Guy Shorrock hidden agenda from the police.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Where is the information in relation to John Richardson contacting Defra, please disclose the information? Shorrock’s words ‘I do not want this to go to waste’ shows that he is determined to convict Mark Robb otherwise it will be a waste. That is not a reason to convict someone, so time will not have been wasted. In other words Shorrock is trying to justify his position and what he has done and wants to do

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

In the words of Shorrock ‘WILL HAVE TO PULL MOST OF THE INTERVIEW PLAN TOGETHER’. Shorrock is trying to put his hidden agenda forward again and take over the interviewing of Mark Robb.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Why is Shorrock STILL in control when he has a known hidden agenda and why on the 7 February 2007 after what Roy Pitt said on the 2 February 2007; Shorrock should not get any more information does Mark Britton pass on more information to Shorrock, especially after the DNA evidence had proved that Mark Robb bred his birds? Is this the last email from Defra to Shorrock to give him third party information if so why?

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Why is Shorrock in control when he has a hidden agenda and why on the 7 February 2007 after what Roy Pitt said on the 2 February 2007; Shorrock should not get any more information, does Roy Pitt pass on more information to Shorrock, especially after the DNA evidence had proved Mark Robb bred his birds? What files does Shorrock have that he is checking at the offices that cover Mark Robb?

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Shorrock looked at Mark Robb’s Private papers with a ‘fine tooth comb’ The blacked out information must be released or a will have to call Roy Pitt, John Hounslow, Mark Britton, PC Flickling and so on to give evidence at my courts case in September 2009.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

The blacked out information must be released or a will have to call Roy Pitt, John Hounslow, Mark Britton, PC Flickling and so on to give evidence at my courts case in September 2009.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Why is Shorrock allowed to see Mark Robb’s files if he was not instructed by the police?

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Was the big mess due to Shorrock, if not then who? Why is Mark Britton still ‘doing odds and sods’ on the 22 February 2007 for Shorrock after the hidden agenda was known and what was he doing? Why is McWilliams sorry for Mark Robb but on the other hand he is making a joke of Mark Robb being upset? Please supply all the information on the joke and why McWilliams feels Mark Robb has been badly treated.

February 2007

April 2007

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

‘Co-operation’ does that include not raiding Mark Robb when the DoE tell him they will help him? The RSPB have manipulated the law so much that the burden of legislation on people who keep birds IS IMPOSSIBLE to keep in front of, moreover the DoE have been illegally deceiving Mark Robb and everyone who has registered their hybrids, as hybrids do not need to be registered. Without this deceiving then there would have been no problem with the paper work. I would be delighted to send the evidence on the 28 years of deception.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

‘ALL NICE DRESSED UP OF COURSE!’ What does that mean?

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, BRISTOL BS1 6EB

t 0117 372 8831 f 0117 372 8206 m 07817 164704 e xxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx

 

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 (i.e. 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

 

 

 

 

 

You will note that it seems more than a coincidence that Animal Health does not want to release information to the RSPB [shorrock] in April 2007, anymore. It would seem that the secret agenda of Shorrock was too much even for Defra.

See below what crimes have been committed in the past by Defra.

The Watchdog programme and Sweetman

________________________________________

Watchdog programme setting sweetman up by the DofE

heres the 2 links [bANNED TEXT]....enjoy....baz

file 1

file 2

file 3

The following emails will show that there was more to say about Animal Health not giving the RSPB anymore information and it is believed it is due to the hidden agenda of Shorrock to victimise innocent people. Given this fact please release all the minutes and the information on why Animal Health does not want to release information to the RSPB anymore.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Knowledge and Information Management

Information Rights Team

Area 1B,

Ergon House

Horseferry Road,

 

London, SW1P 2AL

 

Telephone: 08459 33 55 77

Email: informationrights@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Website: www.defra.gov.uk

 

Mr B Addison (by email)

 

Email: request-11268-d7b8b60a@whatdotheyknow.com

 

 

Our ref: RFI 2667

 

 

27 May 2009

 

 

Dear Mr Addison

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: DATA SHARING

 

Thank you for your request for information about sharing data with the RSPB, which

we received on 5 May. Your request has been considered under the Freedom of

Information Act 2000.

