back into the UK. This problem existed because of a failure by the UK government to properly transpose requirements of EU Regulations into UK law. This situation was rectified in July 2004, which meant possession of birds' eggs in the UK, which had been taken illegally in other EU member states, was now an offence. On the basis of this an operation was put together to execute warrants at the homes of three targets, two in Hampshire and a third in Cheshire. [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?] 
Following considerable consultation with the police and CPS in both Hampshire and Cheshire, on the 4 January 2005 I sent an e-mail to Hampshire and Cheshire Police (enc). This contained the background information for the warrant application and advice about other issues. The information for the warrant application was fairly lengthy as I wanted to ensure any officer making an application would have all the background information should they be asked questions by the court. . [WHY WAS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY OF THE RAIDS IN RELATION TO BIRDS EGGS IF SHORROCK HAD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE? COULD IT BE THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE?]
At 05.55 hours on Wednesday the 19 January 2005, myself and a colleague attended at Winchester Police station for a briefing. The first part was undertaken by PC Geoff Culbertson and Sgt Louise Hubble, both officers seemed well prepared and organised. [WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?] I then gave some additional guidance to the officers present about what to expect and the type of items sort. As a matter of routine, I asked Sgt Hubble if I could view the warrants. On examination of the two warrants I noted that on the one for the address of Marshall that the RSPB were not specifically named on the warrant, though an identical warrant for the other Hampshire address had the RSPB named. Sgt Hubble stated she had applied for the warrants and had specifically asked the court for authority for RSPB officers to assist with the search warrants and that this had been granted. It seemed clear this was a minor clerical error by the court. [WHY WAS IT CLEAR TO SHORROCK THAT IT WAS JUST A MINOR CLERICAL ERROR? WHY DID SHORROCK CONTINUE ON THE RAID WHEN HE KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT? WHY DID THE POLICE ALLOW SHORROCK TO GO ON THE SEARCH WARRANT GIVEN THE FACTS?] There was some discussion as to whether it would be worth contacting a Justice of the Peace in relation to this, but as three simultaneous warrants were planned there was insufficient time for this to be done. In the circumstances, as the officer who had made the application for the warrants was present and could clearly confirm the court had given authority for RSPR to assist, it seemed a reasonable course of action to continue as planned. If it had not been possible to consult with the officer who had taken out the warrant, I would not have entered the premises without the consent of the occupier. [ONLY PEOPLE NAMED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT CAN USE THE SEARCH WARRANT TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY. RULES ARE NOT MADE TO BE BROKEN BY GUY SHORROCK AS IT SUITS HIM]


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

The officers were split into two teams. I was in the team for the address of a Mr Marshall at Edgeways, Campbell Close, Grateley, Andover, Hants. SP11 7DY. Officers on this team were Sgt Hubble, PC 23615 Andrews, PC 2098 Sard, PC 3331 Mills and PC 3435 Chandler. The warrant was executed at approximately 07.30 hours. There was a female at the address who stated she had recently started lodging at the premises and had no contact details for Mr Marshall. The nature of the warrant was outlined to the occupier and I was not aware of any objections raised about my presence. Two officers spoke to her at some length in an upstairs room (I was not present during this) but she was apparently not able to provide any details of Mr Marshall's whereabouts.
The loft was searched, I believe only one or two officers may have entered the loft. I was not aware of any damage being caused and heard no reference made by any of the officers to any sort of damage relating to the search of this area. The rear ground floor
room was locked and the key appeared to be in the lock from the other side. I assisted with an attempt to dismantle the front of the lock and to try and push the key out onto a piece of newspaper pushed under the door but this was not possible [WHY DID SHORROCK GET INVOLVED IN SMASHING DOWN A DOOR WHEN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM AND WHEN HE HAD NO RIGHT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PLACE?] 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

As Mr Marshall could not be contacted, and no key could be located, this was forced at around 08.35 hours. [YOU MEAN SMASHED OPEN, SEE YOU TUBE!]
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

The room was about four metres square and fairly untidy. There was furniture in the room including _a _desk, and various items stored on shelves and on the floor. It did not appear to be being used as any sort of living space but more likely as storage and an office area. The officers present started to search this room to the left of the door and proceeded around the room in a methodical fashion. A number of items were brought to my attention and I gave advice on the relevance of items to the enquiry. I gave some assistance with the physical searching of the property, this was mainly confined to looking through items passed to me by the police. This is a normal level of involvement for the warrants I assist with. I was wearing _a _pair of disposable gloves, this is again standard practice [IS THIS TRUE, AS ALL THE OTHER VIDEOS THAT I HAVE SEEN SHORROCK WAS NOT WEARING GLOVES?] to protect my hands and reduce the chances of contaminating items that may be needed for fingerprint examination. I also helped with putting back some of the items into the areas from where they had been found. The room was generally untidy with a numerous documents on surfaces and in drawers. Whilst it is never possible to put items back in exactly the same position as found, it was abundantly clear to myself the officers were being responsible and making efforts to ensure any items examined were being returned to the same area from where they were found. I did not get the impression that any real disruption was being caused to the contents of the room. In fact, in some areas of the room, the replacing of items appeared to constitute some tidying of the room. [THIS IS NOT WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS]
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE
During the warrant, Mr Marshall arrived, I gather he had been phoned by the female lodger despite her claims of having no contact number. He appeared angry and aggressive. I always consider this is partly to be expected in the circumstances and let the police speak with him to outline the nature of the warrant. As Mr Marshall entered the rear ground floor room he stormed across towards me with his arms raised. I
Avoided eye contact and quietly continued what I was doing. A female police officer did aan excellent job of calming Mr Marshall down and his behaviour, though a little erratic at times, was fairly reasonable after this point. *He did not ask me to leave or stop what I was doing at any point**[confirmed by the police video that has been put on you tube to show Shorrock has lied to the police you will notice on the police video from 9.29 am that Chris Marshall ordered Shorrock off his property as Shorrock was not named on the search warrant. This is matter of fact and clear proof Shorrock is a liar and cannot be trusted by the police, moreover there needs to be a police investigation into all of the complaints made about Shorrock over the years, see you tube for conclusive proof of Shorrock’s lying to the police]*. 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE
At one point, he asked why the police were seizing a particular item and I outlined that it was based on advice I had given to the police, Mr Marshall seemed satisfied with this explanation. [DID HE SEEM SATISFIED, I SUGGESTED GIVEN THE VIDEO EVIDECE HE WAS NOT SATISFIED] Mr Marshall did complain about the mess being caused, but having been present throughout the search of this room I struggled to understand what 'mess' he was actually referring to. Mr [VIEW THE VIDEO AND YOU WILL SEE WHY CHRIS MARSHALL WAS UPSET AT THE WAY HIS BUSINNES DOCUMENTS WERE BEING MIXED UP]
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

Marshall did ask on two occasions a rather unusual question of why we had not been to the address previously. This tended to suggest he thought a warrant was likely to be executed at some stage. Mr Marshall also denied having another residence claiming to be living in B&B accommodation.
I was aware that two vehicles outside were checked but I was not involved in a search of these. Other than the minor damage to the door of the rear ground floor room, I was not aware of any other damage being caused. [‘MINOR DAMAGE’ THIS IS NOT TRUE THE DOOR WAS DISTROYED AND THE FRAME WAS NEARLY KICKED FROM THE WALL, SEE THE POLICE VIDEO FOR PROOF] http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE
The warrant concluded at 10.53 hours and I returned to Andover and then Winchester Police Station for a de-briefing and to sort out exhibits. I took away _a _number of items for further examination.
The items seized from Marshall, whilst offering some corroboration with the original intelligence, were not evidence of specific offences and I returned these to Hampshire Police. [THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED] The items seized from the other two suspects in the enquiry, provide considerable corroboration of the original intelligence. It is my professional opinion that all the intelligence gathered for the search warrants is accurate and that Mr Marshall is likely to hold an illegal egg collection at some location. I believe Mr Marshall probably uses the Edgeways address as a business and mailing address to reduce the chances of his own residence being located. [GIVEN THE FACTS WHAT SHORROCK HAS JUST SAID IS CLEARLY WRONG AND AN OUTRAGUS COMMENT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMES WHICH WAS WHY THERE WAS NO CHARGES AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS RETURNED, HOWEVER SOMES PRPOERTY WAS DAMAGED]

Mr Marshall is also heavily involved with a group called the Jourdain Society, and I believe he is the current chairman. The members of this group are specifically interested in the nests, eggs and breeding behaviour of wild birds. It is no secret that several current and former members of this society are convicted egg collectors and several, including the other two individuals subject of this enquiry, are suspected to be involved in the illegal taking of eggs. In 1993, the RSPB instigated and assisted the Wiltshire Police with an investigation into the Society, which led to the conviction of six individuals. Understandably, the RSPB _is _not popular with this group. [WHAT HAS THE AFORESAID GOT TO DO WITH TARGETING CHRIS MARSHALL AND THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE?]
Having assisted the police with a large number of search warrants I considered all the officers to have behaved professionally and that their conduct and behaviour was exemplary throughout. After the conclusion of the warrant, I did in fact mention to Sgt Hubble that I had been impressed with the enthusiasm and efforts of all the officers present and asked if she would pass on the thanks of the RSPB [WELL SHORROCK WOULD SAY THAT THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS A DISGRACE AND CRIMINALLY WRONG].
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Guy Shorrock
Senior Investigations Officer
23.03.05


----------



## Lucifus

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] said:


> PEOPLE YOU CRITCISE ME FOR USING LETTERS AFTER MY NAME ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE ANY AS THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW HARD GETTING LETTTERS AFTER YOUR NAME IS.


It amazes me how you managed to get a degree yet still haven't mastered the caps lock key. Getting letters at the end of your name is easy our days and forcing people to use them is just pretentious.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

The Complaints Officer​ 
Independent Police Complaints Commission​ 

90 High Holborn​ 

London​ 

WC1V 6BH ​ 





Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission​ 



*Ref; My complaint against the Police and Guy Shorrock [RSPB**]*​ 

*2008/019265.*​ 

*ENQ15778E*​ 
*It is my contention and right that is supported by all of the people mentioned in my correspondence that there must be an investigation in relation to the various independent complaints throughout the UK about Shorrock in the context of the supporting evidence from many victims of Shorrock’s perjury over the years [similar fact evidence] that independently supports each victim’s accusations that Shorrock has committed various crimes in various criminal cases over the years. Given the aforesaid there must be a nation wide criminal investigation in relation to Shorrock’s crimes against various people that have been mentioned in the past. Some of the addresses of the victims of Shorrock’s lies are given below to further the police’s investigations into Shorrock. It stands to reason that we the victim’s of Shorrock’s lies should all be interviewed again in totality to allow us to explain our complaints about Shorrock as we cannot all be wrong as we are all saying the same things about the same person, even though we the victims have not met or discussed Shorrock until now. The only common factor is Shorrock’s perjury. Also note before Shorrock Peter Robinson had to resign from the RSPB for setting people up, then Karen Bradbury had to resign due to her lies, then Andy Jones resigned. It is believed given what Professor Parkin said on tape Shorrock was asked to resign Stockport Police Station so he then joined the RSPB. *
*There are hundreds of files of evidence that we have collected over 13 years about Guy Shorrock crimes from the various victims of Shorrock’s lies that the victims and I want the police nation wide to investigate in the public interest. The files include the bogus DNA profiling started by the RSPB and funded by the DoE until they realised the fact the DNA did not work had been exposed. The facts are to hand in various file that can be supplied at once. *
*For example look at the You Tube Clips below on the RSPB and Shorrock then compare this with file on Guy Shorrock by Derek Canning. *







*Please note that the DVD OF GUY SHORROCK illegally being in Chris Marshall property and committing criminal damage will also be going on You Tube in the interest of injustice.*
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pEUprzgvKck
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_08DhY7iE

Below is further supportive evidence against Guy Shorrock and the police therefore everyone should be interviewed that has complained about Shorrock over the years and the police as everyone is independently supporting the allegations against Shorrock and the police. We cannot all be wrong, we cannot all be lying. The only common factors are we are all saying the same things about the crimes of Shorrock and the police.

