In nearly 28 years of policing, I’d never been dealt with for Misconduct before. I knew that I would need some advice from a Police Federation Representative. I also knew that I would have to think long and hard about what it was that was happening to me and who was orchestrating events. What were the motivations? It was going to be vital to make a detailed record of everything that happened and continue to do this in order to evidence what had happened previously and what would happen in the future. Many other people had been involved and would become involved in future events, but none of them would know the full story, only the parts that they played in it. I had the overall greatest knowledge of what had happened and needed to keep it that way. It was a imperative that I could evidence events in order to try to protect myself later on. Well, the first thing I did was to email a full copy of my grievance and the supporting documents to Wendy Elliot at Professional Standards Department, (PSD). This may hopefully have put into context, what it was I was being accused of.

Having spoken to my Federation Rep, (Fed Rep 1) we worded a response to the allegation made against me which I sent to PSD on 29th December 2016…..

____________________________________________________________________

Dear Wendy

Please find my Reg 16 reply below. Thank you for the extension given over this Christmas period. I have now had a meeting with a Federation Representative. I give my reply based on the assessment of this being treated as misconduct.

On Monday 25/07/16 I attended a meeting in the Delacy Room at Hereford Police Station. Present were, Stephen Davies from the CPS, DI Taylor, DS Wells, DC Cleeton and myself. I was the investigating officer in an animal cruelty case at this time and had been investigating this offence since 28/05/16. CID at Hereford had been asked to give an input into this investigation and DC Cleeton arranged the meeting to discuss the case with Mr Davies. He explained this in an email to me on 03/07/16.

I was not aware that this meeting was a ‘sensitive case conference’ as described on the Reg 16. I am not sure that the case had been given an operational name at that time. I had not been conducting any covert policing and was investigating the case in an open and transparent way.

Following this meeting I can confirm that I have spoken to the ‘victim’, (HIT member ‘Andy’) by telephone approximately 3 or 4 times. These calls and the conversations that took place were to update ‘Andy’ as the reporting person/ victim in this case in accordance with the Victim Charter.

At no time did I ever knowingly disclose confidential and sensitive information from the meeting of 25/07/16.

Regards

Richard PC 3202 BARRADALE-SMITH

____________________________________________________________________

On 30th December I phoned Wendy Elliot to check that she had received my response which she said she had. She then proceeded to ask me some questions which I answered!

On the same day day Wendy Elliot sent me the following email….

____________________________________________________________________

Hi Richard,

Thankyou for your reply to the Regulation notice served. During our telephone call today I explained that I would email you to seek clarification on a few points which we talked about, one being what was said to ‘Andy’ after the meeting on the 25/07/16. You said that you had spoken to her after the meeting to update her on what actions had been decided on at the meeting and in line with the victims charter. What did you say to her.

As we discussed, Mr Davies the District Prosecutor says that what was discussed at the meeting on the 25/07/16 was confidential and that he made clear to all who attended, his expectation was that nothing would be discussed with anyone outside of that meeting. You stated to me on the phone earlier today that you knew it was confidential but that you disagreed with it.

Regards

Wendy

____________________________________________________________________

I received the above email when I returned from leave on 6th January, 2017………… I replied to Wendy on this day copying in my Fed Rep of course……..

____________________________________________________________________

Dear Wendy

I have just returned to work following leave. In respect of my call to you on 30/12/16 this was to check that you had received my reply to the Regulation Notice served which you said you had. You then proceeded to ask further questions on the phone.

Having read your email below I think that you have either misinterpreted what I said or perhaps I did not explain clearly.

To clarify and as per my previous response, following the meeting of 25/07/16 I spoke to ‘Andy’ by telephone approximately 3 or 4 times. This was not as a direct result of this meeting or to update her on what actions had been decided on at the meeting. In fact, if you remember, I said that I could not remember specifically what I spoke to her about.

I asked you if you would clarify specifically what this complaint was and your reply was, “I’ll see” or “I’ll have a look”. Without knowing what the specific complaint is, I am unable to say whether or not I have knowingly disclosed confidential and sensitive information from this meeting. I would also refer you to my grievance resolution form which I have already forwarded to you on 15/12/16.

Regards

Richard

____________________________________________________________________

………..and on 9th January 2016 Wendy’s response…..

