Tag: white-tailed eagle

Regular blog readers will know that I’ve been chasing up correspondence between the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC), David Sidwick, and Dorset MP Chris Loder, in relation to the poisoned white-tailed eagle found dead on an unnamed shooting estate in north Dorset in January 2022.

For new blog readers, this is the investigation that Dorset Police chose to close, prematurely, having refused to conduct a search of the estate for any evidence of criminality.

The decision to close the investigation has been described as ‘completely baffling‘ by the RSPB, who up until that point had been helping with the investigation. The decision also coincided with the Force’s award-winning wildlife crime officer going on long-term sick leave with stress, a re-branding of the Force’s wildlife crime team to remove the word ‘wildlife’, and with an astonishing outburst on Twitter by Chris Loder MP, who had criticised Dorset Police for spending time and resources on the investigation and who argued that eagles ‘weren’t welcome’ in Dorset. It’s clear from Loder’s entry on the Westminster Parliamentary Register of Interests that his electoral campaign had received significant financial support from at least one large Dorset estate where the landowners have links to the game-shooting industry and the Countryside Alliance.

Unsurprisingly, there were suspicions that undue political pressure had been put on to Dorset Police, resulting in the Force’s ridiculous decision to halt the investigation in mid-flow, so I submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests to Dorset Police and the Dorset PCC to try and establish exactly who had said what, to whom, and when.

My FoI request to the Dorset PCC was made on 4th March 2022. After a long period of silence (and thus a breach of the Freedom of Information Act), the PCC finally responded and sent me copies of some correspondence between PCC David Sidwick and Chris Loder MP about this poisoned eagle.

However, on examining the correspondence (here) it was obvious to me that some correspondence was ‘missing’, so I wrote back and asked for any ‘missing’ correspondence to be provided.

It turns out that there was indeed some ‘missing’ correspondence, and that has now been provided to me (or at least some of it has – I suspect there’s more, as I’ll explain below).

The PCC has sent me three emails that were ‘missing’ from the first batch.

The first ‘missing’ email was this one, from Chris Loder MP to PCC David Sidwick, dated 15th February 2022 at 06.27hrs:

The first line of this email is significant.

‘Dave, The Guardian will cover EagleGate tomorrow‘.

Why is this significant? Well, because according to the PCC, this is supposedly the very first piece of correspondence between Loder and Sidwick about this poisoned eagle, and yet Loder describes it as ‘EagleGate‘, which suggests to me that there had been earlier correspondence about it, otherwise Sidwick wouldn’t have known what Loder was on about.

The second ‘missing’ email was sent by Loder to Sidwick on the same day, as a follow-on to his first email. Loder sent this email to Sidwick at 08.19hrs:

The third ‘missing’ email was a response by Sidwick to Loder, sent on the same day at 08.40hrs:

“I think you and I need to get our ducks in the row on this one.

I will be in the car from 9.30“.

It couldn’t be clearer to me that there was some level of collusion going on between Sidwick and Loder and that we haven’t been told the full extent of it.

I have written back to the PCC to ask whether that first ‘missing’ email was actually the very first time Loder and Sidwick had corresponded about the poisoned eagle investigation, because starting his email with the phrase ‘EagleGate‘, without offering Sidwick any explanation about what that phrase meant, and Sidwick not asking Loder for an explanation of what he meant by the phrase ‘EagleGate‘, just isn’t credible. They both clearly knew what ‘EagleGate‘ meant, which means they had discussed this topic prior to that first email from Loder on 15th February 2022.

There’s more to come on this.

For previous blogs on this case, please see here

Earlier this morning I mentioned (here) that yesterday, Dorset Police had finally got around to responding to some Freedom of Information requests made to them by members of the public about the premature closing of the investigation into the poisoned white-tailed eagle found on a shooting estate in January 2022.

I said that the responses that I’d seen (the ones that had been forwarded to me by blog readers – thank you) seemed to be a cut and paste job, just repeating the rhetoric that the investigation was ‘full and proportionate’ (no, it was neither of these things) and that the post mortem results were ‘inconclusive’ (no, the pm report revealed the eagle’s liver contained 7 x the lethal dose of the rodenticide Brodifacoum, which can only be a result of (a) mis-use of the rodenticide or (b) deliberate abuse of the rodenticide. Either way, these are both offences).

