Police release CCTV image linked to arson attack at Chris Packham’s home

Hampshire Constabulary have released a CCTV image of a man they wish to speak to in relation to an arson attack at Chris Packham’s home.

The image shows the man exiting the driver’s side of a vehicle at a petrol station:

The arson attack took place outside Chris’s home just after midnight on Friday 8th October 2021 (see here). Two masked men were caught on Chris’s home security cameras driving a Land Rover up to the gates of his home and setting it alight before escaping in a getaway vehicle.

The Land Rover exploded and the flames spread to the gates and fenceposts, totally destroying them and all the electronics attached to them.

Chris was at home, alone, at the time.

[Home security cameras captured the moment the vehicle exploded at Chris’s gates]

Police have been continuing to explore lines of enquiry to identify those responsible and now believe that the man pictured may hold key information to their investigation.

Do you know who this man is?

Any information, no matter how small or insignificant you feel it might be, could help aid the police investigation and identify those who are responsible for this crime.

If anyone has any information in relation to this incident, please call 101 quoting incident reference 44210403698.

Thank you

17 thoughts on “Police release CCTV image linked to arson attack at Chris Packham’s home”

  1. It is a shame Hampshire police haven’t released the CCTV footage from which this image was captured, including a description of the vehicle the man was seen alighting from. As this may have been more helpful in identifying the individual?

  2. It is a source of endless annoyance to me that images from security cameras are almost always blurred rubbish. This does not have to be the case. I have an inexpensive video camera in my drive that provides clear video and still pics day & night.
    The person in the picture above has a fairly distinctive hair style and if he sees or hears of the picture he will know that he is being trailed.

    1. This image will have been enlarged from a small section of the CCTV video, so it’s not surprising it’s not very good quality. If you’ve got a video camera that can produce video, at a distance of 10-20m, that can be enlarged as much and be of significantly better quality, I’d like to know which camera it is.

      1. Yes, and since people filling up then hoofing it without paying is not uncommon at filling stations one would think that having a usable recording of people and car registrations would prove very useful.

        1. Yes, I’d assume Petrol Station cameras are set to capture number plates. Facial ID is a secondary but surely they must have recorded the registration plate? Most odd, unless they were travelling in a stolen vehicle as well.

  3. Some undoubted good news but I find it odd how the police identify this appalling crime as “arson”. I would say it is, clearly, nothing short of domestic terrorism.

    1. Arson with intent is a very serious crime, and is far more likely to get a conviction if the culprits are identified.

      1. Fair point Micheal but the following is an extract from the CPS website under ‘Terrorism’:

        “The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

        The specific actions included are:

        – serious violence against a person;
        – serious damage to property;
        – endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action);
        – creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
        action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

        The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.”

        I would say plenty of the above boxes were ticked by the ‘arson’ attack on Chris Packham’s property and the key point is that the attack was (most likely) ‘ideological’ i.e. Chris Packham’s property was attacked because of his views/campaigning against those who like to kill wildlife for fun. That fact, and the tactics used are the very essence of terrorism… Besides, if/when apprehended they could be charged with arson and a terror offence.

        Whatever the police do, let’s hope they catch the vile criminals who did this.

      2. Arson has the legal definition of being criminal damage caused by fire. (sect1(3) Criminal Damage Act1971)
        With the offence of criminal damage, a person may intend to damage property or be reckless as to whether property would be damaged by their actions. (sect1(1) Criminal Damage Act, 1971)
        I suspect the “intention” you are referring to is “intention” to endanger life, which is the more serious offence of aggravated criminal damage, or arson. (sect1(2) (3)CDA)
        In this case the “intention” has to be to endanger life, or being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby endangered.
        Proving “intention to endanger life” can be problematic if a suspect doesn’t admit that this was their intention, and then the evidence will have to focus on the events which occurred to try an establish if there was an element of recklessness as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered.

        I notice some of the comments discuss whether this attack on Mr Packham’s home was an act of terrorism.
        At this stage it might be worthwhile remembering that the police appear not to have identified suspects to this crime, and there will be much more work to be undertaken before any decisions are made on what is the most appropriate charge.
        It must also not be forgotten that the police and CPS will carefully consider the evidence and charge with the most appropriate offence based on what the evidence actually proves, and what is most likely to result in a conviction at court.

        I really hope those behind this crime are brought to justice. It is totally unacceptable that we live in a society which passes laws to protect our wildlife, and yet we have some individuals who think they can commit crimes regardless of those laws, and attack those who campaign to defend those laws or enhance the well being of wildlife which is supposed to be protected.

        I also hope 2022 is a year when we start to see some real progress in protecting the UK’s wildlife, and more of the wildlife criminals are brought to justice, so that they and all their associates are vilified by the national media, so that the wider public can understand exactly what is happening in our countryside to so many of our birds of prey and other species, which face so much persecution.

          1. Not at all. You are correct in stating a person convicted of arson under sect1 CDA 1971 carries a potential maximum penalty of a life imprisonment- Sect 4. However sentencing guidelines apply to crimes committed under CDA.

  4. An offence of arson under S1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 carries a potential life sentence under S4 for an offender.

    I would guess that the police consider arson to be an easily provable offence in this case and the punishment is the maximum available.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: