Guy Shorrock hidden agenda from the police.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

IPCC

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

IPCC

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

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.

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 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 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'

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

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 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 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

[fishkeeper 0]

Hi if this Guy Shorrock fella has a hidden agenda why has the police not done anything about it as it seems to me he his trying to hide a lot of things by reading this thread. Surely in this day and age they cant just take the word of a fella like this and issue warrants willy nilly without certain proof. Fishkeeper

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Hi if this Guy Shorrock fella has a hidden agenda why has the police not done anything about it as it seems to me he his trying to hide a lot of things by reading this thread. Surely in this day and age they cant just take the word of a fella like this and issue warrants willy nilly without certain proof. Fishkeeper

 

 

Well you ask anyone who has been raided for birds why did they get search warrant on their homes and you will not get many if any answers. There cogently needs be an independent inquiry in to the last 30 years of the RSPB controlling the police.

[fishkeeper 0]

Hi if this Guy Shorrock fella has a hidden agenda why has the police not done anything about it as it seems to me he his trying to hide a lot of things by reading this thread. Surely in this day and age they cant just take the word of a fella like this and issue warrants willy nilly without certain proof. Fishkeeper

 

 

Well you ask anyone who has been raided for birds why did they get search warrant on their homes and you will not get many if any answers. There cogently needs be an independent inquiry in to the last 30 years of the RSPB controlling the police.

Well in my eyes there are more bent police than straight ones, and if he was in the force himself he will know all the ropes so to speak. What it needs is a newspaper like the Daily Mail to investigate this Guy Shorrock and i am sure they would dig around and find something to pin on him and make it stick. Fishkeeper

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Hi if this Guy Shorrock fella has a hidden agenda why has the police not done anything about it as it seems to me he his trying to hide a lot of things by reading this thread. Surely in this day and age they cant just take the word of a fella like this and issue warrants willy nilly without certain proof. Fishkeeper

 

 

Well you ask anyone who has been raided for birds why did they get search warrant on their homes and you will not get many if any answers. There cogently needs be an independent inquiry in to the last 30 years of the RSPB controlling the police.

Well in my eyes there are more bent police than straight ones, and if he was in the force himself he will know all the ropes so to speak. What it needs is a newspaper like the Daily Mail to investigate this Guy Shorrock and i am sure they would dig around and find something to pin on him and make it stick. Fishkeeper

What about this one Mushroom?

[mushroom 12,827]

I stand gobsmacked that this crap can be allowed to continue unchallenged ......

 

 

How is it (if provided infomation is correct) that joe public bodies can obtain not only search and arrest warrents which are rerserved entirely for the use of court and police offficers, But also get their mucky little hands on evidence submitted to HRH law courts as trial evidence?????????????????

 

This Mr Shorrock in seemingly guilty of perjury, lying under oath and bringing a court of law into disrepute all of which carry e possibility of a holiday at HM pleasure.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

I stand gobsmacked that this crap can be allowed to continue unchallenged ......

 

 

How is it (if provided infomation is correct) that joe public bodies can obtain not only search and arrest warrents which are rerserved entirely for the use of court and police offficers, But also get their mucky little hands on evidence submitted to HRH law courts as trial evidence?????????????????

 

This Mr Shorrock in seemingly guilty of perjury, lying under oath and bringing a court of law into disrepute all of which carry e possibility of a holiday at HM pleasure.

Mr Mushroom that is only a fraction of the evidence against Shorrock which we have have, which is why I have not been sued

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Here is another one.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 [bANNED TEXT] 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

 

 

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,

 

 

 

 

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]

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]

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

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

http://www.falconcrimes.co.uk/