do you remember

[markbivvy]

then read this:

 

The Shooter’s Journal

AUTUMN 2011 6

IN THE COURTS

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Do-goodery is rampant throughout the land, and in its wake comes an insidious kind of corruption and cruelty.

It’s surreal. Worse, it’s out of control

——————————————

Innocent of an accusation, and got an alibi to prove it?

That won’t bother law enforcement

——————————————

Something worse than a case of mistaken identity

IN HIS 1984 BOOK Adventures In The Screen Trade, screenwriter

William Goldman emphasizes that a screenwriter must create a ‘believable reality’.

This may not have much to do with reality as we think we know it.

Some real-life events are simply too bizarre to be believable, Goldman says, and cites the case of Michael Fagan.

In July 1982, 31-year-old Fagan scaled a fence at Buckingham Palace in the early morning daylight, wandered around for a while in sight of guards,

set off alarms that were sedulously ignored, found conveniently unlocked windows, and eventually ambled into HM the Queen’s

bedroom as she slept. (The armed police officer who should have been outside the royal bedroom had gone off duty before his replacement, who

was out walking the dogs, arrived on post.)

The Queen awoke, and kept Fagan chatting until she had the chance to ring for a footman.

Goldman’s point was that if you put all this in a movie, no one would believe it. But it happened.

We feel rather like that in Kevin Hunter’s case. With such a concentration of things going wrong in the justice system and affecting

one person; a distinct closing of ranks as various official bodies either pass the buck, duck, avoid, ignore, double-back or just stick their fingers

in their ears, our problem is trying to present all this as something that really has happened.

In 2008, Kevin Hunter was approaching fifty. A family man, he’d bought land for his wife and daughter to keep horses on, built them the stables and tack room from

which to enjoy themselves.

He himself was working as an agency heavy goods driver. He was a firearm and shotgun certificate holder, member of BASC, of good character.

The land on which Kevin’s family keep their horses in Warwickshire is bounded by a private lane and farmland. People wander onto the

land, some on a public footpath running through it, and some in a manner best described as overspill.

Kevin had shooting permission on adjacent land, along with several other people, who might legitimately be there with a gun.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Now suspend your disbelief

In February 2008, someone was seen shouting abuse at a bunch of trespassers on the land over which Kevin shot, and possibly discharging a shotgun, but not at them.

The person who claims he saw this event talked to a third party, who put a name to the likely individual—that being Kevin Hunter.

The police, who were supposedly looking for someone who was attacking horses in that area, decide that a conviction under section 16 of

the 1968 Firearms Act would look well on their CVs, and nip round to Mr Hunter’s house, put him in a cell for 11 hours, charge him accordingly,

and remove his shotguns and rifles.

During their investigation, the police recover tachograph charts proving that their ‘suspect’ was literally miles away at the time given

by their witness. This was, quite rightly, sufficient cause for the CPS liaison to abandon any hope of a

prosecution, and he dropped the charge. Kevin Hunter expected to receive his property back, but it did not appear.

When he asked for an explanation, the police informed him that irrespective of the CPS opinion, they were convinced he was a danger to the public and the peace, and

revoked his tickets.

When he told BASC what had occurred, they immediately went into action, and threw in the towel.

He joined another outfit by the name of the Scottish Association of Country Sports (SACS), whose insurance

cover did provide a solicitor for a Section 44 appeal.

To say Section 44 courts resemble large Australian bipedal marsupials is uncomplimentary to the kangaroo,

but that wasn’t the bad news.

The bad news was that the solicitor given the comparatively easy task was one William Graham.

The police had a problem. Their only semi-witness (he did not identify Kevin Hunter, onlydescribed him) provided a time line

for which Kevin had an alibi, one that they themselves procured from his employer.

The solution was brilliant in its simplicity: they assumed their witness made a mistake about the date.

If their witness had got the date wrong, then Mr Hunter would have no alibi.

Job done.

This was all carefully discussed by Warwickshire police in an internal memorandum.