All the cases that Shorrock has been involved in should be investigated as there will be more than the following victims that Shorrock has lied about and perverted the course of justice about with the help of the police:

*Mark Robb*
*John Dodsworth*
*David Myatt*
*Terry Burden*
*Ken Smith [more the RSPB Karen Bradbury and Andy Jones]*
*Tony Waddle*
*Chris Marshall*
*Cameron Hannah*
*Derek Canning*
*Peter Gurr*

1] It should be clearly noted *repeatedly *the same organisations that I am complaining about [the police, the DoE and the RSPB] are the same organisations that perverted the course of justice in my case also committed the same crimes in the Mark Robb, Terry Burden, David Myatt, and Shawn Smith cases and so on. This behaviour is very unacceptable and is in breach of your duty of care to others and me not to investigate my complaint and others.
2] I want my legal representative to make representation to the police on my behalf and others, as he is an expert in police perjury therefore the police are less likely to try to cover up his statement or ignore it. For my legal team to make an accurate and concise representation I need the police to answer my questions in relation to the conclusive documented evidence in relation to perjury by Shorrock, that I have asked in my correspondence. Please note the following people who I am specifically complaining on behalf of below. 

Please then note the complaints of the following 



*Please note the court transcript below that I have paid hundreds of pounds for to Show the Shorrock lied in my court case [**R v Dodsworth]. **I have gone through the court transcript page by page to highlight in red my comments on the sections where Shorrock lied in court. I have also highlighted the most important section of the court transcript in blue. *


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

IN THE CROWN COURT AT NEWCASTLE

The Crown Court​ 

Quayside​ 

Newcastle upon Tyne​ 
13th October 2008 Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE LANCASTER

REGINA​ 

-v-​ 

JOHN DODDSWORTH​ 

*EXTRACT OF EVIDENCE OF GUY SHORROCK*​ 

APPEARANCES:​ 
For the Prosecution: MR. T. MORAN
For the Defence: MR. P. WALSH

From the audio transcription of​ 

J.L. Harpham Limited​ 

Official Court Reporters and Tape Transcribers​ 

55 Queen Street​ 

Sheffield SI 2DX​ 


REGINA -v- JOHN DODDSWORTH​ 

1 SHORROCK WAS CALLED BACK TO THE WITNESS BOX AS HE HAD BEEN EXPOSED IN RELATION TO PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY PETER WALSH. I WILL HEIHLIGHT IN RED THE EVIDENCE FROM THE COURT TRANSCRIPT THAT PROVES SHORROCK WITHHELD A VITAL LETTER AND A VITAL RECEIPT FROM MIKE DAWSON.


REGINA -v- JOHN DODDSWORTH​ 
2 13th October 2008
3 (In the absence of the Jury)
4 GUY SHORROCK Recalled
5 Further examined bv MR. MORAN:
6 Q. Mr. Shorrock, you have heard about the purple folder where it is said these two letters were? - A.
7 That is correct.
THE ABOVE PURPLE FILE THAT WAS ONLY IN SHORROCK’S CONTROL SHOULD HAVE CONTAINED THE VITAL LETTER AND A VITAL RECEIPT FROM MIKE DAWSON. 
8 Q. Do you know the exhibit number that is attached to that? - A. Yes reference AW2.
9 Q. *And have you examined that? - A. I have examined it several times, including during *the break.
10 Q. How did you first receive that? - A. It was received along with other exhibits in sealed bags with
11 Police tags on, it passed into possession of the RSPB I believe in November 2006. The bags were
12 opened by myself and a colleague in January 2007.
13 Q. And are there letters of the description described by Mr. Doddsworth that are now missing? - A.
14 There are not.
15 Q.JUDGE LANCASTER: There were two items weren't there as I understood it. The first
16 item was a receipt to Mr. Doddsworth from Mr. Dawson, acknowledging that he had paid £600 for
17 the cabinet? - A. Yes that's not... The first time I was aware of the apparent existence of that I think
18 was on 16th of February when Mr. Doddsworth raised it in interview. I subsequently checked the
19 exhibits again after that interview and again I have not seen those documents.
20 Q. And the second one purported to be a letter written by Mr. Dawson, a copy of a letter written by
21 him to the RSPB inviting the RSPB to inspect the egg collection? - A. Again that is not present.
22 There are several letters from Mr. Dawson which are actually in the jury bundle but that letter is


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

23 not contained there.
NOTE THE GREAT LENGTH TIME SHORROCK HAD THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE POLICE MAKING ANY COUNTER CHECKS THIS ATTITUDE AND BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE HAS ALLOWED SHORROCK OVER MANY YEARS TO DISTROY OR WITHHOLD VITAL EVIDENCE IN A NUMBER CASES. THERE IS A LOT MORE EVIDENCE FROM OTHER CASES TO FURTHER SUPPORT THIS FACT THAT CAN BE SUPPLIED ON REQUEST.
24 Q.MR. MORAN: Has there been some communication about certificates that relate to a
25 Peregrine Falcon? - A. Yes I received a call from Inspector Peter Sutton several months ago asking
26 about some documents for Peregrines. We were not quite sure at the time whether this was
27 registration documents or certificates. I contacted a colleague, because these items were stored at
28 Newcastle, and I was led to believe that the registration documents were not with the exhibits.
29 Following a further call... Sorry, I then received information from my colleague that he had found
30 the documents. He contacted Inspector Sutton and those documents have been returned by
31 recorded delivery. Again I spoke to Inspector Sutton during the lunch break and he confirmed he
32 had received those documents.
33 Q.JUDGE LANCASTER: So those documents then, the Peregrine Falcon certificates, were
34 with you all the time? - A. Yes, we certainly didn't tell Inspector Sutton we had lost them, we just
35 said we couldn't find them. That was an error on 
our part.
THE ERROR WAS A DELIBERATE ACT



1 Q. Well what has happened to them? - A. They have been returned to Inspector Sutton and I know he
2 has received them. From there I presume they have been returned to Mr. Doddsworth, but I can't
3 say.
4 Q.MR. MORAN: Now Mr. Dawson, the Prosecution in 1996, are you aware of the detail of
5 that? - A. I am. It was a colleague of mine who was the main RSPB officer assisting the Police,
6 although I had some involvement with the case.
7 Q. And he was acquitted we know and some eggs were returned to him? - A. That is correct.
8 Q. Now all the eggs that are in the cabinet there, TAS2, do all of those relate to the eggs that were
9 returned to Dawson? - A. It is mostly the 12 year old, it is most of the eggs in the top two drawers
10 and those are predominantly skylarks eggs. There are some other songbird eggs in there but it is
11 most predominantly most of the top two drawers of eggs.
12 Q. And the eggs on Count 1 the Golden Eagle, the Honey Buzzard, the Egyptian Vulture, were those
13 eggs that were returned to Mr. Dawson? - A. No, those never featured in that case.
14 Q. That was 1996? - A. That is correct, yes.
15 Q. Were you involved in the 1998 case involving Mr. Doddsworth? - A. Yes, I effectively compiled.
SHORROCK COMPILES ALL THE CASES HE GETS INVOLVED IN FOR THE POLICE WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO DISTROY OR WITHHOLD EVIDENCE IN MANY CASES. THIS IS WHY ALL SHORROCK’S CASES NEED TO BE CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATED AND ALL OF THE WITNESSES INTERVIEWD WHETHER GUILTY OR INNOSENT AS PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE NEEDS TO BE JUDGE IN TOTALITY.
16 the Doddsworth prosecution evidence for the Police.
17 Q. And were you present when evidence was read out during that case? - A. That is correct. I have this
18 original document that was put to Mr. Dawson in the presence of Mr. Doddsworth.
19 Q. About the conversation between Dawson and Braithwaite? - A. That is correct, yes.
20 Q. Which has given rise to the agreed facts that the Jury have heard about? - A. That is correct.
21 Q. Knowledge of scams and the like? - A. That is correct.
22 Q. The suggestion is I think that the eggs in this box here are accompanied by data cards that match
23 the eggs, is that correct? - A. There are 238 clutches in the Hills cabinet. There are 40 clutches for
24 which I can find no relevant data, about 15 percent of the collection.
25 Q.JUDGE LANCASTER: How many? - A. 40 clutches.
26 Q. 40? - A. 40, yes.
27 Q.MR. MORAN: Go on? - A. There are 57 clutches of eggs where the data is perfectly
28 genuine and would suggest the eggs are legally held. The remaining data, which is about
29 three-quarters of the collection, I don't consider the data to be of a satisfactory standard. Not the
30 standard I would expect of a collection or perhaps a museum would expect.
31 Q. Are you aware of the RSPB ever receiving a request to inspect Dawson's collection? - A. No I not.
AS YOU READ THIS COURT TRANSCRIPT YOU WILL SEE WHATA BARE FACED LIE THE ABOVE IS IN RELATION TO NOT receiving a request to inspect Dawson's collection.
32 I am certainly aware of the original visit by two of my colleagues to see Mr. Dawson when they
33 were apparently briefly shown these two trays of skylark eggs, but I am certainly not aware of any

18 - A. Sorry, which receipts are you referring to?
19 Q. The receipts recovered by the officer? - A. (No reply).
20 JUDGE LANCASTER: To be fair I think Mr. Shorrock should see a copy of his statement.
21 MR. WALSH: Certainly.
22 Q.JUDGE LANCASTER: It is at page 38. Mr. Shorrock, what you should have been handed
23 is the statement of Andrew Wilkinson dated 10th of October, and you will see that he is the man
24 who searches the kitchen, finds several items and places them into exhibit bags? - A. Okay.
25 Q. And in particular he finds documents and papers which he puts in AW1 ? - A. Yes.
26 Q. And "documents and receipts (verifications)" in AW2? - A. Right.
27 Q. What you are being asked is where are these, where are the receipts, the verifications which were
28 part of AW2? - A. I mean, I didn't make this document obviously.
29 Q. No, I know you didn't. - A. There is other paperwork in AW2 so there could be receipts in relation
30 to certain items, so I will need to check that.
31 JUDGE LANCASTER: Do you want him to look at them, AW2?


1 MR. WALSH: Well it has to be checked, your Honour, because it is fundamental.
NOTE THE EVIDENCE WAS FUNDERMENTAL THAT SHORROCK WITHHELD AND DISTROYED.
2 JUDGE LANCASTER: Do you want to look at them now. I mean it is a live issue and you
3 have asked him where are the receipts, do you want to satisfy yourself, Mr. Walsh, that they are in
4 there?
5 MR. WALSH: Well Mr. Shorrock has been in possession of that and it appears he cannot
6 tell without looking in there.
THE BARRISTER IS REALLY SAYING SHORROCK IS A LIAR.
7 Q.JUDGE LANCASTER: He probably can't, no. Can you say without looking? - A. No I
8 can't, but there are lots of pieces of paper. There are certainly letters in there and data cards, I know
9 that much.
10 Q. Well we will need to have a look won't we? - A. Will it be okay if I just get them out?
11 JUDGE LANCASTER: Are there any you particularly want him to search for?
12 MR. WALSH: The receipt from Mr. Dawson:
13 Q. Forgive me interrupting your efforts, Mr. Shorrock, is that the purple folder you are referring to? -
14 A. Yes, that is right.
15 Q. Thank you? - A. I suppose that is sort of a receipt.
16 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: What is that then? - A. The letter from the Sussex Police to
17 Mr. Dawson. I don't know if I would class it as a receipt but it is confirmation of property.
18 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well this might unlock part of *the mystery*, Mr. Walsh. It is an
19 undated letter addressed to the Sussex Police.
20 "Please be careful with these birds eggs they are all legally held. The top
21 two drawers were taken by the Police and were returned to me by the
22 Magistrates Court as legally held."
23 So that is consistent with what we have just heard from Mr. Shorrock.
24 "The other drawers are of eggs which I had given away a few years ago. The
25 *person asked me if I would like them returned as he was now nearly 80 and*
*26 did not require them any more. If I did not want them he would destroy*
*27 them. I took them back and wrote to the RSPB to say I now had them in my*
*28 possession and that they could come and view them should they wish to. So*
*29 far they have not been."*
30 Then he makes a complaint about smashing in the front door and he wants compensation for it,
31 MR. WALSH: May I see that please?



