Jump to content

Guy Shorrock court case

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

By DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS],
in Falconry

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20

Posted
Posted

I Derek Canning after consultation with other victims of Guy Shorrock wish to supply on behalf of Chris Marshall the court transcript that proves Shorrock acted as a burglar when he entered his premises with the police. Given this fact Chris Marshall wants a criminal investigation into Shorrock in totality of the numerous complaints against Shorrock over the last twenty years.

 

S9. Burglary.

â€" (1) A person is guilty of burglary ifâ€"

(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(cool.gif having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm F2... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

[ F3(3) A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceedingâ€"

(a) where the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which is a dwelling, fourteen years;

(cool.gif in any other case, ten years.

(4) References in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection (3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is.]

 

Amendments (Textual)

F2

Words in s. 9(2) repealed (1.5.2004) by Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42), ss. 139, 140, 141, Sch. 6 para. 17,Sch. 7 ; S.I. 2004/874, art. 2

 

F3

S. 9(3)(4) substituted (1.10.1992) by Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 26(2); S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2

IN THE BASINGSTOKE COUNTY COURT Case No: 9BK01887

 

3rd Floor

Grosvenor House

Basing View

Basingstoke

Hampshire

RG21 4HG

 

Friday, 27th November 2009

 

B E F O R E:

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES

 

----------

 

MR. MARSHALL

(Claimant)

 

and

 

MR. SHORROCK

(Defendant)

 

 

 

----------

 

Transcript from an Official Court Tape Recording.

Transcript prepared by:

MK Transcribing Services

29 The Concourse, Brunel Business Centre,

Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2ES

Tel: 01908-640067 Fax: 01908-365958

DX 100031 Bletchley

Official Court Tape Transcribers.

----------

 

THE CLAIMANT appeared IN PERSON.

 

THE DEFENDANT appeared IN PERSON.

 

----------

PROCEEDINGS OF FRIDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER 2009

----------

 

Friday, 27th November 2009.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: (Recording starts abruptly) …taken against you, and why didn't you respond properly to the claim form that was issued on 12th June.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes. The claim form, I never rec -- I've never received particulars of the claim, ever. If I can just -- could I just explain the chronology to you, sir?

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Mm, mm.

 

MR. SHORROCK: I received a -- an invoice from Mr. Marshall originally at my place of work, at my work address. The invoice was dated 3rd October 2008, I received it on the 8th. And I replied to that, and I sent a letter back to Mr. Marshall asking him to refer the matter to Hampshire Police. I notice on the Particulars of Claim, it actually says following that invoice, he’d had no further correspondence from me. That’s not actually correct. I wrote back to him following his initial invoice, asking him to refer the matter to Hampshire Police. I then had another letter to myself at my work address, again raising the matter. This time that letter was responded to by -- by my line manager. Mr. Marshall then wrote again, this time to my line manager at my work address. There was a response made to that latter. There was three pieces of correspondence from Mr. Marshall, all to my works address, two to myself and one to my line manager. On the last letter from Mr. Marshall, which was 18th December 2008, there is a remark made, suggesting it was a mistake to send the invoice to the RSPB address, which is my place of work. Then on 2nd September, that’s the first time I became aware of this claim at all. It appears that the Particulars of Claim had been sent to an address which I had moved from in May 2001. I hadn’t lived there for over 8 years. I'm unaware of whether the invoice was actually sent to that address first, but the first I became aware of it was when Mr. Marshall sent the judgment made against me in default, was sent to a former council member of the RSBP, and it came through to my department on 2nd September. I was away at the time, assisting the police at Knowle, and my line manager was obviously aware of the urgency, and he sent an application to stay the proceedings. He believe he could do that as a litigation friend. That was sent through on 4/9, which was two days later. We then, on 21st September, I received notification from Basingstoke Magistrates Court, basically saying that the application couldn't be made by my line manager.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Basingstoke County Court, presumably.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah. Basingstoke County Court, and that the application had to be actually made by me. So I then submitted the application form that same day, the 21st, the date I received the notification from Basingstoke. So I sent the application that that be set aside.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: All right. Okay. Well, I accept what you have said, that you have made a most timely application as you can. Now, in so far as the merits are concerned, the merits appear to be undisputed, that this damage was caused -----

 

MR. SHORROCK: No, I disagree with, you, sir, we’re not aware of any damage being caused in relation to this claim. At the time, I was -----

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, the door that you went through was locked.

 

MR. SHORROCK: There was a forced entry made by the police with Mr. Marshall’s premises, that’s right.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, were you on the premises at the time?

 

MR. SHORROCK: I was assisting the police, yes.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, under the terms of the search warrant, you had no right to be on there, you weren’t a serving police officer, were you? THEREFORE GUY SHORROCK IS ACTING AS A BURGLAR GIVEN THE FACT HE IS ON THE POLICE VIDEO DAMAGING THE DOOR, BEING ASKED TO LEAVE BY THE HOME OWNER AS HE IS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT AND NOW AS A LIAR, GIVEN HIS CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO HAMPSHIRE POLICE IN WHICH HE LIES IN SUCH MATTERS AS BEING ASKED TO LEAVE CHRIS MARSHALL’S PROPERTY AS HE IS NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT.

 

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah. The -- there is an issue regarding -- there is an issue regarding my presence on that search. YES, THERE IS AN ISSUE, YOU ARE A TRESPASSER COMMITTING CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND REFUSING TO LEAVE THE PREMISES AND YOU SHOULD BE PROSECUTED ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER CRIMES THAT YOU HAVE COMMITTED IN OTHER CASE THAT I HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR.

I routinely assist the police with search warrants. I've probably assisted with over 100 search warrants in the last 28 years. THEREFORE YOU MUST KNOW IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE SEARCH WARRANT YOU CANNOT GO ON CHRIS MARSHALL’S PROPERTY AND COMMIT CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND THEN REFUSE TO LEAVE. In this particular case, there is an issue that I -- the police basically went to apply for two warrants on the same day, for two addresses in connection with the same inquiry. And there was a mistake, I presume made by the police, in the fact that half of the officers were named on one of the warrants, but not on the other. So the Sergeant who applied to the court for those warrants, obviously asked the court for authority and the court gave that authority, but it wasn’t endorsed on the warrant. So yes, there is an issue, and I haven't been able to resolve it with ----- THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE IS FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND SHORROCK PROSECUTED.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, that, so far as Mr. Marshall’s concerned, is fundamental, isn’t it, because the warrant that was issued against his premises, did not entitle you to be on the premises.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes, that -- well, that’s upon the warrant. I'm not named on the warrant, that’s correct, yes. THEREFORE WHY DID YOU NOT LEAVE WHEN YOU WERE TOLD TO BY CHRIS MARSHALL ON THE POLICE VIDEO?

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So you had no right to be there. As soon as you were there, you are liable to Mr. Marshall for any damage occasioned from you, and indeed he could take proceedings against you for trespass. IN THE WORDS OF THE JUDGE SHORROCK IS BREAKING THE LAW AS HE IS ACTING AS BURGLAR THEREFORE WE WANT HIM PROSECUTED ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER CRIMES IN TOTALITY THAT HE HAS COMMITTED OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES. I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS AND I WISHED TO BE INTERVIEWED AND SO DO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUPPPLIED THE EVIDENCE TO ME SO I CAN PASS ON THE EVIDENCE TO THE POLICE SO SHORROCK CAN BE PROSECUTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

 

 

 

MR. SHORROCK: If that is the case, then yes, he could, sir, but I would say it's my case that the damage has not been caused, and I believe there’s a real chance of getting this -- a defence under this claim, if I was simply to call Sergeant Hubble, for example, I believe there’s a police search video, which I'm still trying to get hold of, and I believe that would show that there was no damage caused by myself. SHORROCK YOU HAVE JUST AGAIN COMMITTED PERJURY AS YOU ARE ON POLICE VIDEO DAMAGING THE DOOR AT CHRIS MARSHALL HOME WHERE YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO BE. I PUT THE VIDEO ON YOU TUDE BUT THE POLICE HAD IT REMOVED TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES AND THEIR’S HOWEVER I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER COPY AS IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU ARE A LIAR AND THE POLICE SHOULD PROSECUTE YOU. AS THE POLICE WERE IGNORING ME IN RELATION TO SHORROCK LYING I PUBLISHED THE FACTS ON THE FORUM

 

‘HUNTING LIFE’ SEE THE HYPER LINK BELOW

 

 

 

 

http://www.thehuntin...showtopic=78425

Posted 24 December 2008 - 01:49 AM

The RSPB and the question of an illegal search warrant, burglary, criminal damage and criminal trespass. The whole situation needs investigating and the real criminal prosecuted.

http://uk.youtube.co...re=channel_page

http://uk.youtube.co...feature=channel

 

‘This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hampshire Constabulary. ‘

 

INSTEAD OF A POLICE COVER UP WE NEED A POLICE INVESTIGATION AND SHORROCK PROSECUTED FOR HIS TWO DECADES OF CRIMES AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THIS WOULD ALSO PROTECT FUTURE POTENTIAL VICTIMS OF SHORROCK.

 

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, I know -- I shall give Mr. Marshall a opportunity to say something if he wants to, but I know from his documents, he says he has a DVD to show that it was you causing the damage to the lock. Now, okay, if I accept, then there’s going to be a dispute of evidence between you as to who damaged the lock, but obviously one accepts that damage was occasioned to the lock, because otherwise you wouldn't be seeking -----

 

MR. SHORROCK: Well, I've not physically seen the lock, sir, at all, so ----- STOP LYING YOU ARE ON VIDEO DAMAGING THE DOOR AND YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN THE VIDEO BEFORE OF YOU DAMAGING THE LOCK.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, you’re saying you’re going to get a police DVD to show that it was the police who broke in.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes. The police did so. YES THEY DID DAMAGE THE DOOR

BUT YOU NOT ONLY HELP THEM, YOU ALSO TOLD THEM WHAT TO DO ON THE VIDEO IN RELATION TO TO THE DOOR SO STOP LYING IN THE COURT ROOM FOR ONCE.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: The police presumably broke in -- can't have broken in without causing damage to the lock, they didn't have the key. So one way or the other, damage was occasioned.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes, I think damaged was occasioned -----

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Are we really going to spend an hour of court time arguing over £75?