____________________________________________________________________

Afternoon Richard,

Thankyou for your email and I note your comments & response. I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that I have not misinterpreted or misunderstood our conversation and am surprised that you believe this may be the case.

This complaint arose from a comment made at a meeting in August 2016 where ‘Andy’ stated that PC Barradale-Smith told her that during the meeting with CPS the solicitor stated “it was clear that you haven’t investigated hunt saboteurs before”. This was a comment made by Mr Davies and as we discussed previously Mr Davies had stated that the content of the meeting on the 25/07/16 was confidential. Enclosed is the email from Mr Davies for your information;

“The background to my involvement in this case is this; I am West Midlands CPS Area Lead on Wildlife Crime and have over ten years’ experience in dealing with Animal Rights Extremism and Wildlife Crime cases specifically in the West Mercia Police force area and latterly for the West Midlands CPS Area. I am therefore used to dealing with Animal Rights Activists as both witnesses and defendants. My comments at the meeting were based on this experience. I can confirm that there was a meeting with Pc Barradale-Smith, DC Cleeton, Ds Wells and DI Taylor on the 25/07/16.

On the 25th there was an operational briefing and discussion and I emphasised to those present about the confidentiality and the integrity of the investigation as well as the potential difficulties with dealing with animal rights activists [as witnesses or defendants] due to their inherent mistrust of the police. I would have made the comment, in similar terms, that those present had not investigated Hunt Saboteurs before to underline the difficulties of working with these people and obtaining fully the background to, and any relevant disclosure from them. It is this aspect that causes the most difficulty and I provided details of my contact with the League Against Cruel Sports [because LACS had published the CCTV on YouTube] that DI Taylor subsequently used to further the disclosure issues in the case. This is no criticism of the complainants, but this is an inherent problem in such cases, and trust must be earned; I wanted all officers to work on this case with ‘their eyes open’ as I was aware that none had worked on a similar case before [I am aware of all cases in this area].

Furthermore I emphasised that there must be no discussion outside the team about this case as this is a very emotive subject with people both for and against hunting and this is a rural area; i even suggested privately that a ‘confidentiality contract’ should be employed as had been done previously on Animal Rights cases to ensure it’s confidentiality”

I refer to the Regulation notice served on the 14/12/16 and your response to the allegation, would you please let me know if you have any further response to make and if so please send it to me within the next 10 days.

I remind you that whilst you do not have to say anything, it may harm your case if you do not mention when interviewed, or when providing any information (under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 or The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012), something which he or she later relies on in any misconduct proceedings or special case hearing or any appeal proceedings

Please contact me if you have any queries at all about this request or wish to discuss.

Regards

Wendy

____________________________________________________________________

Blimey….. no wonder she didn’t want to give me the full details of the complaint from the CPS at the beginning!!!!!! Did Stephen Davies, a senior prosecutor really write this?

I’ll leave it with you

On 14th December 2016 I was visited at work by a civilian professional Standards Officer, Wendy Elliot.

You’ll no doubt recall how on 05/12/16 DI TAYLOR told me that I was not being investigated for any discipline issues. Well, he was lying. Wendy served me with a Misconduct Notice which stated the following……….

Name of complainant: Crown Prosecution Service. This is to notify you that an allegation has been made that your individual conduct may have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour and that there will be an investigation into the circumstances. Whilst you do not have to say anything it may harm your case if you do not mention when interviewed, or when providing any information under regulations 16(1) or 22(2) or (3) or (45) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 or regulation 18 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012, something which you later rely on in any misconduct proceedings or special case hearing or any appeal proceedings. The details of your conduct that it is alleged may have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour can be found below: On the 25/07/16 you attended a sensitive case conference with CPS relating to Operation Childer. It is alleged that you have disclosed confidential and sensitive information from the case conference to ‘HIT member, ‘Andy’. If proven this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, this would also be a breach of the Code of Ethics. Based on the information available at this time the conduct described above, if proven or admitted, has been assessed as amounting to misconduct. This may result in your attendance at a misconduct meeting.

That was it! No other clues as to what it was that I was supposed to have ‘disclosed‘. What Data had I disclosed? What was it that was confidential or sensitive? How had I breached our code of ethics? This was a mystery.

