Arundel and South Downs Conservative Association, The Old Town Hall, 38 High Street, Arundel, BN44 3YE
Tel: 01903 816880
Fax: 01903 810348
I wish to draw it to the attention of the authorities that Guy Shorrock is corrupt and the fact he cannot be trusted to handle evidence in any case. Below are only some examples of how corrupt Shorrock is there is a lot more that I can supply.
For the attention of Paul Garfoot and Ian Lemon and the police in support of the fact that the police must in totality criminally investigate Guy Shorrock criminal activity.
Below is another example from many where Shorrock has matter of fact lied to the police in relation to a search warrant because he thought his confidential report highlighted below with my comments in red and the police video that conclusively affirms that Shorrock lied in his confidential report below would not be released into the public domain.
Please note that the matters mentioned in Shorrock’s confidential report below resulted in Shorrock being sued. The judgement is enclosed. I have the court transcripts of the court cases including the one in which a judge said Shorrock could not be believed. The court transcripts can be supplied on request.
Guy Shorrock confidential report is below with my comments in red and the vital parts of Shorrock’s report that proves he had lied to the police are highlighted in blue.
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? I have been told he was asked to resign for interfering with evidence.
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 DUE TO THE LIES OF THE PAST] 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.
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 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, R V Myatt, R V Canning and so on]
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 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 EVEN THOUGH HE IGNORES THE RULES WHEN IT DOES NOT SUIT 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