Kevin Hunter looks suitably unimpressed

———————————————

To ensure their version of events was the one the court heed, they omitted the tachograph evidence from the police bundle presented to

the court.

For the technically minded, we now have three separate charges to lay against the Warwickshire police: conspiring to pervert the

[HDAV]

Any chance of putting that into a readable format? Think I have read it all before tho

[markbivvy]

7

course of justice (the memo makes it

a conspiracy), failing to place before

the court any and all evidence

considered (Kavanagh v Chief

Constable of Devon & Cornwall

[1974] QB 624), and suppression of

evidence (Police and Criminal

Evidence Act 1984).

The lawyer should have had an

easy ride. Apart from destroying the

police for failing to disclose the

tachograph evidence, the witness’s

account alleged:

• The person wore ‘Realtree’

camouflage from head to foot.

Realtree is a brand name, and Mr

Hunter does have a Realtree jacket,

but not the trousers.

• According to the statement, the

man had a double-barrelled shotgun.

Mr Hunter did possess a side-by-side,

but not at the time of the incident.

• The man held the shotgun in one

hand, with the butt on his right hip,

with his hand on the small of the

stock. Mr Hunter has medical records

to show if he were to attempt to hold

a shotgun that way in his right hand,

it would fall.

• The incident allegedly took place

on a Sunday in early February, for

which Mr Hunter had tachographs

showing he was driving at the time.

In other words, the man seen by

the witness was someone other than

Mr Kevin Hunter.

Somewhere along the line,

something happened. The witness

turned out to be ‘unwilling’ to appear

in court. Instead of insisting on the

appearance of this witness, the

solicitor decided not to appear either.

The barrister recommended by the

solicitor performed as you might

expect, given the integrity of her

patron. She arrived at the court, and

requested the considerably thick

police bundle from the clerk.

You read that correctly: she had no

clue what the case was about until

less than two hours to kick-off.

Whether she didn’t know about the

non-appearance of the vital witness is

unclear because, to date, despite

several requests for information, she

remains exceedingly discreet.

For those unfamiliar with a Section

44 appeal, the usual form is that the

appellant stands directly behind his

brief, with his solicitor at his side.

That way, if the appellant thinks of

something, he whispers it to the

solicitor, who translates it to the

brief—simple, or what?

In this court, however, Kevin

Hunter was instructed to stand in the

dock, effectively isolating him from

his legal counsel. The result was a

resounding defeat for the forces of

light. The solicitor and barrister

finished the job they started by

failing to inform him that he was

eligible to appeal by way of a judicial

review, or that he was entitled to

lodge formal complaints against

them. As ineptitude goes this was a

text book case in how easily the

system collapses when those within it

don’t do their jobs properly (or at

all). The secretary of SACS did write

a few letters of complaint to Mr

Hunter’s lawyer, but it is clear that

this particular solicitor’s real

expertise is in avoiding

responsibility.

Kevin Hunter did try his best to

get official bodies such as the

Independent Police Complaints

Commission involved. The IPCC did

produce a sizeable document, which

managed to overlook all the

‘actionable’ aspects of the case:

officers lied under oath, attempted to

‘jog’ peoples memory by showing

them photographs of Kevin when

they were only supposed to ask

questions, etc, etc.

Eventually, Kevin found the SRA,

and the first thing we had to do was

obtain documentation of what

happened. Kevin was more than able

to oblige, and produced literally

hundreds of pages of material,

including copies of witness

statements, maps of the area, the

IPCC review, and more besides.

A genius for invisibility

The next step was to see what the

other side had, and that was when the

fun started. From the first letter to

date, every organisation has gone out

of its way to obstruct justice. No

effort has been spared to ensure that

Kevin Hunter was never to receive

anything approaching a fair deal.

Letters of enquiry routinely were

ignored until at least one reminder,

and often not even then.

Right now, we are still trying to

see information that should be in the

public domain, as it’s legal advice

and therefore impersonal. We

discovered that Warwickshire’s

firearms manager came across it in a

‘similar’ case, and grafted it into

Kevin’s file. The police have refused

not only a Freedom of Information

but also a Data Protection Act

request to release a copy.