There are nine policing principles. They are built on the Nolan principles for public life, with the addition of ‘Fairness’ and ‘Respect’.

Accountability

Integrity

Openness

Fairness

Leadership

Respect

Honesty

Objectivity

Selflessness

These principles underpin and strengthen the existing procedures and regulations for ensuring standards of professional behaviour for both police officers and police staff. This gives the profession and the public the confidence that there is a system in place to respond appropriately if anyone believes that the expectations of the Code of Ethics have not been met.

These principles should also underpin every decision and action across policing. They should be used, for example, in day-to-day operations as interventions are planned and debriefed, in the selection of new staff, in educational and development programmes, in annual reviews and in promotion. The principles must be more than words on a page and must become embedded in the way Police professionals think and behave.

The somewhat cryptic and none specific allegation, which I was expected to respond to, didn’t seem to adhere to our policing principles. This was not going to be a very happy Christmas!!

---

Following the ‘interview’ at Hereford Police Station, I went home still in a mixture of shock and rage. I explained to my wife, Jane, what had happened. She was, completely understandably, anxious and confused. Surely, a senior detective would not be asking these questions unless there was some credible information or evidence behind it? Was I telling her the whole truth? She had always trusted that police officers would do their jobs fairly and honestly. Why was this happening? It was incredibly stressful.

On the following day I was at work when I was contacted by another friend, who had heard the same rumour about the affair and me being kicked out by Jane. He, again said the information was widespread in the community. I went to see my sergeant and informed him that I was going to commence grievance proceedings in respect of what had happened and the way in which it had happened. From the day I had challenged the CPS prosecutor, Stephen Davies, things for me changed. I was taken off the case, but remained professional and dignified. My only interest was in keeping my promise to the HIT that the investigation would be fair and impartial and that I would do my best to secure all evidence so that a prosecution would follow. It was becoming evident that, for whatever reason, the focus of the investigation had moved away from the suspects and was a now concentrating on the people reporting the offence and myself. I felt that I had to try to address this at a more senior level!

I couldn’t understand why DI Taylor would not want to investigate the allegation of the affair as this clearly had the intent and potential to undermine the prosecution case.

I decided to report a crime of harassment against Jane and I and my then, new inspector initially told me, ‘we don’t crime gossip’……………………… Having come down off the ceiling some time later I made it clear that if it was being taken seriously enough to interview me about it, then it was serious enough to report as a crime. She clearly didn’t want to, but at my insistence the inspector had the crime recorded. She wrote, …………… ‘You are the victim and Jane is a witness, as I believe the ‘gossip’ is targeted at you’.

A local Police Sergeant was allocated to investigate my report of harassment.

On Monday 12/12/16 The Ross Gazette, a local newspaper had received an anonymous letter about the alleged affair between myself and one of the local hunt monitors.

The letter was not published.

____________________________________________________________________

SOUTH HEREFORDSHIRE HUNT

Dear Sir/ Madam, You reported on alleged animal cruelty crimes involving employees of the South Herefordshire Hunt earlier this year. The individuals concerned are yet to be charged and it appears that this may be because West Mercia Police are having internal difficulties regarding any prosecution. It is understood that hunt saboteur and animal rights activist, (Then gives both name and an address of the hunt monitor), is in a romantic relationship with PC 223202 Richard Barradale-Smith of Ross-on-Wye police station. (Names hunt monitor) is a member of the Hunt Investigation Team and Three Counties Hunt Saboteurs and was involved in the placement of vehicle trackers and hidden cameras at the kennels. This illicit relationship between a hunt saboteur and the original investigating officer means the investigation is doomed to fail as it is tainted by police romantic involvement with an interested party. This could be said to be police corruption. It is also entirely plausible that the police officer concerned was aware of the covert investigation and the existence of the fox cubs prior to their demise at the kennels…and did nothing. It is understood that PC Barradale-Smith has been replaced by West Mercia CID as the investigating officer for the animal cruelty investigation, presumably because the police discovered their own officer was romantically involved with (names hunt monitor). To ensure fair reporting, you should know of this matter. ____________________________________________________________________

So, this very same subject having been ‘brought up’ at a hunt meeting a few weeks earlier had now been given to the press anonymously. Is there anything that they wouldn’t stop at? Did the hunt want the case to be dropped, even though the evidence of the animal cruelty was clear? Where was their integrity in evidencing what they were saying about me? Many of the people present at this meeting were so called professional, upstanding members of the community and yet it would appear that they were quite willing to band around un-evidenced gossip, presumably realising the devastating effect and consequences that this was likely to have on my family and I, along with the named hunt monitor. They evidently didn’t care and would stop at nothing, ‘in the name of hunting’. Had they no shame? The dirty tricks campaign had reached a new all time low. But the gossip didn’t just spring out of nowhere. Who did it come from?