I thought it’d be useful to publish the generic response so you can see how Dorset Police is dodging specific questions and at one point, denying that political interference was even a prospect (er, even though we all read MP Chris Loder’s tweets, suggesting the police shouldn’t be investigating this crime!). This is highlighted in red below:

I’m looking forward to receiving Dorset Police’s response to my request for a review of their decision to refuse my FoI original request made on 4th March 2022 (that response is now two weeks overdue), and also a response to my most recent FoI request to Dorset Police, which was due yesterday:

Yesterday evening Dorset Police held an hour-long live web chat on Facebook offering the public an opportunity to put questions to Chief Constable Scott Chilton and the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) David Sidwick.

Many thanks to all those who posed questions about Dorset Police’s unfathomable decision to prematurely close the investigation into the death of the white-tailed eagle found poisoned on an unnamed shooting estate in January this year.

To their credit, the Chief Constable and the PCC took two questions on this subject but I’m afraid their answers were unconvincing and simply a repeat of the damage limitation exercise they undertook last month (here).

The Chief Constable maintained that the decision to close the investigation without first conducting a search of the estate to look for evidence of potential criminality was ‘proportionate’. He also said that following complaints, he’d asked a senior detective to review the case and he, too, had determined that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ and ‘no outstanding lines of enquiry’ to progress the case. Well of course, if you fail to conduct a search you’re not going to find any evidence, are you? It’s simply bonkers.

Both the Chief Constable and the PCC were adamant that undue political interference did not take place. “Absolutely not true“, said Chief Constable Chilton, and “No credibility to that whatsoever“, said PCC David Sidwick.

You can watch a recording of the chat here. The two questions about wildlife crime and the poisoned eagle are at 28.35 and 33.17 mins.

[The poisoned white-tailed eagle found dead on an unnamed shooting estate in Dorset in January 2022. Photo by Dorset Police]

Yesterday also saw the release of a number of FoI responses from Dorset Police (although not mine – that’s still way overdue) and the ones that some blog readers have shared with me seem to be a cut and paste job, just repeating this line:

‘As a result of the sea eagle being found dead on land in the North Dorset area, our team has carried out a full and proportionate investigation under Section 1 of the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981 in conjunction with Natural England, National Wildlife Crime Unit, the RSPB and the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation to identify any offences and perpetrators who may be responsible‘.

But that’s just not true. The RSPB has questioned the decision to close the investigation without undertaking the pre-planned investigation, and called the decision ‘completely baffling’ (here).

There’s still much, much more to come out about this case. For reasons that will become clear, I need to wait until the end of the week to publish some of it.

For a full list of previous blogs on this case please see here and scroll to the bottom.

Here’s your opportunity to ask questions of Dorset Police Chief Constable Scott Chilton and the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner David Sidwick about the Force’s failure to fully investigate the circumstances of a poisoned white-tailed eagle found dead on an unnamed shooting estate in January this year (see here).

The police investigation was closed prematurely, without even a search of the estate. This coincided with the Force’s award-winning wildlife crime officer going on long-term sick leave and, reportedly, being told that if/when she returned she’d no longer be leading the wildlife crime team (now rebranded as the Rural Team).

Both Dorset Police and the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner are also in breach of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to requests for information about their communication with local Conservative MP Chris ‘eagles aren’t welcome in Dorset’ Loder, who published a series of tweets berating Dorset Police for investigating the poisoning of the eagle.

Many thanks to Miles King (@MilesKing10) for sharing the details of a Facebook Live event, taking place this evening at 6.30pm, where the public is invited to put policing questions to Chief Constable Chilton and Commissioner Sidwick:

Unfortunately I can’t make this evening’s event but here are some questions you might like to ask:

Who took the decision to close the investigation into the poisoned eagle without conducting a search of the estate?

On what basis was that decision made?

Was the decision unduly influenced by political interference?

Why isn’t Dorset Police searching for evidence of poisoned baits?

Why isn’t Dorset Police searching for evidence of unlawful poison storage?

Was this decision unduly influenced by political interference?

How does Dorset Police justify the potential risk to other white-tailed eagles in the area?

Why has the word ‘wildlife’ been removed from Dorset Police’s Rural Wildlife crime team?

Who took the decision to remove it?

On what basis was that decision made?

Was the decision unduly influenced by political interference?

Why has Dorset Police’s award-winning wildlife crime officer, Claire Dinsdale, been told she will no longer lead on wildlife crime when/if she returns from long-term sick leave?

Where are the toxicology results of all the other dead raptors found on estates in north Dorset in recent months, suspected of being poisoned?

Why is Dorset Police refusing to respond to FoI requests, in breach of legislation?

Why is the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner refusing to respond to FoI requests, in breach of legislation?

Yesterday I blogged about how Dorset Police and the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner, David Sidwick, were both in breach of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to Chris Packham’s FoI requests about the poisoned eagle incident within the statutory period of 20 working days (see here).

Today I can report a further breach of the Freedom of Information Act by Dorset Police in relation to my FoI requests, also relating to the poisoned eagle incident.

[The poisoned white-tailed eagle found dead on an unnamed shooting estate in North Dorset in January 2022. Photo by Dorset Police]

Regular blog readers may recall I submitted an FoI request to Dorset Police on 4th March 2022, asking for copies of all correspondence between Dorset Police and local Conservative MP Chris ‘eagles aren’t welcome in Dorset‘ Loder on the subjects of wildlife crime, police wildlife crime officers, and eagle reintroductions, from 1 January 2022 to date.

On 17th March 2022 Dorset Police tried to fob me off with a refusal notice with what is perhaps the most ludicrous excuse I’ve ever seen (see here to read it in full).

I appealed that decision and requested a review of it on 14th April 2022. According to the FoI Act, the public authority has another 20 working days in which to respond to that review request. Taking into account all the public bank holidays in April and May, Dorset Police should have responded no later than 17th May 2022.

It’s now 26th May 2022 and Dorset Police hasn’t responded. I have written to them, again, to remind them of their legal obligations. If their silence continues I will escalate my complaint.

Meanwhile, you may also recall that I’d sent a similar FoI request to the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) (David Sidwick) in early March. After a series of reminders to the PCC’s office (see here), I did finally get a response in late April 2022.

However, under scrutiny it became apparent that some of the correspondence I’d requested to see between Chris Loder MP and the PCC, David Sidwick, was missing from the bundle of information I received (see here).

So I wrote back to the PCC and asked them to forward ALL the correspondence, not just the bits they were happy for me to see.

That response was due back next Monday (30th May 2022) but I’m pleased to say it has arrived early and is now sitting in my inbox.

I’ve had a quick skim-read and it’s immediately obvious why ‘someone’ might not have wanted me to see it. I don’t have time to blog about that right now but will come back to it shortly…

UPDATE 16.00hrs: There’s quite a lot going on behind the scenes. For strategic reasons, I won’t be blogging further on this FoI response from the PCC until later next week. I’m sorry I can’t explain why right now but it will hopefully become apparent (and in a good way) next week. Thanks for your patience.

In April 2022, Chris Packham submitted two separate Freedom of Information requests to Dorset Police and to the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) David Sidwick, asking for copies of all correspondence between Dorset Conservative MP Chris ‘Eagles are not welcome in Dorset‘ Loder and various named senior police officers and the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner, relating to the poisoned eagle incident and wildlife crime in general (Chris’s two FoI requests can be read here).

Chris submitted his Freedom of Information requests on 18th April 2022, which were acknowledged by both Dorset Police and the Dorset PCC within a couple of days.

Dorset Police and the PCC, as public authorities, ‘must respond to requests promptly, and by the twentieth working day following date of receipt of the request‘, according to Section 10 of the FoI Act.

Taking in to account a number of public Bank Holidays in April and May, the latest date by which Dorset Police and the PCC needed to respond was 17th May 2022. If Dorset Police and/or the PCC needed more time to fulfil the request (they are permitted a further 20 working days in exceptional circumstances), they should have told Chris that within the first 20 working days.

Chris has written again to Dorset Police and to the PCC to ask them to comply with the FoI Act and respond by return. So far, they have remained silent. If this continues, Chris will escalate his complaint through the relevant authorities.

More on this shortly.

UPDATE 26th May 2022: Further breach of Freedom of Information Act by Dorset Police re: poisoned eagle (here)

Wildlife & Countryside LINK’s Wildlife Crime Working Group, England’s largest coalition of organisations working to tackle wildlife crime, has written to the Chief Constable of Dorset Police with concerns about the premature decision to terminate the police investigation into the poisoned eagle found dead on a game-shooting estate in January.

For new blog readers, this young white-tailed eagle, one of the reintroduced birds from the Isle of Wight, was found dead in January on an unnamed estate and a post-mortem revealed its liver contained the rodenticide Brodifacoum, at an exceptionally high concentration (x 7 the amount needed to kill a bird of this size). This indicates either (a) misuse of the product (e.g. failure to adhere to the strict terms of use) or (b) abuse of the product (e.g. the deliberate placing of a bait containing an exceptionally high concentration of poison). Either way, it’s an offence and thus requires a full investigation.