 

You asked what criteria an organisation, such as the RSPB has to meet in order for

it to have been allowed to obtain “sensitive†data. You are referring to Defra’s and

Animal Health’s sharing of personal data with the RSPB under section 29 of the

Data Protection Act (DPA). You also asked for an explanation of sharing “sensitiveâ€

data with organisations that are not prosecuting authorities and a copy of any

documents that relate to this topic.

 

I enclose the information that you requested concerning the application of section 29

of the DPA.

 

With regard to your question as to the criteria that organisations would have to meet

in order for them to receive personal data under section 29 of the DPA, you will wish

to see the attached text of the email of 4 June 2007 from the Information

Commissioner’s Office, which states that “any individual or organisation may request

information to be released under Section 29(3) of the DPAâ€. Although the attached

text of emails shows that Defra’s policy is generally not to use section 29 of the DPA

to disclose personal data to organisations or persons that are not statutory

prosecuting authorities, we agree with the Information Commissioner’s position on

this matter and we could, therefore, use section 29 of the DPA to disclose personal

data to the RSPB and similar organisations. As the DPA does not specify that

section 29 can only be used by statutory prosecuting authorities, it was not “illegalâ€,

as you allege in your email, for Defra or Animal Health to share information with the

RSPB under this section.

 

 

________________________________________

 

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs

and Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any

non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any

other re-use, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of

the copyright holder. Most documents supplied by Defra will have been produced by

government officials and will be Crown Copyright. You can find details on the

arrangements for re-using Crown copyright on OPSI (Office of Public Sector

Information) at:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm

 

Information you receive which is not subject to Crown Copyright continues to be

protected by the copyright of the person, or organisation, from which the information

originated. You must ensure that you gain their permission before reproducing any

third party (non Crown Copyright) information.

 

In keeping with the spirit and effect of the Freedom of Information Act

2000/Environmental Information Regulations 2004, all information is assumed to be

releasable to the public unless exempt. The information you requested may now be

published on our website together with any related information that will provide a key

to its wider context.

 

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. I also attach an annex

giving contact details should you be unhappy with the services you have received.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

[signed]

 

David Waller

Data Protection Officer

 

 

 

________________________________________

Annex A

 

Complaints

 

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request you

may make a complaint or appeal against our decision within 40 working days of the

date of this letter. Please write to Clive Porro, Head of Defra’s Information Rights

Team at Area 1B, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL (email:

informationrights@defra.gsi.gov.uk), who will arrange for an internal review of your

case. Details of Defra’s complaints procedure can be found at:

www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/complain/info.htm.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to

apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Please note that

generally the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have

first exhausted Defra’s own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner

can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Email from Defra’s Data Protection Team to Animal Health (AH) Business

Development Division dated 9.1.08

 

In our view section 29 of the DPA allows Defra to share personal data only with

statutory enforcement bodies, such as the Police, Local Authorities, HMRC etc

whose official functions include prosecuting action. Section 29 does not allow

disclosure of personal data to organisations that are not prosecuting authorities.

Therefore, section 29 would not allow the transfer of personal data to the RSPB.

 

________________________________________________

 

 

 

Email from AH Business Development Division to Defra’s Data Protection

Team dated 7.1.08

 

We spoke about this matter. The current Animal Health view is that since the RSPB

do not bring prosecutions (but do assist the Police in their duties) we would not

release personal data to them (even under Sect 29), but recommend that such a

request be made by the Police in these cases.

 

It appears that the WLRS [Wildlife, Licensing and Registration Service] understood

(before joining Animal Health in Apr 2007) that the RSPB were included on a DPA

Register, which allowed them to release information for prosecutions, etc, under Sect

28 (sic) - see the attached letter. Though this Section quoted is incorrect (it should

be considered under Sect 29), it appears to refer to a sharing arrangement I was not

aware of. Could you confirm that such a Register exists, if this stil exists under the

1998 Act, and if so whether the RSPB are included on such a list, which would allow

the application of Sect 29.

 

________________________________________________

________________________________________

Email from Defra’s Data Protection Team to the AH Wildlife, Licensing and

Registration Service (WLRS) dated 12.4.07

 

Before answering your queries, I need to clarify that you mean s29(3) of the DPA and

not s28(3).

 

S29(3) does not allow disclosure of personal data to organizations that are not

prosecuting authorities. Thus, s29(3) would not al ow the transfer of personal data to

the RSPB.

 

Moreover, I doubt that s29(3) would allow disclosure of personal data to the RSPCA,

since it is not a statutory enforcement body. You mention that the RSPCA

undertakes private prosecutions. If they have not elevated right above any citizen to

take out a private prosecution, then, in my view, s29(3) would not allow Defra to

transfer personal data to it for that purpose. If it were the case that s29(3) allows us

to share personal data with it for private prosecutions and if the RSPCA has no

elevated rights above any member of the public to take out private prosecutions, then

s29(3) would also allow the transfer of personal data to any member of the public

who wishes to take out a private prosecution. Thus, in my view, s29, allows Defra to

share personal data only with statutory enforcement bodies, such as the Police,

Local Authorities, HMCE etc etc whose official functions include prosecuting action.

 

________________________________________________

 

 

 

Email from WLRS to Defra’s Information Management Division dated 12.4.07

 

The section of the Branch I work in deals with enforcement issues and we liaise

closely with the statutory enforcement agencies (ie. the police and HM Customs &

Excise) and regularly release personal data to them under the provisions of s28(3) of

the DPA. However, in certain circumstances we also release information to the

RSPCA and the RSPB under the same provisions, as the RSPCA do undertake

private prosecutions and the RSPB did until a few years ago. One of the questions I

need answering is whether we are entitled to release personal information to these

organisation, and in particular the RSPB who no longer take private prosecutions? I

would add that the RSPB regularly assist the police in the investigation and

prosecution of wildlife offences, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient reason for us to

release information direct to them.

 

I would also welcome your views on our current practice of releasing personal

information, under s28(3), to an organisation that does not pursue prosecutions in

their own right.

 

 

________________________________________________

________________________________________

Email from WLRS to AH Business Development Division dated 22.11.07

 

[Name of RSPB officer redacted] has come back to me again, see his email

immediately below this one, outlining what he thinks the situation is following

correspondence the RSPB had with the Information Commissioner's Office (see

attached); and telephone conversations [name of another RSPB officer redacted] had

with you and [name of WLRS officer redacted]. From this, they seem to think

it had been agreed we could continue to release information to the RSPB under the

provisions of s29 of the DPA.

 

The 'PAW Data Exchange Protocol' he refers to is, in my view a bit of a 'red herring'

as this was an agreement about the sharing of information, drawn up in about 2001,

between those organisations that are party to the 'Partnership for Action against

Wildlife Crime'. This agreement set out a protocol for the exchange of information

between partners, but was subject to the caveat that "any disclosure of personal data

must have regard to the common law duty of confidence, the Data Protection Act

1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights". Therefore, I can't see that

the RSPB can argue that this protocol overrides the general principles of the DPA.

And, despite what they say, I can see no reason to justify releasing the information

they are currently requesting direct to them. If this information is required by the

police for the investigation of an offence, then the police must contact us direct. If we

did release such information to the police, then I would be somewhat concerned if

they then released this information to the RSPB!

 

________________________________________________

 

 

 

Email from RSPB to WLRS dated 22.11.07

 

The PAW Data Exchange Protocol states 'Partners are expected to exchange

information, within the spirit of the Partnership, subject only to legal constraints,

established disclosure policies and resourcing practicalities'. Therefore we

understand any data disclosure has to be lawful and can only be considered on a

case by case basis.

 

I was aware of [name of WLRS officer redacted] letter to [name of RSPB officer

redacted] back in April but understood the situation had been resolved. We were

original y surprised about the interpretation of Sec 29 DPA, particularly as other

government agencies, primarily the police do disclose personal data to us.

 

We contacted the Information Commissioner's Officer for advice, I've attached a copy

of their reply in relation to Section 29 DPA.

 

Fol owing receipt of this I believe that [name of RSPB officer redacted] spoke with the

Data Protection Officer at Animal Health who confirmed that the ICO interpretation

was correct and there was no legal bar no disclosing personal data to a non-statutory

agency (providing of course it is done for prevention & detection of crime and

apprehension and prosecution of offenders).

 

I understand [name of RSPB officer redacted] subsequently spoke with [name of

WLRS officer redacted] about this and I thought the matter had been resolved.