Even more worrying was that the CID officers in the case and The CPS, (as you will see later) had been taken in by it. I didn’t find out about this letter until the 15th December. I contacted the sergeant who was dealing with my crime of harassment and he had no knowledge about the letter sent to The Ross Gazette. He then spoke to the Chief Inspector to inform him of it. Evidently, the Chief Inspector and the CID officers were already aware of it, but hadn’t told the sergeant!! Why was that? It looked as if the sergeant was going to have to investigate the harassment with his hands tied behind his back!!

On 13th December 2016, I completed my Grievance Resolution Form. I raised concerns about the unlawful interview and the way I had been treated. I also raised my public interest concerns about the CPS Prosecutor, Stephen Davies. Questions I asked were……….

1. Who completed / compiled Document 7? (The list of 10 questions put in front of me by DI Taylor). 2. Why could the information on Document 7 not have been given to me when requested in my email on 02/12/16? I was not being investigated for any disciplinary matters. 3. Why have I not received a reply to my email to Superintendent Thomas dated 04/12/16? 4. What information / evidence did / does West Mercia Police hold about me to suggest that I was somehow involved in the ‘Hunt Investigation Team’ and their investigation? When did this evidence / information come to light? To what extent and how intrusive has the evidence gathering about me been? Could I have been spoken to about this at an earlier stage? 5. Why was I not required to attend the CIMM meeting in November having originally been invited? 6. Was the information / intelligence about me possibly being involved in the ‘Hunt Investigation Team’ the reason for me not given the PLO role in Operation Themis? 7. What was the reason for me being taken off the Operation Childer investigation when I had the greatest knowledge of the crime? 8. What is the evidence of me having an affair with ‘Andy’? 9. Why did I have to confirm in an email that I was not having an affair with ‘Andy’? 10. Is Stephen DAVIES best placed at making a decision on prosecuting this case in light of what he has said on 25/07/16? I summed up the grievance by saying…….. ‘I am a proud police officer with nearly 28 years service. DI TAYLOR gave reasons for me being removed from this investigation, including reputation management and the national issues which could arise. I would suggest that if the people we serve were to learn that as an organisation we conduct any investigation with prejudice and discrimination, this would indeed damage the reputation of our police service’.

And so………..what do you think the police did next?

---

False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur, – wikipedia.

So, as I previously said, having been taken to this small office with three supervisors surrounding me in an overbearing situation, I was told that I could not leave the police station until I had answered all the questions in writing, and was not afforded the rights entitled to me. Sounds like an offence was being committed to me!

I was told by DI Taylor that Professional Standards Department had been asked to look at these concerns to see if there were any discipline issues that I should be dealt with for. He said that PSD said that there were no discipline issues but there may have been performance issues. He was quite clear about this and repeated it. DI Taylor said that was why my sergeant was present.

(Even when dealing formally with Unsatisfactory Performance, an officer is entitled to speak with a Federation representative ).

I was then made to answer each point, in turn, without having anything to refer to as I had not been allowed to prepare for the meeting.

I made it clear that I was not, and never had any ‘affair’ with ‘Andy (HIT), or the hunt monitor named by Paul Hale. I said that I believed this was an attempt by a person or persons to pervert the course of justice by questioning my professionalism and integrity. I said that it was something that would affect me and all of my family, the investigation into Operation Childer and the reputation of West Mercia Police. I said that I wanted the matter to be investigated fully by CID, in an attempt to find out who had told these lies.