 

MR. MARSHALL: Well, could I -----

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: It’s a question I pose to you; you and the police were there, undoubtedly damage must have been occasioned, because the lock was damaged, whether by you or whether it was by the police.

MR. SHORROCK: Yes. Mr. Marshall’s already made a claim against the police in relation to this at Basingstoke Magistrates Court. That claim was taken to court in the same year, later that year. I was asked by the police to attend that. Myself and Sergeant Hubble didn't actually have to give evidence. That claim was dealt with by the police’s barrister, and that claim was dismissed by the District Judge at the time, in relation to the claim for damages made. YES IT [sEE THE END OF THE COURT TRANSCRIPT BELOW FOR THE POLICE DEFENCE’S] GIVEN THE AFORESAID POLICE WHY ARE THE POLICE NOW USING TAX PAYER’S MONEY TO PAY THIS CLAIM WHEN IT SHOULD BE SHORROCK? I WANT THIS QUESTION ANSWERED AS I AM A TAX PAYER AND THE POLICE SHOULD NOT BE USING TAX PAYER’S MONEY TO PAY SHORROCK’S LIABILITIES WHEN THE POLICE HAVE BE FOUND NOT TO BE LIABLE.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, that’s a claim against the police. We’re talking about a claim against you. SO WHY HAS THE POLICE USING TAX PAYER’S MONEY TO PAY THE LIABILITY WHEN IT IS SHORROCK’S DUTY TO PAY?

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Which Mr. Marshall is saying was your responsibility, cause he has evidence to show that damage was occasioned. All you are going to be able to do in your defence, as I understand it from you, is to produce evidence from the police that damage was occasioned, but they did it, not you.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Certainly, yes, the police did cause damage. Whether that damage was caused to this lock or not, I've not seen the lock. The police forced the door, and the video will show the nature of how the door was forced.

SHORROCK YOU ARE ON VIDEO CAUSING CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO THE DOOR AND ADVISING THE POLICE ON THE DOOR IN QUESTIONS WHEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS TELLING THE POLICE WHAT TO DO. IN SHORT SHORROCK YOU ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND DRUNK ON YOUR OWN PERCEIVED POWERS.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, it's common sense, isn’t it, the door is forced, damaged can be occasioned.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Because the whole purpose of the lock, is to prevent anyone else opening the door unless you have the key. So as soon as the door is forced open, damage is occasioned, and it would be rather ridiculous for anyone to complain that damage wasn’t occasioned if a door was forced. So the issue in this case, it seems to me, is simply a matter of was it you or the police who did the damage. OR BOTH. THE POLICE VIDEO SHOWS IT WAS BOTH HOWEVER WHO GAVE THE BOGUS INFORMATION FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT IS A COMMON COMPLAINT THAT SHORROCK HAS SUPPLIED TO THE POLICE FALSE INFORMATION TO SECURE A SEARCH WARRANT. IN MY CASE SHORROCK EVEN SWEAR OUT A SEARCH WARRANT ON MY HOME WHICH HE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO.

 

MR. SHORROCK: That’s fair, sir, yes.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: And now what I'm saying to you is that for the sake of £75, are you really saying that we’re going to occupy an hour or so of court time to watch one video or two videos, which may be conclusive, may be inconclusive, but will take considerably longer if they show two different sides, because there’s some explanation will be then necessary as to why there’s two different videos allegedly of the same incident. WE ARE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH SERIOUS CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY SHORROCK THEREFORE WE NEED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE WHOLE HISTORY OF GUY SHORROCK.

 

MR. SHORROCK: No, one video, sir. I think Mr. Marshall’s is an exact copy of the police video.

 

MR. MARSHALL: I've got 41 seconds of Mr. Shorrock, nobody else, with a screwdriver in his hand ----- THEREFORE SHORROCK IS LYING TO THE JUDGE AND HE MUST BE PROSECUTED NOW ALONG WITH ALLOF HIS OTHER CRIMES AGAINST MANY PEOPLE OVER THE MANY YEARS THAT THE POLICE HAVE ALLOWED THIS LAIR TO CONTROL THEM. I WOULD NOT BE MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT IF I DID NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHAT I HAVE JUST SAID THEREFORE I WILL ATTEST AGAIN I WANT THE POLICE TO INTERVIEW ME SO I CAN PASS ON THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE AGAINST SHORROCK OVER THE YEARS THAT HE HAS WORKED FOR THE RSPB.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Who’s video is that? Is that the police video?

 

MR. MARSHALL: The police gave it to me, yeah.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So that’s the same copy really that you’re trying to -----

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah.

 

MR. MARSHALL: They asked me not to give a copy to Mr. Shorrock, because it was a contentious issue. I WILL GIVE YOU A COPY SHORROCK PERSONAL JUST TELL ME WHERE TO SEND IT HOWEVER I FIND IT STRANGE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO MANY TIMES AS I SENT A NUMBER OF COPIES TO THE RSPB AND I ALSO SENT THE HYPERLINK ON YOU TUBE BEFORE THE POLICE HAD IT REMOVED TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES AND THEIR ACTIONS IN ALLOWING YOU TO BREAK THE LAW.

 

MR. SHORROCK: I had a call from the police this morning, saying, ‘Trying to source the video,’ (Inaudible) but as I say, it’s my clear impression that the dam -- any damage caused was certainly not caused by myself, and if there is a fair claim, then that should be addressed to Hampshire Police. THE POLICE HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT LIABLE AS YOU STATED. THE VIDE SHOWS YOU ARE A LIAR AND THEREFORE MUST BE PROSECUTED.

 

MR. MARSHALL: That’s clearly what was in the lock, and it’s extremely clear on there, it shows Mr. Shorrock spending over half a minute, with a large screwdriver in his hand, you can actually see him, you can actually hear him audibly trying to graunch the lock open, and it’s there. I mean, if there’s a opportunity, we could both watch it. THEREFORE THE POLICE MUST INVESTIGATE THE CRIMINAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY SHORROCK SHOWN ON THE POLICE VIDEO. I HAVE THE VIDEO WHICH I HAVE SENT MANY TIMES TO THE POLICE BUT I AM BEING IGNORED AND IT AMOUNTS TO CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AS THERE IS A POLICE COVER UP ALONG WITH THE OTHER CRIMES COMMITTED BY SHORROCK OVER THE YEARS.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, have you seen this video or not, Mr. Shorrock?

 

MR. SHORROCK: I saw -- I saw the video three, four years ago, I've not seen it since. SO YOU HAVE NOW SEEN THE VIDEO. TO BE A GOOD LIAR YOU NEED A GOOD MEMORY AND YOUR MEMORY SEEMS TO BE IN QUESTION.

 

MR. MARSHALL: In the court, just -- I hadn’t seen the video until the day before the court hearing, so I didn't realise Mr. Shorrock had done the damage to the lock, not the door. And District Judge Carney, it will be on tape, he said, ‘You clearly should pursue Mr. Shorrock about this,’ because Mr. -- a barrister that the police employed, stood up and said, ‘Mr. Shorrock is not seen on the video doing any damage whatsoever,’ so the judge said, ‘Well, if the best thing is, we’ll play the video,’ and it showed Mr. Shorrock with a -- something that looked like about that long in his hand, spending 41 seconds, and you can actually hear him kind of lever the lock open, and lever the key out of the door, and that’s the key, and it actually broke one chain off of that key.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, I'm not going to see any evidence today, because that’s not the purpose of today’s hearing, but with 41 seconds of Mr. Shorrock going -----WE NEED THE POLICE TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND PROSECUTE SHORROCK.

 

MR. MARSHALL: And -----

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: ----- like that on the door, I’d find it very surprising whether it’s two years, three years, four years, ten years, that Mr. Shorrock can't remember doing it. THAT IS BECAUSE HE IS LYING AS HE DOES ALL OF THE TIME AND WE WANT HIM INVESTIGATED BY THE POLICE THROUGHOUT THE UK.

 

 

MR. SHORROCK: No, I remember the incident, sir, but as I say, without going into the details of the defence, I wasn’t trying to force the door. What we were -- myself and the police were endeavouring to do, was push the key out of the back of the lock, so that it could be retracted from under the door, and the door could be opened without damage. It was because that process wasn’t possible, that the police then forced the door open. So I was actually assisting the police to try and prevent damage. THE VIDEO PROVES OTHERWISE.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, the very fact that you accept that you were assisting the police, when you had no authority under the warrant ----- YES YOU WERE ILLEGALLY IN CHRIS MARSHALL’S HOUSE AND YOU WOULD NOT LEAVE EVEN WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT YOU WERE ILLEGAL IN CHRIS MARSHALL’S HOME THEN YOU LIED ABOUT BEING ASKED TO LEAVE IN YOUR CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO HAMPSHIRE POLICE. I HAVE THE REPORT IN QUESTION AND THE POLICE VIDEO. IF THE REPORT IS COMPARED TO THE POLICE VIDEO THEN THERE IS ONLY ONE CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN WHICH IS GUY SHORROCK IS A LIAR AND THERE MUST BE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah. SO YOU NOW ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A BURGLAR AND THE POLICE HELPED YOU?

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: ----- leaves you well and truly up the garden path, Mr. Shorrock, and liable for this. Now, I am saying to you, for the sake of £75, if you want to come back to court on another day, and if the matter is as clear as that on evidence, I shall leave a clear direction on the court file, that the court, although this is a small claim’s matter, should consider that it may be a situation where the court can make an order for costs. Because if the matter is as clear as that, you on the premises which you had no authority, you were doing something to the door, it seems to me there can be no defence to this claim that you were responsible for the damage. WHAT MORE DO THE POLICE WANT BEFORE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS SET IN MOTION?

 

MR. SHORROCK: Well, I believe that the damage was caused by the police, sir. I don't believe any damage to that lock was actually caused by myself. BUT YOU ARE ON VIDEO DAMAGING THE LOCK AND THE DOOR BY CHIPPING BITS OF THE DOOR OFF THEREFORE YOU ARE ALSO COMMITTING PERJURY BY STATING OTHERWISE.