1 JUDGE LANCASTER: Yes. I mean in fact that might be a reference, that might be the
2 letter that your client has referred to as an invitation by Mr. Dawson to inspect,
3 THE WITNESS: Also maybe Mr. Hemmings as well. He gives the age of the person, 801


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

4 think is mentioned, that could be Mr. Hemmings, he is quite elderly.
5 Q. JUDGE LANCASTER: That could be Mr. Hemmings could it, the 80 years old? - A. Yes.
6 MR. WALSH: Can I just take instructions?
7 JUDGE LANCASTER: Yes.
8 MR. WALSH: That is certainly one of the documents, your Honour.
9 JUDGE LANCASTER: Okay, so it is not missing at all then.
10 MR. WALSH: Not missing but it certainly has not been produced. Now it has been
11 produced. Could you look again please, it is the letter from Mr. Dawson?
12 JUDGE LANCASTER: The receipt is what you want now, isn't it, for the eggs?
13 MR. WALSH: Yes.
14 JUDGE LANCASTER: Sorry a receipt for the £500 or £600 for the cabinet.
15 THE WITNESS: I've been through it three times, but I'll have another look.
16 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, wouldn't it be better if my learned friend did, otherwise the
17 Defendant might think that something has not been revealed that is there.
18 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well do you want Mr. Walsh to do it?
19 MR. MORAN: I would prefer it, yes.

SO THE LETTER WAS NOT LOST IT WAS WITH BY SHORROCK. THIS HE HAS DONE TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN VARIOUS CASES THAT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. THE ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN GIVEN. 
20 JUDGE LANCASTER: All right. Well stop now please for a minute, Mr. Shorrock.
21 Q. MR. WALSH: Can I just clarify, there is another piece of evidence I might be able to clarify
22 quickly. Evidence was read out in the presence of Mr. Doddsworth to Mr. Dawson, is that correct?
23 - A. That is correct, yes. It was a transcript of a TV programme, a two page transcript.
24 Q. When you say evidence, do you mean sworn evidence? - A. It was put to him in cross-
25 examination.
26 Q. Put to who in cross-examination? - A. It was put to Mr. Dawson in cross-examination.
27 Q. I want to be clear about this, did Mr. Dawson give evidence in that case? - A. Yes he did, yes.
28 MR. WALSH: Your Honour, can I just take instructions on that?



1 JUDGE LANCASTER: Yes.
2 MR. WALSH: If you would just give me one second. Your Honour, that was a short point
3 in relation to that.
4 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well look, just sit down for a minute will you, Mr. Shorrock. You
5 had better take hold of these and have a look with your solicitor.
6 MR. WALSH: Yes, and also Mr. Doddsworth.
7 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well I will leave them in court, they will have to go on the exhibit
8 bench here. I will rise. If you tell me when you are ready.
9 (Short break)
10 MR. WALSH: Your Honour, I have one more question to put to Mr. Shorrock and then
11 perhaps adjourn Mr. Shorrock temporarily while my learned friend and I perhaps see if we can
12 short circuit what could be a very lengthy process.
13 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well what have you just shown Mr. Shorrock?
14 MR. WALSH: I have just shown Mr. Shorrock the note that was contained on the evidence
15 bag.
16 THE WITNESS: The Police exhibit label, your Honour.
17 Q. MR. WALSH: Now, Mr. Shorrock, it is quite clear what is said in that exhibit label, it
18 mirrors what you have been told is in the statement of the officer who filled in that exhibit label'
19 A. I believe so yes, it has Mr. PC Wilkinson as the person originally seizing the item, yes.
20 Q. And he has clearly put in letters with the same prominence as the letters that mark the fact that
21 documents were received but that receipts were also received? - A. Yes it says "Documents and
22 receipts." Documents and receipts in the plural, then in brackets it says "Verification."
23 Q. Yes. It is right to say, well I don't want to give evidence, but there appear to be no receipts
24 whatsoever in that bundle of document that you took from that bag? - A. Yes, apart from the '
25 Sussex Police letter, but apart from that I can't see any what I would classify as a receipt.
26 Q. The Sussex Police letter appears to be the letter in terms that Mr. Doddsworth is referring to in
27 interview. Do you want to read it. Sorry, Mr. Shorrock, I don't think I have given you a chance t
28 read that? - A. I thought the letter was reference to £600.
29 JUDGE LANCASTER: There is no point in keeping the Jury hanging around is there?
30 MR. WALSH: No.
31 JUDGE LANCASTER: Can we send the Jury home?


1 MR. WALSH: We may be able to short circuit this, your Honour, I know Mr. Moran just
2 has his speech to make.
3 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well he hasn't now, he is going to have to call this witness, isn't
4 he?
5 MR. WALSH: This is what we are trying to resolve, your Honour.
6 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well you will not get your speech in tonight anyway.
7 MR. MORAN: I don't know whether your Honour could just as it were wait to see whether
8 we might fit in Mr. Shorrock's rebuttal evidence. The reason I mention it is there is a trial which I
9 am due to do in Teesside which was supposed to start today which was put back until tomorrow
10 because of this case overrunning. It is now 12 o'clock tomorrow, I was going to ask if your Honour
11 would first of all consider sitting at 10 o'clock tomorrow, and also whether your Honour would be
12 prepared to release me if I had the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service. Obviously that does
13 not arise if your Honour were to say well this is not a case where I should leave, but I will be
14 asking whether your Honour would be prepared to allow me, subject to me being contactable,
15 should something arise?
16 JUDGE LANCASTER: Well I can't see there is a problem with that.
17 MR. MORAN: So any more evidence we can complete today, your Honour, would assist,
18 although I am not going to get my speech in tonight, I can see that.
19 JUDGE LANCASTER: No, you are not.
20 MR. MORAN: Thank you.
21 Q. MR. WALSH: So you have had a chance to read it? - A. Yes I have now, yes.
22 Q. It appears to be a declaration by Mr. Dawson to the effect that he has had some eggs investigated,
23 two trays of eggs? - A. Yes, that is correct, and I am presuming these are the ones which are
24 predominantly the Skylark eggs.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

25 Q. He is also making a declaration there that he has invited the Royal Society for the Protection of
26 Birds to examine his collection. I am not saying it is correct but that is—? - A. Yes, just let me
27 read it sorry. Right it's referring to the other drawers and it is saying he wrote to the RSPB and
28 asked if they wanted to come and view them.
29 Q. Right, so that is the information that Mr. Dawson is giving to Mr. Doddsworth? - A. Yes it would
30 appear so, yes. It is addressed to the Sussex Police but it was obviously written to
31 Mr. Doddsworth.
32 MR. WALSH: I don't want to ask any more questions because I think it might be better at
33 this stage if we just adjourn and see where we are going in terms of rebuttal evidence. It may be
34 that my learned friend and can I agree much of it.



1 JUDGE LANCASTER: Right, if you could just stand down for a moment, Mr. Shorrock.
2 MR. WALSH: It may be better if he leaves court at the moment, your Honour.
3 JUDGE LANCASTER: You want him to leave court?
4 MR. WALSH: Yes please.
5 JUDGE LANCASTER: Not leave the building?
6 MR. WALSH: No, not leave the building but just leave the room.
7 JUDGE LANCASTER: Right, well if you could just leave the Courtroom for a few
8 minutes, Mr. Shorrock. Could you just leave that document with the exhibits on the exhibits
9 bench. All right, I will rise.
10 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, it may be quicker if you stay.
11 JUDGE LANCASTER: Fine.
12 MR. WALSH: We do not want you to leave, your Honour.
13 (Matter of law discussed in the absence of the Jury)
14 (In the presence of the Jury)
15 GUY SHQRROCK recalled
16 Examined bv MR. MORAN:
17 Q. Mr. Shorrock, the Defendant has referred to Peregrine Falcon documentation that he says is lost? -
18 A. Yes, that is in relation to live Peregrines.
19 Q. Yes, can you explain the history of that from your point of view? - A. Yes, earlier this year I was
20 contacted by the Police and informed that Mr. Doddsworth was asking for some documents for
21 some live Peregrine Falcons. There was some uncertainty as to what documents they were after
22 initially. I spoke to a colleague in Newcastle, which is where the exhibits were held. As a result of
23 that I informed the Police that I didn't believe we had the documents. I did not tell the Police that
24 we had lost the documents. At a later date I was contacted by my colleague in Newcastle to say
25 they had located the documents. As a result of that I re-contacted Police Inspector Sutton, had a
26 conversation with him and the documents were returned to Inspector Sutton by recorded delivery.
27 Q. Now on a similar theme it is part of the Defence case you will have gathered that within a purple
28 folder, exhibit AW2, there were two records that are now missing. Do you have the purple folder?
29 - A. The purple folder is here on the bench in front of us.
30 Q. Can I pass that to you? - A. Thank you.


*1 Q. Have you had a chance to go through those letters again and everything that is in there? - A. I have,*
*2 yes.*
*3 Q. Now first of all I think dealing with what we call the first alleged letter, is there a letter in there*
*4 indicating that the price of the sale was £600 and that the eggs came free? - A. No, I examined this*
*5 prior to the interview with Mr. Doddsworth, subsequently interviewing Mr. Doddsworth, in*
*6 September of this year when I received the copy from Newcastle, and also on Saturday. I have*
7 examined it *four times* and I haven't found that document.
Q. Right. You were not present at the search, were you? - A. Not at the original search no. When I first saw the property it had been transported from the Police to our Newcastle office into the property store there and it was still in a sealed evidence bag with a police seal around it.
Q. And who was the first person to take the seal off? - A. It was myself and Mr. Leonard.
Q. Right. Now a second letter was referred to in these sort of terms, that it is a letter in which Mr. Dawson offers his collection of eggs for his examination by the RSPB. Have you had a look at this letter? - A. Yes, that is correct.
15 Q. Broadly speaking may that be the letter that is referred to? - A. Yes. I was only aware of that today


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

16 when Mr. Doddsworth raised it and I didn't recognise the letter from the description he gave this
17 morning, but it probably is that letter.
Q. It is going to be copied for the Jury in due course but would you mind just reading it out? - A. Yes, it is addressed to the Sussex Police: "Please be careful with these birds eggs they are all legally held. The top two drawers were taken by the Police and were returned to me by the Magistrates as legally held." The other drawers are of eggs which I had given away a few years ago. The person asked me if I would like them returned as he was now nearly 80 years old and did not require them any more. If I did not want them he would destroy them. I took them back and wrote to the RSPB to say I now had them in my possession and that they could come and view them should they wish to do so. So far they have not been. The last time the Police smashed in my front door they had to pay me £350,1 shall be claiming compensation again. Please be careful with the eggs they are very fragile. Mike Dawson." And typed underneath his name M. J. Dawson.
Q. It is touched upon in the letter a previous case involving Dawson and eggs that were returned to him? - A. That is right, it was a colleague of mine who did most of the investigative work although I did have some involvement with that case.
Q. Right. Of the eggs in that cabinet are some of the eggs in that cabinet eggs that were returned to Mr. Dawson? - A. Yes, a fairly small number. There is 12 drawers in that cabinet, virtually the entire contents of the top drawer, which I think are nearly all Skylark eggs, and probably just over half the contents of the second drawer were the eggs subject to that original investigation of Mr. Dawson which were returned to him.
Q. And the eggs on Count 1 on the indictment, the Golden Eagle, Egyptian Vulture and Honey Buzzard? - A. None of those feature in the eggs involving the investigation of Mr. Dawson.
MR. MORAN: Yes, would you wait there and answer any more questions please.