 

If I have misunderstood the situation please let me know.

________________________________________________

________________________________________

Email from WLRS to RSPB dated 19.11.07

 

As you are aware, releases of information of this nature are covered by section 29 of

the Data Protection Act 1998. Earlier this year, [name of WLRS officer redacted]

wrote to [name of RSPB officer redacted] explaining that, as a result of advice we

had received from the Animal Health Agency's Data Protection Act officer, we could

only release information under the provisions of s29 of the Act to statutory

enforcement or prosecuting authorities - which includes the Police, central

government departments (ie. HM Revenue and Customs) and local government

authorities; but does not include voluntary or charitable organisations.

 

I am not saying that we cannot issue this information, nor do we wish to be unhelpful

or hamper the investigation of an offence; but, I am afraid, this request will need to

come direct from the relevant police force and we can release any relevant

information to them. If you can arrange for the relevant PWCO to email this request I

wil respond to it as quickly as possible.

 

________________________________________________

________________________________________

 

 

Email from the Information Commissioner’s Office to the RSPB dated 4.6.07

 

Thank you for your correspondence dated the 17th of May, regarding Section 29(3) of

the Data Protection Act 1998.

Section 29(3) refers to the third crime and taxation exemption. Under this exemption,

if a data controller has received a request from a third party (not a representative of

the data subject) for information constituting personal data, they may be able to

release the data to the third party without the knowledge or consent of the data

subject if the data controller who processes the data is satisfied that the exemption

applies.

For example, an employer receives a request from the police for personal data about

one of their employees. The police inform them that they are conducting a criminal

investigation into this person and need this data as part of the investigation and if the

Data Controller were to ask the individual if they could release the data that would

prejudice their investigation.

The release of this information is not limited to be provided only to the police and

there is no legal bar against non governmental agencies being the recipient of

personal information released under Section 29(3). Any individual or organisation

may request information to be released under Section 29(3), however the data

controller to whom the request was made have to satisfy themselves that is the

purpose for which the information is being requested, organisations therefore tend to

feel more secure in applying the exemption in response to requests from the police. It

is also important to note as you appear to be aware, that the section 29(3) exemption

is permissive in that it allows the data controller to disclose the data (subject to

satisfying the exemption) but does not compel them to.

I hope this information proves useful. If you would like to contact our Helpline please

call 08456 30 60 60, or 01625 54 57 45 if you would prefer to call a 'national rate'

 

August 2007

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

August 2007

October 2007

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Under Article 6[d] the above names will be called to give evidence in my court case if the information that I have requested is not released.

November 2007

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Why has Shorrock been dropped and McWilliams taken over and why is McWilliams asking for the above evidence? I want all the details on the matter disclosed to me.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Note my statement above and the enclosed letter from me that clearly states that I had nothing to do with taking illegal peregrine falcons.

There is a mass of evidence that I have that I wish to supply in relation to the police investigating Guy Shorrock perverting the course of justice and I would like to know where the evidence should be sent to. It is well over due to set motion a criminal investigation into Shorrock’s crimes and hidden agenda?

I have been shocked to find that Defra claims that they have sent Mark Robb all the emails in relation to the police, Shorrock and Defra as this is not supported by the facts as there are missing pages, emails that have no answers and large periods of time has passed with no emails sent, furthermore there are sections that have been blacked out which I find very suspicious especially in the light of the fact that the email dated 28 January 2007 has just been released to me after Mark Robb was told that all of the emails had been released many months ago.

I also want the notes on all the phone calls made been the RSPB [shorrock], the Police, McWilliams, the CPS and Animal Health. I especially want a copy of the conversation of Roy Pitt that he had with the CPS in relation to Guy Shorrock on the day of the court case where Shorrock was stated to be a liar in open court and the case against me should be stopped due to Shorrock’s lies.

What I want is a criminal inquiry into Shorrock, Defra and the police without a cover up and given Article 6[d] I will serve witnesses summons on all the people that hold information on the credibility of Shorrock if my information requests are not positively responded to.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

John Dodsworth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Shorrock in the Canning case

1] Acting as a Police man

Shorrock acted as though he was a Police officer:

a] Collecting evidence that he cancelled then destroyed

b] Interviewing witnesses and me that he tried to influence.

c] Illegally obtained a search warrant.