 

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Shorrock was taking part in a forced entry, when he shouldn't have even been on the premises. He was trespassing. I've got five different solicitor’s comments and legal advice about it, and the court clerk, Jennifer Atwell, will confirm that Mr. Shorrock wasn’t asked to be allowed on to the premises. THEREFORE SHORROCK IS A BURLAR.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: (Pause) Well, clearly although it’s £75, we can't deal with the evidence today, and so -----

 

MR. SHORROCK: Sorry? TOO LATE NOW SHORROCK YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT OUT AND YOU SHOULD BE PROSECUTED BY THE POLICE. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW INCLUDING SHORROCK.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Although it’s only £75, we clearly can't deal with it today, because I'm in no position to deal with the evidence, I haven't got time to do it this afternoon. So I’ll set aside the judgment, I’ll set it down for a small claim’s hearing, which will take place on the first available day. It seems perfectly clear to me, and I'll make sure that I don’t deal with the final hearing of this, so it would not be prejudiced, that your chances of succeeding on this must be very slim. If there is a clear DVD showing you on the premises, doing something to the door, it seems to me to be an absolutely open and shut case, that the judge will find you responsible for any damage occasioned, because you shouldn't have been there, and you will have a huge difficulty in explaining that you were doing something to the door and weren’t causing any damage. For you to simply say to me today that you don't remember the incident of doing anything to the door, I find somewhat -----

NEED WE SAY MORE OTHER THAN WE WANT THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER IN CONTEXT OF EVERY ONE’S COMPLAINT AGAINST SHORROCK?

 

MR. SHORROCK: No, I'm not saying I don't remember the incident to the door.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So I am going to warn you -----

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yeah.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: ----- and it will be part of the court order, that although in small claims matters costs do not normally follow the event, a judge has a opportunity of making orders for costs against parties, if their behaviour is unreasonable. It seems to me that if the DVDs clearly show you doing something to the door and the judge on the future occasion finds you responsible for the damage, it seems to me that Mr. Marshall should be entitled to all the costs he’s incurred in this matter, because your conduct by definition will have been totally and utterly unreasonable in this matter. So I'm giving you that very clear warning, which is on the tape, it is recorded on the court order, and we shall see what happens at the next hearing. But as I have said, it will not be me, because I have voiced an opinion today, based upon what has been said to me, which of course is not the evidence itself. It seems to me that for £75, this matter shouldn't really go as far as this, it ought to be resolved, and one way or the other, somebody ought to be compensating Mr. Marshall for the £75, because he is the innocent party in this who has had damage occasioned to his door, and it must be down to either the police, the RSPB or you, and I would have thought it's incumbent upon you to try and persuade someone to foot the bill for £75 or do it yourself, because quite frankly, the likely costs are going to far exceed that, because I assume Mr. Marshall’s has come all the way from Hampshire today? Have you come from Hampshire today?

 

MR. MARSHALL: I've come from Bordeaux. On Sunday I came back. We work abroad all the time, and I'm doing a big land reclamation job just outside Bordeaux at the moment. And I've got -----

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: What are your expenses I coming here?

 

MR. MARSHALL: Well, 270 Euros ferry fare, and 700 miles petrol costs, and coming up here as well. I stayed in Dunstable last night at a bed and breakfast.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Where are you going tomorrow, back to Bordeaux?

 

MR. MARSHALL: No, no, I shan’t go back there until another two or three weeks, to find out what -- I shall wait to see what happens about this court case.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, it's going to be more than two or three weeks before you get -----

 

MR. MARSHALL: Sorry?

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: It will be more than two or three weeks before the court finds another day.

 

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I'm sure, yes.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: So you’re saying coming back from Bordeaux, you’d have been coming back in any event at some stage?

 

MR. MARSHALL: I would have come before Christmas, yes, certainly. I’m not expecting -- claiming costs.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, you’ll certainly have your costs from Hampshire here, and back again, so what’s the mileage?

 

MR. MARSHALL: To her, about, I do know, ballpark figure, 100 miles each way.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: And what was -----

 

MR. MARSHALL: £45 bed and breakfast.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: You stayed -- you stayed overnight?

 

MR. MARSHALL: In Dunstable, yes.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: But presumably you could have driven from home?

 

MR. MARSHALL: I could have done, but it’s the traffic problem, sir, you know, it was just my desire to get here at the appropriate hour.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, Mr. Shorrock, I have given Mr. Marshall 40 pence a mile, which is the amount we allow, for a 200 round trip, that’s £80, isn’t it.

 

MR. MARSHALL: I would like to add one thing, I don't intend pursuing Mr. Shorrock for trespass or criminal damage, I just would like the repayment for the damage to the lock and the time it took me to repair it.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, Mr. Shorrock, you’ll pay Mr. Marshall his travelling expenses of £80 in any event, which -- is there any reason why it can't be paid within 14 days?

 

MR. SHORROCK: No, your Honour, no reason. Is that made through the court or -----

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: No, you pay it direct.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Direct.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: The court doesn’t these days deal with money. That’s 10th December. All right. So it’s £80 it’s cost you already. And when you talk about another £80 plus court fees on top of it, I would sincerely hope that whilst you’re here, you can perhaps have a conversation about the matter, and bring it to a conclusion, because quite frankly, it is stupid to contemplate coming back here for another day, an hour’s hearing, the travelling that Mr. Marshall’s going to encompass, the time you’re going to have off work to argue about £80, I don't see any commercial sense in that whatsoever.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Yes, I appreciate what you’re saying, but however (Inaudible).