1 Cross-examined bv MR. WALSH:
2 Q. That letter clearly refers to another episode, doesn't it, it doesn't refer to the episode where the
3 skylarks eggs were examined, because if you look at the top line? - A. Sorry, could you just repeat
4 that please?
5 Q. "Please be careful with the birds eggs, they are all legally held."? - A. Yes.
6 Q. That implies that the Sussex Police have the eggs in their possession? - A. Yes it does, yes.
7 Q. "The top two drawers were taken by the Police and returned."? - A. That is correct, yes.
8 Q. Past tense, previous enquiry? - A. That is right, that is what it suggests.
9 Q. "The other drawers are of eggs given away a few years ago."? - A. That is right, yes.
10 Q. Now this is where, "A person asked if I would take them back or he would destroy them."? - A.
11 Yes, that is what it says.
12 Q. And there is a reference to a man of 80 years of age and an earlier occasion you have referred to
13 your belief as that refers to a Mr. Hemmings? - A. Yes, the name of Mr. Hemmings was mentioned
14 I think this morning by Mr. Doddsworth and I consider that could be Mr. Hemmings given the age,
15 yes.
16 Q. So on the face of it, it appears to be a letter that accompanied a collection of eggs to Sussex Police
17 for examination? - A. Yes, it looks like that. It is undated of course but it does look like that, yes.
18 Q. And it is signed by Mr. Dawson? - A. Yes it is, yes.
19 Q. There was clearly a period of time, and I know you took umbrage at the description, but there was
20 clearly a period of time which the certificates in relation to the falcons were lost? - A. No they
21 were not lost, they were still in the original exhibit bag.
*22 Q. They could not be found? - A. Yes, that is correct.*
23 Q. And I am sure inadvertently, Mr. Shorrock, you wrongly told the Police you didn't have them, or
24 the RSPB you did not have them? - A. Yes, that was an error on our part.
25 Q. It is just to illustrate the point, when dealing with lots of documentation recording of that
26 documentation is important, isn't it? - A. Yes, that is right. Those particular documents were not
27 relevant to this enquiry, but again we should have noted them and they should have been returned.
*28 Q. They should have been recorded? - A. Sony?*
29 Q. The fact that you had possession of those documents should have been recorded somewhere? - A.
30 Well it is recorded as a police exhibit, as an original item that was seized.


1 Q. Now we eventually got you to look inside the folder and that is how we discovered that letter. Now
2 the letter came with an evidence bag? - A. Yes, that is right.
3 Q. Have you still got that yellow label, that might be it there. If you can just give me that. Because
4 Mr. Doddsworth is still adamant that there is a document missing, isn't he, and the document
5 missing is the verification of the sale, the receipt of sale of the cabinet given to him by
6 Mr. Dawson? - A. Yes I definitely haven't seen that document. It is such a significant document
7 that had I seen it on any of at least the four times I have been through it, it would have jumped out
8 immediately.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

*9 Q. But just look at what is written by the police officer, Mr. Wilkinson, on the sealed bag that he sent*
*10 to you. Read it out please? - A. This is a police exhibit label from Northumbria Police, it has got*
*11 description of the item. It says "Documents" in the plural and "receipts" in the plural and in*
*12 brackets "verification." It is given an identifying mark of AW2 which is the police officer's initials,*
*13 his second exhibit.*
*14 Q. There is no single receipt in the documents that you have produced today or at any other stage, is*
*15 there? - A. I have been through here, and other than that letter which I suppose could be classed as*
*16 sort of a receipt, other than that there is nothing that obviously jumps out as a receipt, no.*
*17 Q. So it appears something must be missing or something has gone wrong? - A. Well I mean I*
*18 obviously was not there, it could be just the way the police officers have recorded it.*
*19 Q. Well a receipt is fairly unambiguous? - A. Well I don't know, I don't know what was in the police*
*20 officer's mind when he wrote it out. I mean, for example, there were the list of eggs that were in*
*21 there as well.*
*22 Q. He is using the English language? - A. Yes, but I can't look inside the Police officer's head.*
*23 Q. No, but he is using the English language, you know what receipt means? - A. I know what receipt*
*24 means obviously, yes.*
*25 Q. Have you seen or discovered anything that fits the English language description of receipts? - A. In*
*26 here, no.*
*THE REASON THAT THE RECEIPT CANNOT BE FOUND, THAT WAS SIGNED FOR BY PC WILKINSON IS DUE TO THE FACT SHORROCK WAS GIVEN THE PRIMARY SEALED BAG OF EVIDENCE BY THE POLICE WITHOUT ANYONE CHECKING SHORROCK’S ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLAINED ABOUT OVER THE YEARS. *
27 MR. WALSH: Thank you.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

28 MR. MORAN: Does your Honour have any questions?
29 JUDGE LANCASTER: No, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Shorrock. 30
*IN SUMMARY IT MUST NOW BE CLEAR THAT SHORROCK WITHHELD THE LETTER FROM MIKE DAWSON THAT HE THEN LIED ABOUT IN COURT AND HE DISTROYED THE VITAL RECEIPT. THE EVIDENCE IS MATTER OF FACT IN THE COURT TRANSCRIPT IN RELATION TO SHORROCK COMMITTING PERJURY.*


*PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM PUTTING THE IPCC, the Police and the CPS ON NOTICE THAT GUY SHORROCK COMMITTED PERJURY AT MY COURT CASE [SEE ABOVE] AS HE HAS DONE AT NUMEROUS OTHER COURT CASES. GIVEN THESE FACTS THE POLICE IN THE UK, CPS AND THE IPCC ARE ON A HEIGHTENED DUTY OF CARE NOT TO ALLOW SHORROCK TO HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY FUTURE CASE AGAINST ME OR ANYONE ELSE UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A COMPLETE AND DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF ALL THE CASES THAT SHORROCK HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN OVER 13 YEARS WHERE HE HAS PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. *

*MY LEGAL TEAM has SECURED THE COURT TRANSCRIPT OF SHORROCK COMMITTING PERJURY IN MY COURT CASE [R v Dodsworth] THAT I WILL BE USING TO SUPPORT MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE AND GUY SHORROCK.*

*PLEASE ASK THE POLICE TO RETURN MY PROPERTY AS THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO HOLD ONTO MY PROPERTY GIVEN THE FACT THE POLICE HAVE NOT MADE A FURTHER APPLICATION WITHIN 7 DAYS TO KEEP MY PROPERTY AS INSTRUCTED BY JUDGE LANCASTER.*

Further to my original complaint, I would state that at Newcastle Crown Court a jury cleared me of three counts of buying protected eggs and birds.

As you know the police due to RSPB’s/PC Henery’s bogus information secured search warrants on my home [and Mark Robb] where the police and the RSPB found 1,296 eggs and various stuffed birds and animals.1]

This whole situation was a witch-hunt, and I believe the case only made it to trial so the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could justify 10 police officers carrying out a terrorism-style smash and grab raid on my home in full riot gear. The police by smashing my door down and terrified my wife and child, who were both in the house at the time. A police officer told my child to shut up as she cried for her mother as she was in shock. 

*How can the CPS justify:*​A] The money they have spent on this trial? 
B] The money spent on my case?
C] The way my family and I have been treated?
D] Holding me in custody when there was no need to, because I had not attended a minor court hearing as I had been instructed to do in writing. The letter was shown to the police but they just ignored it with contempt?


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

This nightmare has been hanging over my head for two years, and it has taken a Crown Court trial lasting more than a week for me to clear my name. Just imagine the expense to the public and how that money could have been better spent on people who have actually committed victim crimes.

Guy Shorrock, investigations officer for the RSPB, said the law had a loophole that needed to be closed. *"We may now look at asking the Government for a change in legislation, because it seems that if you buy something and the prohibited items come free then you aren't liable. This is a loophole that needs tightening up."* Given what Shorrock has said cogently he is, only interested in convictions therefore cannot be trusted to dispassionately investigate and handle evidence on behalf of the police as he has a conviction fixation. Given this point how can the police justify giving Shorrock primary evidence that he can control, destroy or and withhold. In effect, you are allowing a bias member of the public who works for a charitable conservationist organisation the power to decide what evidence is to be released and what evidence is to be withheld. This is a conflict of interest and breach of natural justice not to mention it also violates my Human Rights.

Given the overwhelming evidence, I wish to make a compliant and I want a criminal investigation into the actions of the police and the RSPB. In relation to my complaint and the need for a criminal investigation, I would say the following:

1] Why did PC Henery stay at my court case from the first day to the last even though he was not there to give evidence? Is this not a waste of taxpayer’s money?

2] Why was my door smashed in? It should be noted that my child could have been behind the door as it was smashed in or one of my family pets.

3] I want to know when Shorrock sent the registration documents for my peregrine falcons to Sutton and why the documents were not returned as Shorrock said that he did not have them to Sutton.

4] It is my contention that the police have breached their duty of care to my family and me by giving Shorrock primary access to evidence, which has culminated in Shorrock committing perjury, and attempting to pervert the course of justice in my court case. In support of these contentions, I would ask you to view the court transcript of my trial. The court transcript will show that Shorrock claimed three to four times under oath that he had checked a primary bag of evidence given to him by the police three times and there was no receipt that would have proved that I did not buy any eggs from Mike Dawson and a letter that proved that Mike Dawson had invited the RSPB to inspect his egg collection. 

*Please clearly note that my barrister stopped the court case and asked to check the primary bag of evidence that Shorrock said that he had looked at. Within minutes, the letter from Mike Dawson that proved that he had invited the RSPB TO INSPECT HIS EGG COLLECTION WAS FOUND. Shorrock also stated that he would know if such a letter had existed and it did not. There was no receipt in the police bag of evidence however on the police yellow stage and police security tag that Shorrock said he had broken there was in PC Wilkinson’s handing writing *_‘Receipts and Letters_*’ There was no receipts left in the bag that had been sealed by the police before it was given Shorrock therefore only he could have removed the receipt. This is clear evidence that Shorrock deliberately try to pervert the course of justice. Please note the witnesses below that independently support my case. I will be supplied the evidence from the witnesses below to support my accusations against Shorrock as his crimes have been occurring for many years. *

How many more independent people do you need before Shorrock is investigated and prosecuted? It is not acceptable to allow Shorrock to continue perverting the course of justice and why was Shorrock not prosecuted for breaking into Chris Marshall's property? Furthermore after Shorrock's crimes why was he allowed to continue to be involved in search warrants like the ones used on Mark Robb and John Dodsworth? The situation is a national disgrace that is still going on.

PLEASE NOTE I AM SUPPLYING THE COURT TRANSCRIPT OF SHORROCK *conclusively* LYING IN R V DODSWORTH BELOW. This transcript has cost me £331.83 as to date I have been ignored therefore I was forced put Shorrock’s Perjury on a plate for the police and CPS. 


