PA Update re Hunting Actdoc _2_.pdf - Durham Heritage Coast

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“It has been determined by the Executive Management Group, in line with Government recommendations, that the policing of this legislation by Durham Constabulary will not feature high in the priorities of the Force and will not detract from the other Force priorities. No uniformed officer is to individually attend hunting meetings with a view to prosecuting persons taking part in such activity. Any pre planned police presence at a hunting meeting shall be determined by the relevant Operational Support Manager (Chief Inspector) who will ensure that the correct planning and resource allocation is committed to the event (evidence gatherers, PSU staff etc). If there is a high potential for media interest etc the Force Executive should be apprised of the situation in the planning stage. There will inevitably be occasions when officers are called upon to attend hunt related incidents by members of the public. On such occasions, the officer should attend, and (without placing themselves in danger) obtain as much information as is possible with regards to those persons present who may be engaging in unlawful activities. This should be done in a way that takes into consideration the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, so that only those details required to prevent crime and disorder and those proportionally required to investigate any incident should be obtained. From these personal details, those considered relevant to prevent future crime and disorder should be entered on to the Force intelligence system (Memex). It is important that the Force develops an ‘organisational memory’ in relation to hunt related incidents. Hence any incident and any decision in relation to it should be recorded on Memex and key worded `Hunting`. It is the responsibility of the relevant Neighbourhood Policing Inspectors to ensure that this process is completed as such intelligence will inform subsequent operational decisions in relation to policing future hunting events. It is the responsibility of the officer making any decision under this policy to ensure that their decision and the rationale for it are recorded on memex. Any officer being presented with any physical evidence by a member of the public that purports to be proof of activity that contravenes this legislation (video footage etc.) should take possession of that material in the usual manner. Any decision regarding prosecution for Hunting Act offences must be made in line with current statutory charging procedures. At all times officer should ensure that their actions comply with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”. The force is now considering the requests by the Anti Hunt Lobby to charge hunts for the cost of their policing. At this stage however, it is not considered that the Force will amend its current position. Additionally the Force is considering a meeting with all hunts in the close season to ensure they understand the necessity of conforming to the law. Furthermore it will allow hunts to give feedback to the Force along the principles of PACT meetings. It would be the intention of the Force to invite members of the PA to that meeting.
Current Priorities Operational o Combat terrorism and protect our communities o Combat and disrupt organised crime groups o Protecting vulnerable people from the risk of serious harm o Reduce the harm to communities caused by alcohol and drugs o Make communities safer and more cohesive (including NHP and ASB) Conclusion As has been proved nationally, securing a conviction for illegal hunting is very hard to achieve. Given the fact that hunting predominantly takes place on horseback in rural locations often over distances of many miles, the obtaining of evidence to secure a prosecution is very difficult to achieve. The recent High Court decision that correctly reinforced it was the duty of the prosecution to prove what was taking place was illegal (as in line with other criminal proceedings) as opposed to those committing alleged illegal acts to prove that what they were doing was lawful, further strengthening the good sense of taking the measured approach outlined above. The level of policing resources committed to policing this legislation will always be a contentious issue. By many (as borne out by the volume of correspondence received by the Police Authority on this subject) the `intelligence led` response will be viewed as not `doing enough`. Whilst much `generic` correspondence has been generated (post cards etc.) there still remains very few incidents where `evidence based` reports of illegal hunting activities are reported across the Force area. However, one such complaint was made in March 2008 when a case file was submitted to the CPS for prosecutorial advice. The CPS lawyer determined that No Further Action would be taken on this occasion stating “conflict of interests” as the real issue. Recommendation That the current Force Policy outlining Durham Constabulary`s policing of the Hunting Act is a measured, intelligence led and appropriate response, commensurate with the need to ensure that the focus of operational staff continues to be directed towards addressing the determined priorities of the Force. T.J. Stoddart Chief Constable
Page 1: Durham Police Authority Partnership

PA Update re Hunting Actdoc _2_.pdf - Durham Heritage Coast

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?