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: Well, I think your principles may cost you far more than it’s worth. That’s a matter for you, but I would have thought the sensible thing to do is to try and find some way to resolve the matter before that happens.

 

MR. SHORROCK: Right. Okay.

 

DISTRICT JUDGE AYRES: All right. Okay. Thank you very much then.

 

 

I DEREK CANNING will state that I have court transcripts, various statements, video tapes and emails that go back twenty years that prove Shorrock has conspired to pervert the course of justice in many cases and I want to be interviewed by the police to pass on the evidence. As an example from a mountain of evidence please note below a number of pages taken from a report done by the most famous bird expert in the world and the one with the most experience, in relation to my case against Shorrock. Also, note the email from the police stating that Shorrock has got a hidden agenda and the fact he does not like people who breed birds. Also note the defence supplied by the police in relation to Chris Marshall.

 

‘ 13.5 Stoppage of the Burden Case

13.5.1 The Kent Police/RSPB case against Mr & Mrs Burden involved a number of captive Marsh Harriers and was heard at Canterbury Crown Court in September 1999; the enquiry having effectively commenced in 1996. According to His Honour Tim Nash the case resulted from the failure by Nottingham University and the DoE's Bristol-based Wildlife Section to formulate (some time prior to 1996) a computer programme showing the family tree of all the birds of prey legally held in the United Kingdom. Regardless of the fact that many bird keepers had voluntarily submitted samples of blood from their birds in order to assist the national records. It then being discovered there were flaws either in the accuracy of the DoE's records or in DNA testing, which "was still being developed and had not reached a satisfactory stage of accuracy". As a consequence no national computerised programme was created. The judgment was reported by the local

 

 

PAGE 41

 

press (Appendix VIII) and summarised by the Burden's solicitors (Knights of Tunbridge Wells-Appendix VII).

 

13.5.2 The Judge went on to say that regardless of the above, some time prior to 1996 the main investigating officer in the Burden case, Guy Shorrock of the RSPB, commenced a series of investigations of various bird keepers aimed at proving the fault lay with these breeders and keepers acting illegally, rather than the fault lying with the DNA testing.

 

13.5.3 The Judge apparently described Mr Shorrock as "a man with a mission", pointing out that the flaw which proved fatal to the prosecution's case had been there from the beginning and had the police properly investigated this, rather than rely upon one ex police officer, it would have been seen that prosecution was totally impossible.

13.5.4 The Judge further making the point that "the powers that be decided what must have happened and then set about getting the evidence to prove it." Concluding that "this is not the way detectives should work".

 

 

13.5.5 There is presumably some relationship with the above and the fact that even by December 1993 the DoE had reversed its decision to fund Nottingham University in this work (Appendix V, Paragraph 7). It may also be relevant that by June 2009 Nottingham University was engaged in analysing DNA samples from known wild Peregrine Falcon and Goshawks nests from a given geographical area (Nottinghamshire) in conjunction with the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, the purpose being to use this database to compare with sample from captive birds in the search for any 'laundered' wild birds (British Birds; Vol. 102).

 

13.5.6 Perhaps starting the search based upon DNA samples from known wild nests, rather than commencing criminal proceedings for birds held within the extremely uncertain confines of the captive population, and with incomplete data from which to work from, was what the judge in the Burden's case had in mind in his severe criticism of the prosecution's DNA evidence in that case.

 

PAGE 42

 

13.6 DoE's Advice that Police/RSPB should not use Evidence of Single Locus Probes

13.6.1 Correspondence between DoE, on the one hand, and Nottingham University and the RSPB's Investigations Section during build-up to Mr Canning's trial (certainly from at least June 1993) asked the prosecution not to use DNA evidence in Mr Canning's case based upon anything other than "the established methods using multi locus probes", i.e. to not use evidence obtained via Nottingham University's single locus probes. The DoE's letters continuing as follows:

4th June 1993 to Dr Parkin (Appendix Xl]

"â€" The research we are sponsoring related to the isolation of SLPs for use on raptors is unfinished and under no circumstances should these SLPs be used on the samples provided by the police. We do not want this research to be tested in Court before we have considered, or even received, the final project report".

22nd November 1993 to RSPB Investigations (Appendix VI)

(in response to Guy Shorrock's letter of 4th November 1993, asking to use

the single locus probes evidence against Mr Canning - Appendix V)

"whilst we acknowledge the importance of DNA evidence in the two prosecutions you refer to (prior to Mr Canning's case), the Department would prefer any evidence presented for the time being to be based upon the established methods using multi locus probes. As you know, the research at Nottingham into the use of single locus probes has been funded by the Department. The final report from the researchers has not vet been received. When it is, we shall wish to consider the implications and report to the Ministers, on who's behalf the research was commissioned. Only when the full implications of the research for public policy have been assessed would we wish to authorise its use as a prosecution tool."

I appreciate your eagerness to be able to put to full use what appears to be a significant advance in the analysis of DNA samples, but I am sure you would also agree that it is important we do not prejudice the future use of the technique through exposing it in court before all the implications have been fully explored. We hope that it will not take too long to clear the future use of the single locus probes once the final report is received from the Nottingham researches, but you should not attempt to rely on the technique in any imminent cases".

 

PAGE 43

 

13.6.2 I have no knowledge of whether or not a completed research project report was received from Nottingham University by DoE, or if so what the content or timing of that might have been.

 

13.7 Court's Refusal to allow Dr Scott to give Evidence on Unreliability of DNA Results

 

13.7.1 Mr Canning remains perhaps understandably grieved at the court's refusal to allow Dr Scott to give his defence evidence questioning the possible validity of the single locus probes and their lack of any peer review processes. This point perhaps assuming greater importance in the light of some of the other points now being made here under the general heading of DNA Evidence Post Trail.

 

13.7.2 Dr Scott would also have made the point that in validating a new process, e.g. single locus probes for use on Peregrine Falcons, researchers would by preference be looking for hundreds of 'known' samples to validate the results, and that in his view anything less would make "assessment and projections of mutation rates a statistical exercise of which I would be suspicious" (Dr Scott’s letter to defence solicitor dated 8th May 1995).

 

13.8 Pre-release of Evidential Details - Young and Adult Birds

13.8.1 A very interesting issue in the Canning case arises from a point made in the Knights' August 1999 letter in the Burden case (Appendix VII) and concerns the amount of detail released to Nottingham University pre their DNA examination of Mr Canning's seized birds. In that case it seemed clear those carrying out DNA tests knew beforehand which samples came from adults and which came from alleged offspring. The point being that for a test of this type to be scientifically acceptable results should be based solely upon any findings, without prior knowledge of relevant evidential information, e.g. that the sample contained both adults and their alleges progeny.

 

13.8.2 In the Canning case DNA samples were presumably marked as to adult or young, but it seems clear from the results used in evidence that Nottingham University knew beforehand which samples came from adults or young.

44

 

14 Prejudicial RSPB Comments to DoE

14.1 From the outset of the Canning enquiry, indeed well before that, it would have been abundantly clear to RSPB Investigations, if not to the police, that a crucial element of the prosecution's eventual evidence against Mr Canning would involve the DoE's bird registration file it held on him. That fact is blatantly obvious from a remark contained in paragraph 8 of the RSPB letter to DoE dated 12th December 1993 (Appendix V). The full text of the paragraph reads as follows:

"I feel we, which includes the Police, the RSPB and the DoE, cannot afford to lose the (Canning) case. He is well known within falconry circles as one of the most prolific abuses of the system. We now have a chance to convict (Canning) for the offences of criminal deception in relation to wild peregrines which he has sold. This should have tremendous deterrent value".

 

14.2 This letter was more recently obtained by Mr Canning from what was then the DoE, in accordance with his request under the freedom of information legislation. It is his belief the name crossed out is his name, and this seems a sensible view. Why else would he have been sent this in response to his request to a government department, in addition to which the timing and facts of the letter fit with the known circumstances.

 

14.3 Earlier in the same letter the writer points out that;

"I (so presumably Guy Shorrock) am currently assisting the Northumbria Police with the case against (Derek Canning). When the case finally gets to court it will probably be the most significant case so far in relation to the taking of wild peregrines and laundering through the registration scheme".

"In view of Canning's past history and 'slippery' nature we feel it is absolutely essential that this case is successful. The use of DNA evidence will have a great bearing on this case. The whole situation is rather complex but basically (Canning) claims to have bred 24 peregrines in the last two years. The parent birds appear to be 'missing' and therefore DNA analysis cannot make a straightforward comparison between parents and progeny". "DNA analysis has been able to establish clear discrepancies between birds which (Canning) claims are from the same parents. However, in view of

 

PAGE 45

 

(Canning's) claims of 'communal' breeding of peregrines he can obviously say he made a mistake in documenting parentage. Though I think we can probably show such communal breeding is impossible with peregrines it would be extremely useful if we could also show that twenty peregrines tested come from a far greater number of parents than (Canning) could ever account for".

 

14.4 The question this particular letter raises, however, is whether these were suitable comments for an RSPB investigator to make to a government department that he knew would ultimately be called to give prosecution evidence against Mr Canning; and who were both paying for and controlling the DNA work being relied upon. It also begs the question 'who received this letter at DoE, and what part did it play in influencing what was later said in court under oath by Lynn Garvey, on behalf of the DoE.

 

14.5 In the circumstances one has to ask, is this not arguably a case of someone embarking upon a mission to prove a theory concerning another person. In which, case what might the Judge in the Burden & Buren case have had to say about this letter, and especially about its writer, had he known about this when giving judgment in Canterbury in 1999?’

 

 

Below is a few pages taken from a letter to the police about Shorrock’s hidden agenda.

Note below what the police and the DoE are saying about Shorrock. You must comment on these documents. There are a lot more documents condemning Shorrock in relation to this matter that can be sent. So we have the DoE, the police and a judge condemning Shorrock. This all need to be commented on and expanded on using your experiences being at the EX head of the RSPB.