The reason for comparing the complaints of the above witnesses with my complaint is the fact that the previously mentioned witnesses independently and conclusively are making the same complaint of the same organisations committing the same crimes in the same way as I am complaining about; for example:
*A] The RSPB conspiring to pervert the course of justice with the police, the DoE and especially the RSPB.*
*b] The DoE conspiring to pervert the course of justice with the police and especially the RSPB [Shorrock, Karen Bradbury and Jones]*
*c] The various police forces conspiring to pervert the course of justice with various witnesses.*
*D] The IPCC refusing to tell the different police forces to investigate the crimes of their officers and various witnesses some of who are mentioned above and below. *

*In summary Mark Robb, Terry Burden, David Myatt, Shawn Smith** and SO ON **are and have supported independently each other’s common grounds of complaints from the bottom of the country to the top as we are dealing with a national conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the police, IPCC, the DoE and especially the RSPB. I accept some changes have been made to stop the RSPB perverting the course of justice in the future however that does not absolve you from doing what is manifestly right by ordering an independent inquiries into the complaints of Mark Robb, Terry Burden, David Myatt, Shawn Smith and so on. The weight of the previously mentioned witnesses singing from the same hymn sheet is too much to brush under the carpet of police corruption. *

*Shorrock is still controlling the police and CPS, as I am* set to be tried for summary offences of possession of the birds and eggs before magistrates later. I would invite the CPS drop the charges against me and start investigating Shorrock. I would also like all of my property returned.




1 follow up request and I am sure I would have been aware of that, it would have been an unusual
2 event to happen within the office.
AS YOU READ THIS COURT TRANSCRIPT YOU WILL SEE WHATA BARE FACED LIE THE ABOVE IS IN RELATION TO NOT receiving a request to inspect Dawson's collection
3 MR. MORAN: Can you wait there and answer any questions.
4 Cross-examined by MR. WALSH:
5 Q. Well as I understand it, and it is certainly admitted because we have had a statement read out,
6 Mr. Shorrock, from Mr. Wilkinson and the letters are marked AW1 and AW2. That is correct, isn't
NOTE WILKINSON IS A POLICE MAN AND HE SAW THE LETTER AND RECIEPT THAT THE POLICE GAVE TO SHORROCK THAT HE LATTER WITHHELD AND DISTROYED. 
7 it? - A. I am sorry sir, what are you referring to?
8 Q. The letters that were recovered from Mr. Dawson, the letters recovered written by Mr. Dawson
9 that were found in the premises were recovered by an officer called Wilkinson are you aware of
10 that? - A. I'm not aware of that. As I say the first time I saw them they were in sealed property
11 bags.
12 Q. Right, just give me one second please. Do you recall the letters being marked AW1 and AW2? - A.
13 AW1 and AW2 are a generic pile of exhibits, those exhibits contain documentary items containing
14 including letters.
15 Q. Where were the receipts? - A. Sorry?
16 Q. Where were the receipts? - A. Sorry which?
17 Q. The receipts recovered in AW2. You have produced letters but you haven't produced the receipts?


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

I would not be calling shorrock a liar on the open web if I could not prove it.


So how do I put the documents on this site?


----------



## cannotstopbuyingballs

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] said:


> I would not be calling shorrock a liar on the open web if I could not prove it.
> 
> 
> So how do I put the documents on this site?


You can't I am afraid, no attachements on this site


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

lucifus said:


> it amazes me how you managed to get a degree yet still haven't mastered the caps lock key. Getting letters at the end of your name is easy our days and forcing people to use them is just pretentious.


 
how many letters after your name do you have if it is so easy and i mean real letter?


----------



## capester

I think that should have been a capital "H". Keys sticking again?


----------



## Lucifus

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] said:


> how many letters after your name do you have if it is so easy and i mean real letter?


Three months from getting BSc [HONS] at the end of mine thank you.


----------



## Lucifus

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] said:


> how many letters after your name do you have if it is so easy and i mean real letter?


Three months from getting BSc [HONS] at the end of mine thank you. I also have Lord and Reverend at the begging of my names.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

capester said:


> I think that should have been a capital "H". Keys sticking again?


 You cannot be that good you missed the big picture and the I.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78425
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84704
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61407
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59339
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61407
http://www.thehuntinglife.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=81661
Board Message


THE ABOVE WILL OPEN YOUR EYES


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

10 September 2008

Ian West LLB (Hons] RSPB Head of Investigations 
The RSPB, 
Headquarters, 
The Lodge, 
Sandy, 
Bedfordshire 
SG19 2DL.

Dear Ian West LLB (Hons] RSPB Head of Investigations 

Reference: Your correspondence dated 2 September 2008 and the questions that it generates.

I have noted with some interest your comments and I would suggest that if you truly believe that I am telling lies about Guy Shorrock then you should report the matter to the police, as I will be doing in the public interest. This is because I feel that we both know that I have the shield of truth on my side as I have stated to you in the past. Not withstanding what I have just said, if I have said anything that is not true, not only will I desist from saying it again, I will do the following things:
1] Write Shorrock a letter of apology.
2] Publish a public letter apologising to Shorrock. 
3] Send letters to anyone that Shorrock wants me to and explain the situation, however and it is a big however, what will you do if I am fully justified in what I am saying and other people are saying independently of me about Shorrock’s questionable activities?

In the interest of justice, transparency and in the public interest please ask Shorrock to answer the following questions so we can decide who is telling the truth and who needs to apologise to whom. To negate confusion please ask Shorrock to answer yes or no to my questions, then if Shorrock feels an explanation is needed or if I ask for one, please explain further with a detailed answer. Please note that this is the second time that I have given you the opportunity to questions what I am going to publish about Shorrock. The first time that you were given the opportunity to question, what I was saying about Shorrock you did not feel the need to disagree with what I had to say about Shorrock. 

The questions that need to be answered before there can be any apologies are posed below. Please do not respond by the usual correspondence that goes round in circle and answers nothing of substance. 


INDEX OF DEREK CANNING’S COMPLAINT OF Guy Shorrock and questions that need answering to resolve the situation of who is lying and who should be prosecuted.

1] Acting as a Police man

Did Shorrock act as though he was a Police officer by;
A] Swearing out a search warrant on my home? In this question, a written explanation is needed especially in relation to whether Shorrock had the legal right to swear out a search warrant on my home.
B] Collect and control all of the vital evidence without the police checking if Shorrock was carrying out the correct procedures? In this question, a written explanation is needed.
c] Interview me at Hexham police station like a police officer?
D] Caution my like a police officer?

If I may comment on your statement that I sent an email on 31 January 2006, just to give the RSPB the impression that criminal prosecution was imminent against Shorrock. Does this email not relate to a civil action against Shorrock? If this is the case please note that before I can proceed further I am waiting for Maria Eagle MP Justice Minister to resolve the questions of whether or not Shorrock can swear out a search warrant given the fact he is not an acting Constable, see page 1340 Archbold 1997 where it clearly states a constable can swear out a search warrant once he has checked the evidence to support the application for the search warrant. I have put this matter in the hands of my MP and I have an appointment about the matter of the search warrant and the questions that I want asked in the open House Parliament in relation to the RSPB, Animal Health, the police and the need for a criminal investigation in relation to Shorrock, on the 17 September 2008 at Hexham. You have my full permission to contact my MP and ask him if you have any doubts about what I have said. The address and phone number that you need is the House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA. Tel: 0207 2194013 or 1 Meal Market, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1NF Tel: 01434 603954.


2] Publishing evidence.

Did Shorrock and Bradbury at the beginning of the raid on my home, inform my mother, my father and me on the RSPB video that the video being done by the RSPB would only be used for evidential reason in court to make sure everything was done correctly?

In the light of the reassurance that the RSPB film would not be allowed to be shown in the public domain did I allow myself to be filmed helping the RSPB to do the raid on my home? As I was not under arrest, I could have left the scene and went to work as a matter of right so I would not be needless embarrassed and my trial prejudiced by being shown on national TV. I have a copy of the Cook Report, if you would like to see the programme that was shown on the 17 August 1993 that featured me in my stables on the day of the raid on my home. The programme also states that I had offered to sell Chris Neal 14 Peregrine falcons, which is a lie as I stated that I had no birds for sale as I gave them away to my friends. This is why the programme had no tape recording of me offering to sell Neal any birds and they had to set it up without my voice. See the file on Ken Smith in relation to him suing the RSPB and the Cook Report lying about him.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

Despite the fact that I refused to sell Chris Neal any birds on a number of occasions on the phone, did:
A] The Cook programme still incorrectly stated that I had offered to sell 14 Peregrine Falcons to Chris Neal?
B] Did the RSPB release their video of the raid on my home to the Discovery Channel, the Cook Report Programme, Wild Life Crimes and so on and for what purpose was it released to the public domain? In this question, a written explanation is needed. This should not be verbal rubbish; you need to answer the question.
C] Did the RSPB allow me to be shown on the Cook Report before my trial? In this question, a written explanation is needed.
D] Did the RSPB allow to be evidenced at my court case the same footage of me that was shown on the Cook Report and why was that done? In this question a written explanation is needed as it was the RSPB who had taken the footage that was shown on the Cook Report and at my court case and it was the RSPB who had released the video footage in direct conflict with what Shorrock and Bradbury told me.

3] Perverting the course of justice.

The issue of perverting the course of justice in relation to Shorrock is complex and multi faced therefore if there are any points that you do not understand I would be happy to explain what I am saying. 

I cannot not believe you when you say that you have seen to evidence to support my claim that Shorrock has lied. Have you read the correspondence that I have sent you? If you have then I have shown you that there is no doubt that Guy Shorrock [RSPB] has: 
1] Withheld vital evidence.
2] Interfered with prosecution witnesses.
3] Ignored or destroyed vital defence evidence.

Was the following evidence [11 points of fact] withheld from my defence either directly or indirectly by not being mentioned when Shorrock interviewed me at Hexham Police Station even though the evidence was relevant?;
1] All the Department of the Environment Registration documents that relate to the birds that Shorrock said I had sold, when in fact the documents, that are legally binding, said that the birds were a gift? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
2] R. Lumsdon’s statement? [See document numbered 89 and 90] that shows some of my stolen birds were found next to Gary Wilkinson’s house. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
3] The genetic report on the Sparrowhawks that I gave to Pc White [Shorrock was also there with Jones I believe] on condition that the birds would be genetically finger printed and that I would be given the results within two to three weeks? [See document numbered 32, 44, 50, 75, 83, 88, 97, and 100] See the letter dated 26th November 2005 31st December 2005 file 3, 29th December 2006 file 4.] In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
4] Most significant of all the genetic report on the blood samples that I sent to the RSPB genetic experts in the summer of 1992 to account for the two peregrine falcons found in my car? [See documents numbered 8 to 17 and 34. See letter dated 13th November 2005 see file 3]. Note also Parkin was on the Council for the RSPB and he withheld that fact from my trial. He also made number of false statements, see the files 6 on the DNA and tapes that clearly show Parkin committed perjury at my court courts case. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
5] The forensic tests done on Sandcaster and Wilkinson’s cloths in 1992? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
6] Copies of the letters that I sent to the Police in 1992 making arrangements to DNA my birds? [See document numbered 8 to 17] In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
7] Statements from the people that were supposed to be watching the peregrine falcon nest with Heiniger on the 4th June 1992? [See documents numbered 53, 54. See letter dated 10th February 2006, 18th February 2006 and 30th January 2006. See video [Kielder video] of the nest site in question]. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
8] A copy of the BTO License for Heiniger to disturb Peregrine Falcons at Kielder? See letter dated 10th February 2006 18th February 2006, 30th January 2006]. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer.
9] The results from envelope taken from me in Dudley with ‘good quality oily fingerprints’? It is believed Wilkinson’s prints will be on the envelope as well MINE. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. 
10] Withholding the fact that the DoE in writing told Parkin, Wetton and the RSPB not to use Parkin’s and Wetton’s single locus probes in the Walker case in 1994 and my case in 1995? As this question is so vital, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked truthfully and not the question you want to answer. This should include how much money did the RSPB GAVE PARKIN TO DO THE DNA PROFILING ON MY BIRDS.
11] Shorrock’s Report on me? In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. If you have, nothing to hide then there should be to problem in releasing this report to me. Note that I have requested this report a number of times and I have supplied ten pound for this report to be released.
12] The police audio tapes in relation to the conversations between the police control office and the police officers in relation to my car being stopped by the police with the two peregrine falcons in my car. In this question, a written explanation is needed that actually, answers the questions asked and not the question you want to answer. If you have, nothing to hide then there should be to problem in releasing this report to me. Note that I have requested this report a number of times and I have supplied ten pound for this report to be released.