2] Publishing evidence.

At the beginning of the raid on my home, Shorrock and Karen Bradbury informed me that the video would only be used as evidence of the correct procedure being followed. However, I was lied to as the video was used for the Cook Report. Despite the fact that Mr Canning would not sell Chris Neal any birds the Cook Report still incorrectly stated that Mr. Canning had offered to sell 14 Peregrine Falcons to Chris Neal before my trial.

3] Perverting the course of justice.

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.

That the Police have actively helped Shorrock pervert the course of justice and are refusing to investigate my allegations against Shorrock.

Even now I am is still waiting for the following evidence to be disclosed 1 to 14;

1] All the Department of the Environment registration documents that relate to the birds that he sold or gave away,

2] R. Lumsdon’s statement [see document numbered 89 and 90]

3] the genetic report on the Sparrowhawks that Mr. Canning gave to Pc White on condition that the birds would be genetically finger printed and that he would be given the results within two to three weeks [see document numbered 32, 44, 50, 75, 83, 88, 97, 100] See the letter dated 26th November 2005 31st December 2005 file 3, 29th December 2006 file 4.]

4] Most significant of all the genetic report on the blood Mr. Canning sent to the RSPB genetic experts in the summer of 1992 for the two birds found in Mr. Canning’s cars [see documents numbered 8 to 17 and 34. See letter dated 13th November 2005 see file 3].

5] The forensic tests done on Sandcaster and Wilkinson’s cloths in 1992.

6] Copies of the letters that Mr. Canning sent to the Police in 1992 [see document numbered 8 to 17]

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],

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],

9] Mr. Canning is still waiting for the envelope taken from him in Dudley with ‘good quality oily fingerprints’ to be analyzed [if it has not already been done] to see which fingerprints are on the envelope and the result disclosed. It is believed Wilkinson’s prints will be on the envelope as well as Mr Canning’s.

4] Remanded

The lies that were used to remand me prevented me from seeing my solicitor, as the prison service prevented legal visits by my solicitor. The CPS Retracting the evidence that they used to remand me however no one then explain to me why it was not questioned why the CPS used lies in the first place to remand me.

5] Disclosure of evidence.

Disclosure in all cases is of vital importance as the prosecution lead the way and the defence can only follow. In my case, Shorrock totally controlled my case therefore this allowed him to withhold vital evidence. See file on disclosure. Pioneering University scientists help smash illegal trade in rare birds of prey

Section taken from file 4 on the DNA evidence is quoted.

‘The genetic evidence that was withheld from my court case.

Would it be possible 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 [the police genetic experts] to prove that 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?

3] What occurred to the DNA profiling of the blood sent to Dr Parkin in 1992 done by Dr Parkin and Dr Wetton?’

6] Shorrock Interfering with witnesses

Sat in court

Further to the above point. From the first day, to the last day of Mr Canning trial Guy Shorrock sat in the court behind Mark Styles listening to the evidence.

Interfere

It is totally unacceptable to allow Shorrock to sit behind Mark Styles to feed him to witnesses.

CJ Griffiths was the prosecution’s expert witness. See file 2.

7] Department of the Environment Registrations Documents

Given Shorrock was given access to Mr Canning’s records at the DofE. The same records were withheld by the Department of the Environment Registrations from the defence. After my trial I sued the DOE therefore Lynne Garvey released the documents. The documents in question affirm that Mr Canning did not sell all of the birds that he was convicted of selling. See the file on sale or gift.

8] Rob Davis’s fax

Rob Davis’s fax [sEE FILE 3 and page 48 of the enclosed second batch of documents]

9] The 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs subsection

The 14 Peregrine Falcon Eggs that conclusively confirm that Shorrock has perverted the course of justice and there must be a criminal investigation in relation to my accusations.

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.

 

Shorrock is clearly corrupt and should not be allowed to control any evidence. I have noted that Shorrock no longer controls evidence to the same extent; however, the damage has been done.

10] 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 5 on the DNA. Files 1 to 5 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

12] Shorrock suppressed the fact that Mr Canning had stated on the RSPB video tape that related to the raid on his home, at 1201hours that two of the birds in the aviary may be

[A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1]

Shorrock admits that Mr. Canning bred birds.