 

 

By the 24 January 2007 the DNA evidence showed Mark Robb had bred his birds. The above email to PC Lee Flickling from Roy Pitt is dated 25 January 2007 which is after the DNA evidence was known so why is Guy Shorrock still harassing Mark Robb and allowed to continue his hidden agenda? The reasons why Roy Pitt is questioning the role of Shorrock needs to be investigated by the police. Mark Robb was told by the DoE that he would be given time to sort out the technical paper work offences therefore there was no need to ‘raid’ Mark Robb’s home or John Dodsworth’s. The police had the power to take blood sample from any birds with or without a search warrant and only the peregrine falcons born in 2006 were relevant therefore there was no need to lie to get a search warrant. To put it in the words of Roy Pitt [Animal Health] ‘THERE APPEARS TO BE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ROBB WAS IN COLLUSION WITH DODSWORTH IN THE TAKING AND LAUNDERING OF WILD TAKEN BIRDS- WHICH WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR MOUNTING THE OPERATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. I AM ASSUMING THAT NO FURTHER ACTION IS BEING TAKEN BY NORTHUMBRIA POLICE IN RESPECT OF DODSWORTH?’

Given there is no evidence to support laundering of birds what evidence was used to get two search warrants and why is Shorrock being allowed to further victimise Mark Robb?

 

Shorrock is being allows to try and save face and cover up the lies used to get the 2 search warrants even after he lied in my first court case in October 2008 Shorrock is still used by the police to investigate people without any checks on Shorrock’s hidden agenda?

 

 

 

It should be noted that Mark Robb had not seen me [John Dodsworth] for over 10 years before BOTH raids. Contact was only made with me [John Dodsworth] by Derek Canning going to Newcastle Crown Court in October 2008 therefore how does the officer believe that he can prove a connection between Mark Robb and me in relation to supplying illegal birds? This would have been legally needed to secure the search warrants. It is my contention that the officer has been lied to. It seems strange that PC Lee Flickling in his email dated 28 January 2007 is concerned that the police cannot proven if the birds held by Mark Robb were from the wild as the DNA evidence has already proved non of Mark Robb’s birds were wild. Why is there even a need for a third visit when it has all been a waste of everyone’s time given the DNA results? Shorrock seems to be still leading the show.

 

The officer confirms the police have only asked for the Article 10S and it seems that the police have not asked Shorrock to get any information from Animal Health, he has just gone on a personal hidden agenda of a ‘fishing trip’ to further his hidden agenda to close Mark Robb down and in doing so using the cover of the police to secure the information. Given this fact what did Shorrock say to secure personal information from Animal Health if the police did not ask him to secure any information? Shorrock is not allowed to go about his hidden agenda to obtain personal information by pretending he is acting for the police.

The DNA evidence proved that Mark Robb bred all of his birds therefore the evidence to get the search was all part of a secret agenda to wrongly convict Mark Robb and close him down. Not my words, the words of the police [i ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT GUY SHORROCK IN THIS CASE. I SEE A HIIDEN AGENDA E.G. ‘WE DON’T LIKE PEOPLE WHO BREED BIRDS’ ‘A NEED TO CLOSE HIM DOWN’. Note the words used by the police are in quotation marks therefore it is assumed the police are quoting Guy Shorrock. Given what the police have said it is cogent that Shorrock is deceiving people and on a personal agenda to close bird breeders down. Such a hidden agenda needs to be investigated as it amount to perverting the course of justice.

Simply put WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL DEALING WITH GUY SHORROCK WHEN THE POLICE HAVE CONCERNS THAT HE HAS A HIDDEN AGENDA AND THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO BREEDS BIRDS AND HE WANTS TO CLOSE PEOPLE DOWN? IF THE POLICE DID NOT ASK FOR INFORMATION FROM ANIMAL HEALTH WHY DID ANIMAL HEALTH ALLOW SHORROCK TO TAKE AWAY PERSONAL FILES? WHAT ABOUT THE ABOVE INFORMATION?

THERE ARE A LOT MORE EMAILS IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER.

Link to post

woodga

woodga 170

Posted
Posted

having read all your corrispondence regarding shorrock its about time he was brought to boot for his very definate vendetta against you genuine falconers. i hope you do get vindicated and he is proven to have ulteria motives he thinks he,s above the law now he may relise he,s not nice one Derek keep the pressure on :thumbs:

Link to post
mushroom

mushroom 14,059

Posted
Posted

My problem with you still remains you have not been exonerated from the crime/s you were charged for.

 

As for the Shorrock case I agree with your conclusions based on the evidence in hand this :wankerzo4: needs pulling down a peg or two in a criminal court, publicly. If there is no chance of this happening (which I don't think there is) and you say you have 20years of evidence plus witnesses then a civil matter should be brought in the same way the RSPCA or RSPCB would. With the intention of a criminal outcome to a civil case.

 

This is the only way Mr. Shorrock will ever be brought to book in my eyes.

 

 

 

 

Kieran

 

 

 

Link to post
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My problem with you still remains you have not been exonerated from the crime/s you were charged for.

 

As for the Shorrock case I agree with your conclusions based on the evidence in hand this :wankerzo4: needs pulling down a peg or two in a criminal court, publicly. If there is no chance of this happening (which I don't think there is) and you say you have 20years of evidence plus witnesses then a civil matter should be brought in the same way the RSPCA or RSPCB would. With the intention of a criminal outcome to a civil case.

 

This is the only way Mr. Shorrock will ever be brought to book in my eyes.

 

 

 

 

Kieran

 

 

My conviction was due to the lies of Shorrock and that is the point but I think you know that.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 0
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...