Wiltshire Police Corruption:  Badger Protector Receives Substantial Damages From Police

A badger protector from Wiltshire has accepted substantial damages after being arrested on false – and subsequently withdrawn – claims made by a badger cull shooter. Wiltshire Police agreed a settlement on a case brought against them and admitted unlawful detainment, trespass against the person, assault and battery and a GDPR breach of the badger protectors’ personal information to a third party.

A badger cull-operative, who is also a local huntsman, was initially reported for cull licence offences by a group of badger protectors who had been keeping an eye on badger setts in Wiltshire in 2021. The cull shooter had been reported to police for shooting at badgers in a field – with a public footpath that crosses the firing line – without a spotter, or a ‘buddy’. The cull shooter had been spotted by the badger protectors on their thermal imaging camera.

Advice from police to cull shooters is to stop firing and leave the area if they encounter members of the public whilst they are out shooting. On this occasion the shooter’s exit from the field was a text-book cull-op withdrawal. Packing up his rifle and equipment, masking up his face, and phoning a friend to pick him up, he left the field without interaction, refusing to confirm if he had a legitimate purpose to be alone in a field shooting towards a badger sett. The shooter was reported to police the same evening.

However, despite the allegations of a firearms offence, police failed to attend, and the protectors were subsequently contacted by Wiltshire Police liaison officers, and all videos including thermal and phone footage of the lone shooter were sent to police the following day. There was some initial confusion over which police force had jurisdiction, as the incident occurred on the borders with Avon and Somerset, where the original call was wrongly routed.

Further offences also became apparent in the following days and weeks as the badger protector community converged on this part of the county to protect the sett from the bloodthirsty killers. As well as breaching firearms rules about shooting methods – he had no shoot ‘buddy’, was not adhering to rules about baiting 30m from the sett, and had also set up a bait point of peanuts, right by the hedgerow and in front of the sett.

Despite all these deeply concerning licence breaches, no action was taken against the shooter, and police initially refused to confirm if the man was engaged in shooting badgers. A subsequent Subject Access Request however, confirmed that the allegation against the protector made clear that the alleged offence was in relation to “the lawful activity of and during the culling of badgers”. This wasn’t the first or last time this particular culler had been interrupted by badger protectors either.

The rules are clear, the guide provides clear direction to those licenced to carry out controlled shooting of badgers in the field, and highlights those areas which must be complied with. The footpath which the badger protectors were walking on also extended into the field beyond directly behind the badger sett, out of view of the cull op, smack bang in the direction the killer was set up to shoot towards, risking the lives of anyone walking the public rights of way behind the sett.

There wasn’t a ‘safe backstop’ either, a backstop is needed to reduce the risk of a ricochet or a missed shot/shot passing through an animal and beyond. The target area being alongside the covert which contained the sett also risked a wounded animal being ‘lost’ into the sett, and suffering immensely from their wounds.

Badger cull aside, the huntsman is a well known slayer of wildlife in the county. Only earlier that year the bodies of shot foxes were found discarded in this exact same hedgerow where he is regularly to be found with his weapons and his dogs.

Graphic Image

What happened to the video evidence after police received it is unclear. Repeated complaints and requests as to the whereabouts were made by the protectors, they were led to believe that the confusion between which police force was responsible was the reason for the uploads repeatedly not being received and assigned to any police crime reference. It became apparent in the weeks following it was because there had been no crime reference raised by Wiltshire Police. In fact one crime reference had been made, but it was one that police had bizarrely raised against one of the protectors.

Several days after they had reported the lone cull operative, one member of the protector group – the one who made the initial report – received a knock at the door at 7am one morning. Two uniformed Wiltshire Police officers stood telling the protector they had come to carry out a search of their house and to arrest them, for allegations of ‘aggravated trespass’ and the ‘theft of a trail camera’. The police forced their way in, and began searching. One officer in particular was seen relishing her job of carrying out a really thorough and invasive search of the protector’s private possessions – including a double-search of the underwear drawer – and spending almost an hour going through all the clothing with a fine tooth comb.

Following the search, which naturally produced nothing. The protector was taken to custody to be interviewed later that day. The thought of de-arresting once it became even more obvious this was a false allegation, did not seem to occur to the two officers.

The theft allegation was made by the cull operative, he had alleged that a wildlife camera, to the value of £40, had been left in the field all night long, and he ‘noticed it was missing’ at some time the following day. He also alleged that the encounter on the footpath took place as the protectors were ‘trespassing’.

As for the ‘aggravated trespass’ allegation, thankfully when footage is taken on phones, it is backed up with metadata which includes GPS data pinpointing where the video or photos were taken. In this case, they matched exactly to where the protectors claimed to be – on a public footpath which cuts diagonally across the field through the hedgerow where the sett is located and into the fields beyond. Gotcha lies right there.

Arriving at custody, the protector was booked in by a civilian detention officer, and an aggressive custody sergeant. After being forcibly fingerprinted, photographed and DNA swabbed, they were then made to take off their trousers and hoody and then given a grey prisoner tracksuit, before being detained for several hours, awaiting interview by the arresting officer in the afternoon.

After giving the statement later in the day they were then immediately released with ‘No Further Action’. The protector was also told that the cull operative had since withdrawn his allegation, possibly even before the arrest and unlawful detention took place.

The decision to release the prisoner with ‘No Further Action’ seemed to really irk the already-aggressive custody sergeant, first forcibly trying to impose inappropriate literature to drug and alcohol charities to take with them, and then trying to talk the arresting officer out of giving the protector a lift back home.

But the trauma did not end there. Several days passed and, incredibly, the protector discovered that the custody suite had since been in contact with an agency with whom the protector previously worked alongside in a professional capacity, informing those known to the protector of the arrest, and of course of the nature of the arrest which is essentially ‘theft’ – an allegation which suggests dishonesty. To date, Wiltshire Police maintain there was no malice in this unlawful disclosure to a third party, that it was an ‘accidental’ incident which they regret but cannot offer any alternate explanation for. Hmmm….

The protector carried out a ‘Subject Access Request’ (SAR). What came back from the police, was staggering. It transpired that the officer who authorised the arrest, Sgt Bray (now a Detective Inspector) admitted they had no powers to search the house without the – since withdrawn – allegation of the theft of the camera. She told the arresting officer to also gain access to phones, and satnavs, anything that would place the protector at the scene of the alleged ‘theft’, despite the fact that the protector had, by nature of being the reporting person, already had already done that by reporting the cull operatives offences.

For what purpose did they want the electronics? According to the SAR it was to identify other protectors (in other words to gain intelligence around other animal rights activists). The other reason for wanting the electronics, more ominously, was given as to “gather evidence of [their] intention to disrupt illegal activity” and that whatever they find would “hopefully assist in proving the offence”. The wording of ‘hopefully’ strongly indicates that the sergeant has taken a biased view, rather than act impartially and be guided by evidence, they have allowed themselves to ‘hope’ to criminalise an innocent individual by finding evidence of wrongdoing.

Furthermore Sgt Bray also made a staggering claim that “[the protector] will say that the activity is illegal as was operating without a buddy, and this was the reason she contacted police”. Well, yes that is in fact what the patroller did say days before, as this is exactly what happened, as the video evidence confirmed.

On her decision to authorise the arrest, Sgt Bray went on to suggest that a ‘restraining order’ should be applied for, and that they should be looking to place ‘bail conditions’ to discourage the return of the protector to ‘participate in future protests’. Extreme and excessive, a clear abuse of police powers going on in the hands of Wiltshire Police.

Complaints to the Police and Crime Commissioners office were made, and dissatisfied with the handling and the response – part of the initial complaint which dealt with the custody treatment and data breach were ‘lost’ by the PCC office for long enough that vital video evidence from custody was not secured. This meant that Wiltshire Police were able to subsequently drag out their settlement to the data breach, and to the assault and battery claims.

Wiltshire Police admitted they had acted unlawfully, falsely imprisoning the protector, they further admitted to trespass against the person, assault and battery and to the GDPR breach.

Initial inappropriate settlement offers from police were rejected and counter offers were made following the advice from additional legal experts; for which associated costs will ultimately be borne by Wiltshire Police – eventually a settlement for damages was agreed with the data breach valued at the equivalent to a malicious action on the part of the police, whilst they maintain this was an ‘accident’.

Wiltshire Police – in fact any police force – should take note that when they and their officers behave badly, unlawfully and maliciously, that we will always take action, and we will always seek justice for the wildlife, and for ourselves.

Hunt and cull criminals should also take note that their crying-wolf lies will eventually wear thin – and not to mention expensive – for their local police buddies to continue to aid and abet. They should all know what they have achieved with their lies, and with their malice is to make us even more determined, and even better equipped to protect our wildlife.