[A4/1126/93 SEE FILE 1 page 1 JW4]

“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†Guy Shorrock has stated the truth; a bird bred by Mr Canning however this was not put to the jury.

In the light of Doctor Scott's report Mr. Canning’s now knows why Shorrock claimed the bird D2 found dead in Mr. Canning’s freezer was a 1993 bird. Significantly, if Mr Canning had of affirmed that he had bred the two birds found in his car on the 4th of June 1992, by PC Glenton, he would have been acquitted. 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.

11] The EEC Clause

In Mr. Canning’s interview [A4/1126/93 FILE 1] conducted by Guy Shorrock, on the 5th December 1993, from 1.27pm to 5.35pm, at Hexham Police station, Guy Shorrock withheld the safety clause CONTAINED within the EEC Directive 3626/82 that stated Mr. Canning had to be aware that Peregrine Falcons were on the EEC Endangered List of Endangered Species before he could be found guilty.

11] Cage & Aviary Declaration papers

If you view, the Cage & Aviary Declaration papers enclosed [see page 87 of the enclosed second batch of documents]

12] NOT ENDANGERED.

Please find enclosed Mr. Canning’s evidence to the fact 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

Furthermore in Mr Canning’s Police statement dated the 5th December 1993 Shorrock states;

1] Peregrine is worth £500 and not £800.

2] Mr Canning did not complain about his birds being stolen.

3] Also note Mr Canning also asked that Shorrock go to the Department of The Environment to see which birds were sold or given away. [see letter on sale or gift in file 3]

13] STOLEN BIRDS

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

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

Guy Shorrock stated that all the Peregrine Falcons that Mr. Canning had in his control had been offered for sale in the Cage and Aviary Magazine. This is cogently not true.

Louise Sherrington statement

15] 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 recording and Mr. Canning’s parents become very upset at the number of people arriving to search their home.

10.52 hours Mr. Canning was told 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]

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, blue scere and blue orbital eye rings.

12.01 hours Mr. Canning states clearly that the two Peregrine Falcons 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’.

12.02 hours again Mr. Canning claims that the two birds above could be parents.

12.04 hours Bradbury said that the two birds might be the father of something.

12.05.12 hours Bradbury said ‘could be a father’, in relation to the above birds.

12.05.35 hours Bradbury said that the genetic evidence could work in Mr. Canning’s favour.

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 is being examined.

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 or whatever.

In the Garage.

According to Shorrock’s Record of Procedure at

13.40 hours ‘seized a 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 Mr. Canning’s conviction Shorrock now concedes D2 could be a parent bird of progeny A. [see enclosed second batch of document numbered 20].

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.

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.

13.54 hours the video stops again for a third time at a vital moment for the defence as after this time Mr. Canning’s bedroom was searched and Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs in front of Mr. Canning, Pc White, the video man [McNiven]. Mr. Canning does accept that he cannot recall the vet being present in his bedroom at any point in time.

At 14.10 hours according to Shorrock and Pc White up to 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs was seized in Mr. Canning’s bedroom.

At 14.18 hours according to Shorrock an incubator and

Harness was seized.

In the lounge of the bedroom

At 14.20 hours in the lounge of the bedroom, a stuffed Peregrine was seized.

Mr. Canning has noted with shock that Shorrock claims that he was not in the bedroom when Bradbury counted out the 14 Peregrine Falcon eggs. Shorrock even helped Mr. Canning lift the heavy incubator from Mr. Canning’s bedroom and into Shorrock’s red Vauxhall estate car. Mr. Canning 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 Mr. Canning’s 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 Mr. Canning’s side throughout the raid on his home [except for the ring incident] and the fact that the Record of Procedure clearly shows that he was in Mr. Canning’s bedroom Shorrock’s statement that he did not witness the 14 eggs being counted out is cogently untenable.

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

16] EEC REGULATION 3626

The EEC REGULATION 3626 does not apply to the hybrids that I bred from. Hybrid did not need to be registered unless bred after 24 May 1994. This fact has been withheld until recently therefore my birds did not need to be registered and the EEC REGULATION 3626 that was used to prosecute me did not relate to my birds. The DOE have just recently disclosed the previously mentioned in written recently.