A man has been found not guilty of criminal damage in relation to the dumping of 50 dead Hares outside Broughton Community Shop in Hampshire, but has been found guilty of being in possession of two dead birds of prey, a Kestrel and a Barn Owl, that were found rammed up against the shop’s door handles.
James ‘Jimmy’ Kempster, 39, of Bury Brickfield Park in Totton, Southampton, had been accused of being one of three masked men involved with the shocking incident that was caught on CCTV in the early hours of 15th March 2024.
The prosecution argued that DNA found on the dead birds was matched to Kempster and that he was also linked to the incident through his mobile phone location, his clothing and connections to the vehicle, which was found burnt out in a country lane.
However, after a two-day trial that concluded at Southampton Magistrates’ Court yesterday, the magistrates decided that there was insufficient evidence to show that Kempster was involved, or even at the scene, so declared him not guilty of criminal damage to the shop windows.
They did, however, accept the DNA evidence and determined that Kempster had been in possession of the dead raptors at some point, but that didn’t necessarily mean he was the individual seen on the footage ramming the birds’ corpses up against the shop’s door handles. He was found guilty of possession of a dead schedule 1 wild bird, and possession of a dead non-schedule 1 wild bird under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Sentencing was adjourned for background reports and Kempster was released on bail, to return to the same court on 23 June 2026.
Kempster has 13 previous convictions, including several relating to Hare coursing offences (e.g. see here in Wiltshire) and a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon (catapult) when he was involved in a mass brawl between feuding families at Wickham Horse Fair in Hampshire (see here).
Previous blogs on this case see here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Media coverage:
The Guardian (includes the disturbing CCTV footage from Broughton Community Shop) here
BBC News here
Salisbury Journal here
Press release from Hampshire Constabulary here
Raptor Persecution UK 
[Ed: libellous comment deleted]
Another farcical outcome in regards to such crimes – appears to be a bunch of jokers running the courts in this space
There’ll be red faces in the CPS over this. The big mystery is what the background to this case actually was. Strange that a community shop (it appears to be a post office and general store) should have been targeted in this way.
There is a vehicle in the CCTV footage of this. I should have thought that could be linked to whoever is standing by it. [Ed: Why? The registered keeper wasn’t necessarily driving it – it could have been a pool car, or lent to someone, or stolen etc ].
Why was it burnt out? [Ed: Er, probably to destroy evidence linking the individuals to the crime?]
The mobile phone location should be sufficient evidence surely? [Ed: Why? It’s circumstantial. Mobile phone data can show an individual was in a certain area at a given time, but doesn’t demonstrate that the person committed an offence while at that location].
Given his previous convictions he sounds a thoroughly sick and twisted person.
This has the usual stench to it. I see it was heard in the magistrates court which can be dodgy.
Query whether Judicial Review could be used?
Someone must know what their motive was surely?
“This has the usual stench to it. I see it was heard in the magistrates court which can be dodgy.
Query whether Judicial Review could be used?
Someone must know what their motive was surely?”
I think it is all too early to be drawing conclusions. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye.
We need to wait for the background reports (if they are made public) and sentencing, and see if any new information appears.
Judicial Reviews in England and Wales can only review the lawfulness of processes, not the merits of the decisions taken.
However, in England and Wales, if the sentencing was considered unduly lenient, any member of the public can ask the Attorney General to review the sentencing. If lots of people complain, the Attorney General is much more likely to consider such complaints.
However, wildlife crimes (among others) are excluded from such consideration: that needs to change and it is within the Government’s power to do that with a Statutory Instrument (the last Tory Government did it with stalking and coersive relationships in 2019).
See
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-victims-able-to-challenge-unduly-lenient-prison-sentences