As far as the lawyers were

concerned, the case was over a year

old, which meant that their respective

governing bodies would not entertain

complaints made against them. In

fact, the barrister actually invited us

to make a formal complaint, no doubt

confident that the time bar would

protect her.

The IPCC, after much persuasion,

blithely informed us that as far as

they were concerned the matter was

concluded, and anyway the majority

of their cases they merely pass to the

police to investigate at a local level.

If you are wondering how they have

the gall to proclaim themselves as

‘independent’ you are not alone.

Suffice to say, if a police officer is

sufficiently incompetent or corrupt to

warrant their attention, said

individual is hardly the best choice to

review his own work.

Mr Hunter’s MP was as much use

as you might expect: ‘Get a lawyer’

was the best this Parliamentary

representative could manage.

Er—he tried that already?

The Warwickshire Police

Professional Standards department

likewise seem incapable of

recognizing that suppression of

evidence is a criminal act, especially

when the perpetrator is a highranking

member of their own force.

The Deputy Crown Prosecutor

refused to comment on whether he

thought the police had committed an

offence in this case. This was after he

received a copy of the memo

revealing the plan discussed by the

manager and the ACC to withhold

evidence, and the later admission by

the ACC of having done so.

In a contest to see who could do

the worst, the Warwickshire Police

Authority probably just make it to the

top of the heap. Technically they’re

best placed to rein in a senior police

officer, but to do so they would have

to acknowledge that Kevin Hunter is

entitled to examine information held

against him, not simply information

in a file bearing his name—although

that too might be useful. Getting to

grips with the seriousness of

withholding evidence seems beyond

their abilities too.

The biggest problem, apart from

the non-replies from all and sundry,

is that so many of those involved

seem unable to distinguish between a

reply and an answer. For example, if

you ask me if it is raining, and I tell

you what time it is, that is a reply, but

not an answer. The police, the IPCC,

the Professional Standards Office, the

CPS, the Police Authority, and

others, have all pulled this number.

The case is currently working its

way through the European Court of

Human Rights, and we hope they will

answer Kevin’s appeal for justice.

Before that happens, there is a chance

that one or two other parties such as

the Information Commission, and the

Bar Standards Association, will help

redress the balance.

We will let you know.

[HDAV]

Any chance of putting that into a readable format? Think I have read it all before tho

Apparently not then.

[highseas]

i gave up halfway

[edge007]

Apparently not then.

[markbivvy]

 

Trolling again ray.

no one to con tonight,

[kdubya]

perfectly readable Mark but you forget english aint a strong point for some article is worrying to say the least, but then if you watched panorama tonight? it's just about par for the course.

 

KW

[markbivvy]

Mobile phones for you.

use em as pc,s and to photograph boar in pens, tut tut.

[Beardo]

Interesting piece.

[kdubya]

Mobile phones for you.

use em as pc,s and to photograph boar in pens, tut tut.

 

 

wild boar :lol: :lol:

 

 

KW

[markbivvy]

Wild, i bet he,s chewing nails. :lol: :lol:

[Gordon R]

It raises lots of question about whether he was treated fairly. If the article is correct, he was treated very, very badly.

 

The thing that puts me off it is the way it is written with an unprofessional slant. The journalistic style is amateurish and hardly objective.

[HDAV]

Article is biased on 2 fronts, and this isn't the first coverage of the event we have seen on PW, did you write the article markbivvy?

 

It does read like every other professional involved failed completely in their role, accusing serving police officers of lying under oath is no minor matter, is it possible or even likely the entire system is against one man, who has had nothing but bad advice, professional failures, perjury and bias thrown at him, or not?

[markbivvy]

Article is biased on 2 fronts, and this isn't the first coverage of the event we have seen on PW, did you write the article markbivvy?

 

It does read like every other professional involved failed completely in their role, accusing serving police officers of lying under oath is no minor matter, is it possible or even likely the entire system is against one man, who has had nothing but bad advice, professional failures, perjury and bias thrown at him, or not?

 

 

did you write the article markbivvy?

No. just copied and pasted from a pdf file .

it is due to appear on the shooters rights association site.

[Justintime]

I can asure you all aligations made in the artical can be backed with evadence,It was written by a 3rd party with nothing to gain from it, he wrote it just useing the facts and the evadence supplied by the police. The amount of lies cover up etc has been rampent but you have to have a good memory if you lie The police dont.

This is happening more and more to inocent people.

[Dave-G]

The fact that it's still ongoing suggests there is more than enough fuel for the fire, good luck Winchester.

[mad1]

Is it guilty till proved innocent or innocent till proved guilty Good luck m8

Edited November 1, 2011 by mad1

[Justintime]

In firearms law it seams your guilty first,And when you prove beyond reasonable doubt your innocent,they still class you as guilty, it sucks.

Just been made awear of another case of false alligation on a RFD he has had all his kit taken,We as shooters need to have this sort of thing nipped in the bud for future generations,and sorted as it stands anyone can make an alligation against any certificate holder and bang in come the cops your guns taken along with you for interigation. Then you have to stand in a court room which has nothing to do with English statute law or human rights,because its a Cheif constables opinion that you are in some small way guilty of something.This all has to be payed for by you the innocent person now pray tell me how that is right

[pegasus bridge]

i presume winchester is the member name on here ? The article is clearly coming from one viewpoint ; would have carried more weight, especially with non shooting people if it appeared a little more objective.

 

either way - if only half of this is true - its shocking and shooting organisations / shooting people should do something. has anyone else got a link to this reported elsewhere?

 

or even let the guardian catch a wiff of 'human rights'... or bring out the big guns and get one of those dreadful chakrabarti sisters involved (although i suspect when they realise it involves the G word they will prob back out).

[mad1]

Yep I would def make as many people aware as poss through the media ..so basically I can hold my sgc and fac then one day have a argument with a neighbour and by certain wording by them I could have them revoked and find myself locked up for the sake of someone being malicious .... Not right. Not right at all this needs to be sorted and brought to light and us as shooters of all types to get it sorted it could happen to any one of us next.

Good luck m8 fingers crossed it gets sorted for you and us !!!!!

[pegasus bridge]

this is the reason that i use the video camera function on my blackberry to discretly record any interactions with the public when i am out shooting. yes - its odd, and we shouldnt have to do it - but at the end of the day it covers me. and if someone was malicious and i could prove it - i would be expecting the police to be taking action against the other party.

[Justintime]

Unfortunate that form of evidence would not be accepted the police can use it against you but not you against them that is in no way a dig at you my friend, but a fact, The person who wrote the artical has no ties with it he was totaly independent, For example in England we have trespass law which states ,The land owner or his agent can use REASONABLE FORCE to make trespassers comply with instruction, It dose not say The land owner or his agent may not use reasonable force to make trespassers comply with verble instruction if he or she is a certificate holder.

That in essence is the whole case

[Beardo]

Unfortunate that form of evidence would not be accepted the police can use it against you but not you against them that is in no way a dig at you my friend, but a fact, The person who wrote the artical has no ties with it he was totaly independent, For example in England we have trespass law which states ,The land owner or his agent can use REASONABLE FORCE to make trespassers comply with instruction, It dose not say The land owner or his agent may not use reasonable force to make trespassers comply with verble instruction if he or she is a certificate holder.

That in essence is the whole case

 

I thought the essence of the case was the fact that he wasn't there at all on the day in question?

From the way you word that, it sounds like he was in fact there and used 'reasonable' force to make them leave?

[Piebob]

I thought the essence of the case was the fact that he wasn't there at all on the day in question?

From the way you word that, it sounds like he was in fact there and used 'reasonable' force to make them leave?

 

It does, doesn't it? And as far as I can recall, this is part of Kevin's/Winchester's/Justintime's problem. Instead of just sticking to the plain, provable alibi that he wasn;t even there at the time, he goes off on wild tangents which end up sounding like attempts to justify the actions taken by whoever WAS actually there.