Unbelievably, instead of undertaking a follow-up search of the estate, Dorset Police chose to close the investigation abruptly without adequate explanation. This decision came shortly after local Conservative MP Chris Loder made statements on Twitter about how the police should be focusing on other issues and not on suspected wildlife crime on game-shooting estates. Mr Loder’s entry on the Parliamentary Register of Interests reveals substantial donations to his election campaign by notable game-shooting estates in Dorset.

Since the decision to close the investigation, Dorset Police has attempted to dodge Freedom of Information requests about this incident (see here and here) and responses are now overdue. More on that tomorrow.

Here is the letter sent today by the LINK Wildlife Crime Working Group to the Chief Constable of Dorset Police, Scott Chilton:

Note, the deadline given by the Wildlife Crime Working Group for the police response is 1st August, two and half months from now. That’s just because it’s the editorial deadline for the Group’s annual report, which will feature this failed investigation as an example of how some wildlife crime investigations are still well below the standard required, even high profile cases of national significance such as this one.

Well done to Wildlife & Countryside LINK and especially its Wildlife Crime Working Group for pursuing an explanation about this disgraceful case. But it really shouldn’t be left to environmental NGOs to have to do this – where is the National Wildlife Crime Unit? Where is DEFRA??

The news that white-tailed eagles are being poisoned in southern England is still making the headlines, and rightly so.

The Telegraph included a feature article on Saturday and, considering the paper’s typical demographic, it was pretty good, even though the deaths of these eagles on game-shooting estates in Dorset and Sussex is anything but ‘mysterious’. The article was well-researched although it didn’t provide us with any new information about either incident.

This news story just won’t go away.

Tomorrow is the deadline for Dorset Police to respond to my challenge of their refusal to provide the details of correspondence between them and Conservative MP Chris Loder, which I’d asked for as part of a Freedom of Information request back in March. As you may recall, they tried to fob me off by claiming my request would exceed the statutory 18 hours they’re permitted to pull together such information, because they’d need to ask all 2,500 staff members (that would include mechanics, accountants, personal safety trainers etc!) to check their emails for correspondence with Mr Loder. It was a ludicrous excuse, made, in my opinion, to avoid revealing any potentially compromising correspondence.

I look forward to hearing from them tomorrow.

After a long delay and several reminder emails, I’ve finally received a response to my Freedom of Information request from the office of the Dorset Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC), David Sidwick.

If you recall, in early March I’d asked for copies of all correspondence between the PCC and Chris Loder MP in relation to the (mis)handling of the police investigation into the poisoned white-tailed eagle found dead on a shooting estate in North Dorset in January 2022.

I was interested in finding out whether Chris Loder MP had interfered with / influenced Dorset Police’s decision to pull the plug on the investigation before a search had even taken place, given his outspoken objections to the investigation when it was still active.

You may also recall I’d asked for the same information in another Freedom of Information request to Dorset Police, which they have refused to answer. Their explanation for this refusal had zero credibility so I’ve asked for a formal review of their decision – I’m awaiting a response to that request.

The FoI response to me from the PCC’s office is here:

So there was correspondence between the two ‘good chums‘, as expected, and you can see Chris Loder’s exasperation at not receiving information to which he appeared to feel entitled.

I note with interest David Sidwick’s assurance to Chris Loder that he will receive ” a full briefing” after the investigation has closed. Given that Dorset Police closed the investigation (prematurely) on 29th March, exactly one month ago, I wonder whether that briefing to Chris Loder has now been provided? This was beyond the dates/scope of my original FoI request but it will be covered by Chris Packham’s later FoI request so I look forward to seeing what that briefing says.

Meanwhile, back to the FoI response sent to me from the PCC’s office, above. The eagle-eyed amongst you might have picked up that there appears to be some correspondence ‘missing’ from the bundle I’ve been sent:

That very first email from David Sidwick to Chris Loder (dated 15th February) appears to be a response to correspondence from Loder (Sidwick’s opening words are, ‘As requested…’) but Loder’s ‘request’ has not been provided in full in my FoI bundle. There are parts of Loder’s request incorporated in Sidwick’s reply, but the original, full email from Loder is missing.

In the same email, Sidwick also includes a line that appears to be taken from Loder’s (missing) email:

Presumably from Loder: “Could you also help with the earlier question about the name of the rural crime team? Rural Crime Team / Rural Crime Wildlife & Heritage Team“

Response from Sidwick: “RCT is the form preferred and the long version will be dropped“.

Nowhere in this bundle is there a copy of the “earlier question” from Loder to Sidwick about the rebranding of the Rural Crime Team.

I have written back to the PCC’s office and asked them to check for these missing pieces of correspondence.