It should be noted from the RSPB letter that has just been released by Animal Health in relation to me that the RSPB were fully aware that all of the evidence that related to me must be legally released to me before my court case. Furthermore, Shorrock is an ex-police officer so he would have been familiar with the need to disclose evidence to me before my court case.

In relation to Shorrock being asked to resign from Manchester police I have never stated that this is the case in the public domain however, I have a tape recording of Parkin stating that he knows the reason why Shorrock was allegedly asked to leave the police force. Given the fact that I have given you this information have you asked Parkin why it was alleged Shorrock left the police, if not why not? Please release the reason why Shorrock left Manchester police Force and why Bradbury left the RSPB. 

4] Disclosure of evidence.

Disclosure in all criminal cases is of vital importance and a legal requirement that the RSPB knew about, as the prosecution led the way and the defence can only follow. In my case and others, Shorrock totally controlled my case above anyone else therefore this allowed him to withhold vital evidence. See the file on disclosure. 

As a matter of fact Genetic evidence was withheld from my court case therefore I would ask you to supply me with a copy of the report in relation to the samples of blood that I sent to Dr Parkin at Nottingham University in 1992 [the police and RSPB genetic experts, see the audio tape on Wetton] to prove that I bred the two birds found in my car in May 1992 and the report on the feathers from the Chattlehope Burn nest site that Brian Little sent to Dr Parkin for genetic profiling via the RSPB? 

Remanded
It should be noted that being remanded on the 1 May 1995 before my trial prevented me from seeing my solicitor, as the prison service prevented legal visits. Why was all the evidence used to remand me withdrawn after my solicitor starting to ask the prosecution to explain why the nests sites that the RSPB said that I had been seen at did not exist on any maps? 

5] Shorrock Interfering with witnesses

Sat in court
Further to the above point. From the first day, to the last day of my trial Guy Shorrock sat in the court behind Mark Styles listening to the evidence being given. 
Interfere
A] Is it unacceptable to allow Shorrock to sit behind Mark Styles in the courtroom and for Shorrock to then to go out of the court to influence the witnesses before they give their evidence?

B] Did CJ Griffiths, who was one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, make a statement to say that Shorrock tried to influence his evidence? See file 2.

D] Did Jeff Armstrong Witnessed Shorrock going in and out of court to talk to prosecution witnesses to condemn me? 


6] Department of the Environment Registrations Documents
Given the fact Shorrock was given access to my records at the DoE why were the same records withheld from me by the Department of the Environment and the RSPB? 

It should be noted that after my trial I took legal action against the DOE therefore Lynne Garvey released the documents that the RSPB and the DoE had withheld from my trial. The documents in question affirm that I did not sell all of the birds that I was convicted of selling. Is this true or note in relation to the registration documents stating that I did not sell the peregrines in question? See the file on sale or gift.

7 Rob Davis’s fax

Did Shorrock withhold Rob Davis’s fax from me? [SEE FILE 3 and page 48 of the enclosed second batch of documents] 

8] The 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs subsection 

11] Does the issue of the 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs not conclusively confirm that Shorrock has perverted the course of justice and there must be a criminal investigation in relation to my accusations?


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

Brian Little’s court statement.
The eggs from the Kielder nest site were marked in 1993 by Brian Little's PERMANENT BLACK SPIRIT BASED MARKER PEN, SO THE EGGS COULD BE IDENTIFIED IF THE EGGS WERE STOLEN; ref.;- BRIAN LITTLE'S STATEMENT 21 DECEMBER 1993. 

A] Did Shorrock, Bradbury, PC White and I sign for 14 peregrine falcon eggs that were taken from my bedroom?

B] Did Shorrock withhold the fact that he had:
B.1] Done tests on the 14 peregrine falcon eggs?
B.2] Did Shorrock’s tests conclusively confirm that none of the 14 peregrine falcons had any black spirit based pen and was this fact withheld from my court case?

9] Genetics Evidence and D2 

See file 1 to 5 on the DNA evidence.
This is a vital section and it should be compared with file 1 to 6 on the DNA evidence. Files 1 to 6 will clearly show in documented form that the DNA evidence is bogus which is why Parkin’s and Wetton’s probes were discontinued after 15 years of trying to get the probes to work consistently moreover Parkin is corrupt and a member of the RSPB.

D2 is claimed by Shorrock to be progeny ‘A’ from Kielder
12] Did Shorrock suppressed the fact that I had stated on the RSPB video tape that related to the raid on his home, at 1201 hours, that two of the birds in the aviary may be parents?

A] Did Shorrock admit that I bred my birds in the interview that was conducted at Hexham police station by Shorrock? [See the statement A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1]

[A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 page 1 JW4]
B] Did Shorrock say, “IT WOULD BE A PEREGRINE FALCON, A BIRD BRED BY YOU, AT SOME STAGE, I TELL YOU NOW IT IS GENETICALLY RELATED TO SOME OF THE BIRDS, SO I PRESUME IT IS A BIRD BRED BY YOU”?

In the light of Doctor Scott's Report, I now know why Shorrock claimed the bird labelled D2 that was found dead in my freezer was a 1993 bird. Significantly, if I had of affirmed that he had bred the two birds found in my car on the 4th of June 1992, by PC Glenton, I would have been acquitted. Would it be true to say that D2 logically cannot be a 1993 bird as it would have been the same age or younger than the other progeny ‘A’ group in the stable block, which were still not hard penned yet? Note this is the blood group that I sent blood to Parkin in 1992. 

10] The EEC Clause

13] A] In my interview [A4/1126/93 FILE 1] conducted by Guy Shorrock, on the 5th December 1993, from 1.27 pm to 5.35 pm, at Hexham Police station, did Guy Shorrock withheld the safety clause CONTAINED within the EEC Directive 3626/82 that stated I had to be aware that Peregrine Falcons were on the EEC Endangered List of Endangered Species before he could be found guilty?
B] Is this clause mentioned in Shorrock’s secret report on me that was withheld?
C] Why was it withheld that hybrids do not need to be registered and are not covered by the Act used to convict me.
D] In my interview, did I mention that I had hybridised my peregrine falcons, which is why they had blue feet and why I mentioned the blue feet on my advert in the Cage and Aviary? 

11] Cage & Aviary Declaration papers

If you view the Cage & Aviary Declaration papers enclosed [see page 87 of the enclosed second batch of documents and the declared ring number of the birds being offered for sale] does this not show that Shorrock is not telling the truth when he states that I had advertised all the birds that I was found guilty of selling? 

12] NOT ENDANGERED

Is it true to say that Peregrine Falcons are not endangered, moreover, are more numerous than they have ever been, since records began? 

Mr Canning’s Police statement dated the 5th December 1993
In my Police, statement dated the 5th December 1993 Shorrock states;
1] That I did not complain about my birds being stolen.
2] Also, note that Shorrock went to the Department of The Environment to see which birds were sold or given away. [See my letter on sale or gift in file 3].
I asked Shorrock in my police interview to go to the DoE to see which birds had been sold or given away. Little did I know that he had already looked at the documents in question and had decided not to disclosed the registration documents that confirmed I had not sold the birds that I was later convicted of selling even after I specifically told him that I had not sold the birds and the registration documents would prove it. If this is not true then clearly explain to me how I am lying. I challenge you to prove that I am lying as I do all the way through this correspondence. With the money and power of the RSPB, proving me wrong should not be difficult, unless of course I am telling the truth. This last aspect is the big problem for the RSPB: THE shield TRUTH. 

MY STOLEN BIRDS
The statement below was made to the Police before the raid on my home by Shorrock. Note that I told Detective Constable 1674 Stephan Gorden that Gary Wilkinson had stolen his birds. The Police then raided Wilkinson’s home looking for my birds on at least two occasions. In my first interview, 5th December 1993, I alleged that Wilkinson had stolen my birds to Guy Shorrock. [A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 and 3 and page 33, 34, 156, 157, 158, of the enclosed documents. 

How does Shorrock justify his statement that I had made no complaint of my birds being stolen before the raid on my home by Shorrock? 


13] Shorrock and the Cage and Aviary declaration forms. REF 1

Guy Shorrock stated that all the peregrine falcons that I had in my control had been offered for sale in the Cage and Aviary Magazine. If you look at Louise Sherrington statement, she gives the ring numbers of the bird that I had offered for sale. If you now compare the ring numbers of the birds that I was convicted of selling can you tell me what ring numbers match the numbers on the declaration documents that legally declare that I was offering the birds for sale with the ring numbers that I was convicted of selling? This is a relevant question, as Shorrock in my interview must have known what ring numbers were on the declaration forms. Note PROGENY ‘A’ HAD NEVER BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE OR EVER SOLD. 


14] The sequence of events of the raid on my home using the RSPB Video Evidence taken by Mc Niven. Ref 2

10.46 hours video starts. No search warrant was shown to my parents or me at the start of the raid.
10.52 hours my parents and I was informed by Bradbury and Shorrock that the video would not be published. This was stated in front of Pc White, Mr, and Mr. Canning. The video was released to the Cook Report and various other TV programmes therefore I had been lied to. [See RSPB film]. Is this true or not?

The main aviaries in the field.
10.53 hours in the main aviary.
10.55 hours leave main aviary. 

In an aviary.

10.59 hours Shorrock Start to seize the birds in the aviary.
11.31 hours you can clearly see one female hybrid bird with blue feet, a blue scere and blue orbital eye rings. Hybrids, I have recently been informed by Animal Health, are not covered by the EEC Regulation that was bred before the 24 May 1994. This was the regulation used to convict me. Hybrids did not need to be registered also before the 24 May 1994 and after that date, as there was no consultation with stakeholders before hybrids were included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1994.

A] Is it true to say that hybrids bred before the 24 May 1994 did not have to be registered and were not covered by the EEC Regulation that was used to prosecute me?
B] Why was the fact that hybrids bred before the 24 May 1994 did not have to be registered and were not covered by the EEC Regulation used to prosecute me, withheld from me? Please note also the PC Hunter file where he states that he collected a peregrine falcon from me because it had blue feet which means it was a cross breed and there was no need to register the bird. This also relates to the other hybrids that I was convicted of selling.

The two question above need a clear explanation.

12.01 hours I state clearly that the two Peregrine Falcons/hybrids with ring numbers 9533W and 5936W had produced semen, therefore could be parents of progeny ‘A’. Shorrock was asked to put this in his ‘Record of Procedure’.
Why did Shorrock not do this? 
12.02 hours again I claim that the two birds above could be parents.
Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
12.04 hours Bradbury said that the two birds might be the father of something.


----------



## DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
12.05.12 hours Bradbury said ‘could be a father’, in relation to the above birds.
Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
12.05.35 hours Bradbury said that the genetic evidence could work in my favour. 
Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
12.9.51 hours the camera operator changes the battery in his camera.
12.12 hours Pc White mentions Gary Wilkinson.
12.20.33 hours the video inexplicably goes off at the crucial moment that the Tawny owl was being examined. This is the owl that I was acquitted of being cruel to. 
Why was that? 
In the stables.

At 12.28 hours, according to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure, the stables are entered by a number of people. However, the video has had the time removed.
Why was the time and date removed from the RSPB video? 
In the Garage.

According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 
13.40 hours ‘seized dead Sparrow hawks from the freezer’.
According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 
13.41 hours ‘seized a dead Merlin from the freezer’.
According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at 
13.44 hours ‘seized D2’ ‘from the freezer.’ 
After my conviction does, Shorrock now concedes that D2 could be a parent bird of progeny A? [See enclosed second batch of document numbered 20, Shorrock’s statement in relation to the case that I SUED THE Chief Constable to force him to release the evidence that should have been released before my trial. I was paid compensation but no evidence was released therefore I am still waiting for inspector Holt’s report on my complaint in relation to my case]. 

There is 7 vital minutes missing from the video [13.40 hours to 13.46 hours].
13.46 hours the video starts again two minutes after D2 was seized therefore 7 minutes from the time the first bird was seized from the freezer. You will note that it takes only a minute to seize the other birds from the freezer yet D2 strangely took twice as long.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ABOVE SEQUENCES AND WHY IT OCCURRED IN THE WAY IT DID, ESPECIALLY WHY THE FOOTAGE OF D2 IS MISSING FROM THE RSPB VIDEO? 
Until the missing footage is released, it may or may not be believed that the 7 minutes of the video was edited out, as this footage may or may not have shown that D2 was not an immature Peregrine Falcon as claimed by Shorrock.

13.54 hours the video stops again for a third time at a vital moment for the defence as after this time my bedroom was searched and Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs in front of me, Pc White, the RSPB video man [McNiven] and Shorrock]. 

Given Shorrock precisely written and contemporaneous notes that were signed by Shorrock, Bradbury and me, that were a dated and timed record of the procedure of the raid on my home that states matter of fact that Shorrock was in my bedroom, how does Shorrock justify his statement that he had not entered my bedroom and seen the eggs being counted? 
At 14.10 hours according to signed statements from Shorrock and Pc White up to 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs was seized in my bedroom.

Given that it is documented fact that Shorrock committed heinous perjury at my court case when he stated that there was not 14 peregrine falcon eggs seized from my bedroom do you feel that Shorrock has committed perjury. No talking around the question just, tell it how it is, Shorrock is a liar and you and the RSPB are covering up for him. If this not totally and absolutely true in fact logically, morally and legally then please explain why. Furthermore, if I were not telling the absolute truth then would the RSPB not have sued me before now? Truth is a strangers in relation to Shorrock as it is also a stranger to you. I have been told you are an honest man but to date I have see no evidence of this therefore I would invite you to tell me what you truly believe is the truth and not the RSPB political line. Step out of your RSPB straight jacket and tell the truth. We must open ourselves to the truth and the truth to ourselves to move forward. The sins of the past will come back to visit the RSPB. 
At 14.18 hours according to Shorrock an incubator and 
Harness was seized from my bedroom. 

In the lounge of the bedroom

At 14.20 hours in the lounge of my bedroom, a stuffed Peregrine was seized.
I have noted with shock that Shorrock claims that he was not in my bedroom when Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. Shorrock even helped me lift the heavy incubator from my bedroom and into his red Vauxhall estate car. I can remember the water and bleach leaking out of the top of the incubator onto Shorrock’s car interior, therefore, Shorrock will not forget this fact, especially when the fact was pointed out to him. You will note that only Shorrock on the video is taking precise notes and he never leaves my side on the video, other than at 13.13 hours to 13.18 hours. Given the fact Shorrock was the one keeping precise notes, he never left my side throughout the raid on my home [except for the ring incident] and the fact that the Record of Procedure clearly shows that he was in my bedroom Shorrock’s statement that he did not witness the 14 eggs being counted out is cogently untenable. MR WEST IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT THAT I HAVE JUST MADE I WILL NOW ASK YOU TO CLEARLY JUSTIFY IN WRITING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW SHORROCK HAD LIED in my court case! IN THIS CASE YES OR NO WILL NOT DO. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT I AM WRONG. Furthermore, how is PC White’s statement a mirror copy of Shorrock’s statement when PC White on the RSPB video you can see takes no note? It would have been totally impossible for White to have remembered all the times of the events unless he copied the times from Shorrock’s statement even if White had a photographic memory as on the RSPB video White never looks at his watch unlike Shorrock so White could not know what times any given events occurred and out the precise time of the events in his statement [see the file on PC White and his precisely dated and timed statement]. 

Back in the main aviaries in the field.

At 14.32 Hours the video starts again, which is 12 minutes after the stuffed Peregrine Falcon was seized from the bedroom and 38 minutes is missing from the video [the video is stopped at 13.54 Hours and stared again at 14.32 Hours

In summary;

You will note that there are three major issues that occurred on the day of the raid that are missing from the video;
1] The condition of the tawny owl and what had been said.
2] The age of D2
4] The 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs.

FOR THE SECOND TIME I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IN WHAT AREAS, YOU DISAGREE WITH ME. MR WEST PLEASE TAKE THIS SECOND CHANCE WITHOUT ANY MORE STATEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE BELIEVED or SUBTERFUGE, I WANT TRANSPARENCY and the truth. 

DO YOU AGREE THAT EITHER I AM LYING AND I SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR UNJUSTLY LYING ABOUT SHORROCK OR SHORROCK HAS BEEN LYING AND HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED? EITHER WHICH WAY DO YOU AGREE THAT THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS FOR YOU TO REPORT THE MATTER TO THE POLICE SO THAT BOTH SHORROCK AND I CAN BE INVESTIGATED AND INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE? 

I am very sorry that you feel I am wasting a charities time however I did not invite the charity into my life IT INVITED ITSELF AGAINST MY WISHES and I did not ask the charity to destroy my life with lies therefore the charity has sown the seeds of PERJURY and now it is time to harvest the seed of lies. Nothing but my death will stop me as I KNOW AS YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE. 

As the RSPB covet publicity, in the interest of justice and for justice to be seen to be done I will be publishing the above correspondence and your answers and Shorrock’s without any editing so we can all have our say and the public can judge for themselves. Do you agree that that this is the best way forward so the public can judge for themselves?

WHY IS ANIMAL HEALTH MOVING AWAY FROM THE RSPB?

Investigations Unit
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2DL

Date: 17 04 2007



Dear 
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

As you may be aware, from 1st April 2007, the functions of the Wildlife Licensing and Registration Service (WLRS) have been transferred to the new Animal Health Agency (formally the State Veterinary Service) which is an executive agency of Defra. This move affected the CITES Licensing and Bird Registration teams together with the Enforcement Liaison team. 

As part of this transfer process, we have taken the opportunity to review some of our current practices and policies. One of the practices which came under the spotlight related to the personal data held by the WLRS, and the organisations to which such information can be released under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘Act’). 

As you are aware, under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Act, personal data can be exempt from the non-disclosure provisions for the purposes of, amongst other things, the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. However, following advice we have received recently from our Data Protection Officer, it transpires that under the provisions of Section 29(3) personal data can only be released to statutory enforcement or prosecuting authorities, which includes the Police, central government departments (ie. HM Revenue & Customs) and to local government authorities; but does not include voluntary or charitable organisations.

In the circumstances, I am afraid that it will now no longer be possible for us to release personal data held by the WLRS to you or staff in the RSPB’s Investigations Unit. Whilst we appreciate you do assist police forces in the identification, investigation and prosecution of wildlife offences; any releases of information relevant to such cases could now only be made direct to the relevant police officer or police force. PTO

Although we cannot now release personal data to you, this does not preclude us from releasing other, non-personal data to you that might assist with any investigation you may be undertaking. We are also more than happy to continue giving you advice and information about the relevant legislation and our policies and practice in relation to the areas of work we are responsible for.

Yours sincerely




Head of WLRS




I WILL GIVE YOU TWO WEEKS TO REPLY.


THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP



Kind Regards,



Derek Canning LLB [Hons]


----------



## solidsnake

Maybe do a marketing degree next? Then maybe you'll be able to reach your target audience a bit more effectively?


----------



## sandmatt

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] said:


> Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
> 12.05.12 hours Bradbury said ‘could be a father’, in relation to the above birds.
> Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
> 12.05.35 hours Bradbury said that the genetic evidence could work in my favour.
> Why was this not mentioned to Parkin and left out of Shorrock’s ‘Record of Procedure’?
> 12.9.51 hours the camera operator changes the battery in his camera.
> 12.12 hours Pc White mentions Gary Wilkinson.
> 12.20.33 hours the video inexplicably goes off at the crucial moment that the Tawny owl was being examined. This is the owl that I was acquitted of being cruel to.
> Why was that?
> In the stables.
> 
> At 12.28 hours, according to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure, the stables are entered by a number of people. However, the video has had the time removed.
> Why was the time and date removed from the RSPB video?
> In the Garage.
> 
> According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at
> 13.40 hours ‘seized dead Sparrow hawks from the freezer’.
> According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at
> 13.41 hours ‘seized a dead Merlin from the freezer’.
> According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at
> 13.44 hours ‘seized D2’ ‘from the freezer.’
> After my conviction does, Shorrock now concedes that D2 could be a parent bird of progeny A? [See enclosed second batch of document numbered 20, Shorrock’s statement in relation to the case that I SUED THE Chief Constable to force him to release the evidence that should have been released before my trial. I was paid compensation but no evidence was released therefore I am still waiting for inspector Holt’s report on my complaint in relation to my case].
> 
> There is 7 vital minutes missing from the video [13.40 hours to 13.46 hours].
> 13.46 hours the video starts again two minutes after D2 was seized therefore 7 minutes from the time the first bird was seized from the freezer. You will note that it takes only a minute to seize the other birds from the freezer yet D2 strangely took twice as long.
> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ABOVE SEQUENCES AND WHY IT OCCURRED IN THE WAY IT DID, ESPECIALLY WHY THE FOOTAGE OF D2 IS MISSING FROM THE RSPB VIDEO?
> Until the missing footage is released, it may or may not be believed that the 7 minutes of the video was edited out, as this footage may or may not have shown that D2 was not an immature Peregrine Falcon as claimed by Shorrock.
> 
> 13.54 hours the video stops again for a third time at a vital moment for the defence as after this time my bedroom was searched and Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs in front of me, Pc White, the RSPB video man [McNiven] and Shorrock].
> 
> Given Shorrock precisely written and contemporaneous notes that were signed by Shorrock, Bradbury and me, that were a dated and timed record of the procedure of the raid on my home that states matter of fact that Shorrock was in my bedroom, how does Shorrock justify his statement that he had not entered my bedroom and seen the eggs being counted?
> At 14.10 hours according to signed statements from Shorrock and Pc White up to 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs was seized in my bedroom.
> 
> Given that it is documented fact that Shorrock committed heinous perjury at my court case when he stated that there was not 14 peregrine falcon eggs seized from my bedroom do you feel that Shorrock has committed perjury. No talking around the question just, tell it how it is, Shorrock is a liar and you and the RSPB are covering up for him. If this not totally and absolutely true in fact logically, morally and legally then please explain why. Furthermore, if I were not telling the absolute truth then would the RSPB not have sued me before now? Truth is a strangers in relation to Shorrock as it is also a stranger to you. I have been told you are an honest man but to date I have see no evidence of this therefore I would invite you to tell me what you truly believe is the truth and not the RSPB political line. Step out of your RSPB straight jacket and tell the truth. We must open ourselves to the truth and the truth to ourselves to move forward. The sins of the past will come back to visit the RSPB.
> At 14.18 hours according to Shorrock an incubator and
> Harness was seized from my bedroom.
> 
> In the lounge of the bedroom
> 
> At 14.20 hours in the lounge of my bedroom, a stuffed Peregrine was seized.
> I have noted with shock that Shorrock claims that he was not in my bedroom when Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. Shorrock even helped me lift the heavy incubator from my bedroom and into his red Vauxhall estate car. I can remember the water and bleach leaking out of the top of the incubator onto Shorrock’s car interior, therefore, Shorrock will not forget this fact, especially when the fact was pointed out to him. You will note that only Shorrock on the video is taking precise notes and he never leaves my side on the video, other than at 13.13 hours to 13.18 hours. Given the fact Shorrock was the one keeping precise notes, he never left my side throughout the raid on my home [except for the ring incident] and the fact that the Record of Procedure clearly shows that he was in my bedroom Shorrock’s statement that he did not witness the 14 eggs being counted out is cogently untenable. MR WEST IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT THAT I HAVE JUST MADE I WILL NOW ASK YOU TO CLEARLY JUSTIFY IN WRITING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW SHORROCK HAD LIED in my court case! IN THIS CASE YES OR NO WILL NOT DO. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT I AM WRONG. Furthermore, how is PC White’s statement a mirror copy of Shorrock’s statement when PC White on the RSPB video you can see takes no note? It would have been totally impossible for White to have remembered all the times of the events unless he copied the times from Shorrock’s statement even if White had a photographic memory as on the RSPB video White never looks at his watch unlike Shorrock so White could not know what times any given events occurred and out the precise time of the events in his statement [see the file on PC White and his precisely dated and timed statement].
> 
> Back in the main aviaries in the field.
> 
> At 14.32 Hours the video starts again, which is 12 minutes after the stuffed Peregrine Falcon was seized from the bedroom and 38 minutes is missing from the video [the video is stopped at 13.54 Hours and stared again at 14.32 Hours
> 
> In summary;
> 
> You will note that there are three major issues that occurred on the day of the raid that are missing from the video;
> 1] The condition of the tawny owl and what had been said.
> 2] The age of D2
> 4] The 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs.
> 
> FOR THE SECOND TIME I AM GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IN WHAT AREAS, YOU DISAGREE WITH ME. MR WEST PLEASE TAKE THIS SECOND CHANCE WITHOUT ANY MORE STATEMENTS THAT CANNOT BE BELIEVED or SUBTERFUGE, I WANT TRANSPARENCY and the truth.
> 
> DO YOU AGREE THAT EITHER I AM LYING AND I SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR UNJUSTLY LYING ABOUT SHORROCK OR SHORROCK HAS BEEN LYING AND HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED? EITHER WHICH WAY DO YOU AGREE THAT THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS FOR YOU TO REPORT THE MATTER TO THE POLICE SO THAT BOTH SHORROCK AND I CAN BE INVESTIGATED AND INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE?
> 
> I am very sorry that you feel I am wasting a charities time however I did not invite the charity into my life IT INVITED ITSELF AGAINST MY WISHES and I did not ask the charity to destroy my life with lies therefore the charity has sown the seeds of PERJURY and now it is time to harvest the seed of lies. Nothing but my death will stop me as I KNOW AS YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE.
> 
> As the RSPB covet publicity, in the interest of justice and for justice to be seen to be done I will be publishing the above correspondence and your answers and Shorrock’s without any editing so we can all have our say and the public can judge for themselves. Do you agree that that this is the best way forward so the public can judge for themselves?
> 
> WHY IS ANIMAL HEALTH MOVING AWAY FROM THE RSPB?
> 
> Investigations Unit
> RSPB
> The Lodge
> Sandy
> Bedfordshire
> SG19 2DL
> 
> Date: 17 04 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Dear
> DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
> 
> As you may be aware, from 1st April 2007, the functions of the Wildlife Licensing and Registration Service (WLRS) have been transferred to the new Animal Health Agency (formally the State Veterinary Service) which is an executive agency of Defra. This move affected the CITES Licensing and Bird Registration teams together with the Enforcement Liaison team.
> 
> As part of this transfer process, we have taken the opportunity to review some of our current practices and policies. One of the practices which came under the spotlight related to the personal data held by the WLRS, and the organisations to which such information can be released under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘Act’).
> 
> As you are aware, under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Act, personal data can be exempt from the non-disclosure provisions for the purposes of, amongst other things, the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. However, following advice we have received recently from our Data Protection Officer, it transpires that under the provisions of Section 29(3) personal data can only be released to statutory enforcement or prosecuting authorities, which includes the Police, central government departments (ie. HM Revenue & Customs) and to local government authorities; but does not include voluntary or charitable organisations.
> 
> In the circumstances, I am afraid that it will now no longer be possible for us to release personal data held by the WLRS to you or staff in the RSPB’s Investigations Unit. Whilst we appreciate you do assist police forces in the identification, investigation and prosecution of wildlife offences; any releases of information relevant to such cases could now only be made direct to the relevant police officer or police force. PTO
> 
> Although we cannot now release personal data to you, this does not preclude us from releasing other, non-personal data to you that might assist with any investigation you may be undertaking. We are also more than happy to continue giving you advice and information about the relevant legislation and our policies and practice in relation to the areas of work we are responsible for.
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Head of WLRS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU TWO WEEKS TO REPLY.
> 
> 
> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP
> 
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Derek Canning LLB [Hons]


 


What are you hoping to achieve with this? from what i'ver read its clear to see your not in the right, and the fact you keep posting this on here is clearly you trying to validate yourself.. by fooling us into believing it.

Sorry i cant see you getting much support.


----------



## Meko

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] said:


> how many letters after your name do you have if it is so easy and i mean real letter?


 
Lets be honest; having letters after your name doesn't mean you're more intelligent than somebody who doesn't. It just means you graduated in something and decide to try and use it to an unimportant advantage.


----------



## arthur cooke

It seems to me that the case of the two young men being asked by the RSPB to plant evidence is proof enough that the organisation in question is capable of planting evidence.
So are capable of wrong doing.

Therefore it does make any case they bring open to doubt. If that is the case, then a jury would have to say not guilty.

When expert witnesses get proved to be wrong all those cases are reopened, as happened to those woman who were jailed for killing their babies.

Also having a law that says you are guilty and have to prove innocence is against the whole tradition of law in this country.
cheers arthur.


----------



## gtm

This Derek Canning fellow has a bit of 'form':-

Bird-nest raider jailed for trade in wild chicks | Independent, The (London) | Find Articles at BNET

SUNDAY, JUNE 18, 1995; FORENSIC ORNITHOLOGY: DNA Test For the Birds - New York Times

He was convicted of capturing and selling wild peregrine falcons & is in my book a total :censor:


----------



## arthur cooke

Ok, but isn't it being said that the DNA testing method used was unreliable.
cheers arthur


----------



## intravenous

arthur cooke said:


> Ok, but isn't it being said that the DNA testing method used was unreliable.
> cheers arthur


Yes, but where is the proof?

I'm sorry but I just can't read his posts to see if he mentions it...they are completely unintelligible.


----------



## wolves121121

the way i see it is this, he collects eggs and wild birds to sell on. the RSPB found a way to put him away for bit because maybe he covered his tracks to well and now hes crying about it. if you do or did collect wild peregrines and there eggs then your a c**T.


----------



## sandmatt

Theres more proof that he has done it.. than against it.

I say hes got what was coming to him.


----------



## arthur cooke

Well, I have no idea one way or the other. Your right, if he has been stealing from the wild then he's got what he deserves.
It doesn't appear that he is going to answer any questions so it's pretty pointless even discussing it.
cheers arthur


----------



## Chris Newman

If you read what has been written here he wasn’t caught steeling eggs, he was convinced by the use of DNA testing that was known to be ineffective. Perhaps people do not understand the issue. Under the some of the legislation there is a reverse burden of proof – i.e. the prosecuting body does not have to prove you are guilty; you have to prove you are innocent. That is absolutely unacceptable, in my view.

To put things another way, I very much doubt if there is a single keeper of any Annex B CITES that could prove there animals were acquired lawfully. Therefore, technically, every single person in this country keeping say a ball/royal python is liable to prosecution and could by jailed – you think that is acceptable?


----------



## brittone05

Derek - I apologise that I have been unable to read all of your posts - I am finding them very hard to digest right now.

I am thankful that Chris has posted a brief explaination of the issue and from that we can all try to base some form of opinion and such on the matter.

I fully understand your grievance that the evidence presented before the courts in your case (and the cases of others I understand) has been flawed and as such should have been disregarded. It is unfortunate that the jury failed to grasp the concept of thier jobs which was to prove, boyond resonable doubt, that you were guilty. The first indication of flawed evidence, IMO, should mean that they cannot do what they are there to do.

I do, however, feel that you would be best to crunch your posts down into understandable reading for the forums. People here are not really those who enjoy reading legal docs and such like.

Perhaps you could put a Freewebs together containing all of the documents and such like and then you can explain things in your own words to people and be able to provide a link for your website should they request to read the evidence and presented court documents etc.

I cannot condemn someone who has been wrongly charged and convicted of something and can prove that the methods used to convict them were unreliable so I shall wish you luck in getting a satisfactory resolution for your case.


----------



## intravenous

Chris Newman said:


> If you read what has been written here he wasn’t caught steeling eggs, he was convinced by the use of DNA testing that was known to be ineffective. Perhaps people do not understand the issue. Under the some of the legislation there is a reverse burden of proof – i.e. the prosecuting body does not have to prove you are guilty; you have to prove you are innocent. That is absolutely unacceptable, in my view.
> 
> To put things another way, I very much doubt if there is a single keeper of any Annex B CITES that could prove there animals were acquired lawfully. Therefore, technically, every single person in this country keeping say a ball/royal python is liable to prosecution and could by jailed – you think that is acceptable?


Where is the proof that the DNA testing was ineffective? As far as I can tell he was asked to prove that they were CB by providing samples from the parents of the chicks he was selling and was unable to (although he offered some "parent" birds for testing which were not in fact the parents)?


----------



## gtm

Chris Newman said:


> If you read what has been written here he wasn’t caught steeling eggs, he was convinced by the use of DNA testing that was known to be ineffective. Perhaps people do not understand the issue. Under the some of the legislation there is a reverse burden of proof – i.e. the prosecuting body does not have to prove you are guilty; you have to prove you are innocent. That is absolutely unacceptable, in my view.


what I find strange about this whole sorry story is that if the DNA evidence is so 'dodgy' why has Derek Canning LLB(Hons) simply not applied to the Court of Appeal to get his conviction quashed? My guess is he has but got sent away with a flea in his ear. Thereare 2 sides to every story & we've only heard Derek's.


----------



## Reptillian

intravenous said:


> Where is the proof that the DNA testing was ineffective? As far as I can tell he was asked to prove that they were CB by providing samples from the parents of the chicks he was selling and was unable to (although he offered some "parent" birds for testing which were not in fact the parents)?


Derek Canning was convicted using the earlier methods of DNA testing, They are not as accurate as they are today as you can imagine, However Derek has never protested his innocence just the techniques that assisted in his conviction with the aim to get his conviction over ruled on a technical issue. He will also post his drivel on as many forum that will except his ramblings he will also never offer anything of value or valued input to the forums core interests either, He doesn't keep reptiles


----------



## AshMashMash

sparkle said:


> i dont have 10 years to read a post im not even sure is relevant to me..
> 
> can someone summarise PLS


Hahahahahahaha... pot, kettle.. black.


----------