DI Taylor’s response to this was, “No, we won’t. I don’t care about that”. I was furious, raising my voice, “You don’t care about it? You don’t care that someone is telling lies in an attempt to discredit me and get me into trouble”? He said, “No’. I was absolutely livid. He made it quite clear that he really did not care. It was evident that he would have been willing to see me disciplined, had PSD decided there was sufficient evidence, but he could not care less about the welfare of me or that of my family. (Or Andy, a victim in the case). I was disgusted.

DI Taylor said that there were clear performance and disclosure issues and said that if I did not answer the questions, CPS would not charge the suspects and that would be down to me!! He clearly made it sound as though if a prosecution did not go ahead, it would be my fault.

I said that perhaps if DC Cleeton had sat down with me to go through the evidence in the first place, then they probably wouldn’t need to be asking me these questions. DI Taylor sneered, “So you think it’s his fault, do you.”?

I sent the email saying that I was not having the alleged affair. I wrote a statement as requested. I had nothing to hide.

I was clearly able to explain answers to all the questions. A lot of the answers were already available to the CID officers but they had been ‘missed’.

Mr sergeant agreed that there were NO performance issues to address that he could see.

The questions…….

Relationship with ‘Andy’. – Clearly an attempt by someone to pervert the course of justice. Was this ever investigated? No. You’ll see why later, when we find out who it was that made the allegation. CID, were clearly starting to make assumptions, an incredibly dangerous and unprofessional thing to do. They had a copy of my pocket note book and if they had looked at this they would have seen the entry on the 26th May saying that I had phoned her. This phone call was not evidential and so not required to be in my statement. My statement was correct in that I did meet ‘Andy’ for the first time on 28th May. CID put 2 and 2 together and suddenly decided without ANY evidence, that I was somehow involved in the HIT prior to them reporting this offence to me, that I knew about the cameras and the tracking device. Number 5, Have you advised or directed the investigation conducted by ‘Andy’. How dare they. Talk about a fishing trip!

Disclosing Evidence. – CID knew from the outset that I had no evidence of the remaining masters of the hunt being suspects in this offence and they were being treated as witnesses. This is clear in my email to DI Taylor on 26th July. My meeting with the other masters was documented in my pocket note book which CID had a copy of. The question deliberately makes it sound as though I shared evidence with suspects, which they knew was not the case. I needed them to clearly identify the suspects that were on the video evidence, which they did. I disclosed the preliminary results of the post mortem with them as it negated Olivers account that he had given to the other masters about how the fox cubs died. I needed to get a statement from them, a statement which would prove crucial in court.

Compilation of DVD. – I had already answered this question in my original statement at the request of DI Taylor. (see below)! The question again tries to infer that I had somehow been involved in compiling video evidence with the HIT team prior to 28th May. The question refers to an email sent by ‘Andy’ to DI Taylor. The concern had already been answered by ‘Andy’ but the question did not mention this! This was DI Taylor’s response to ‘Andy’s’ email……… 21/09/16 – Dear ‘Andy’, Thank you for the below. I will be honest, this is the first I have heard about copying and returning of the SD cards. I will look into this and come back to you as soon as possible. Can I ask for some clarification on something you have said in your email: ‘we have reviewed most of the data on these cards, however the original case was put together with the footage which we and the police considered to be relevant’. Can I ask who in the police looked / reviewed / knew about the footage to consider it to be relevant to the case as I was under the impression the first time we knew about it was when you came to Ross Police Station?

On the same day ‘Andy’ responded………… Hi Martin, just to clarify. You are correct, the first time the police reviewed the information was when I brought a selection of the SD cards to Ross Police Station. There was some difficulty initially because Richard couldn’t play some of the files on the police computers. There were also some larger files that we had had difficulty copying on to a USB and another HIT member took these over and were reviewed over a number of visits. However, Richard requested all the SD card recordings in case the defence requested full disclosure but bear in mind that we had three sometimes four motion sensor cameras running over a number of days and nights, many which appear to have little or nothing on but carry hours and hours of film. Richard now has all these and they have not I do not believe been reviewed. Hope that clarifies, call me if not. 22/09/16 DI Taylor replied, copying myself and DC Cleeton into the email, ”Andy’, Thank you for the clarification. Richard, Please ensure you cover all this off in your statement as it will no doubt be subject of challenge. Nigel, Can you ensure that we review all the documents to date to ensure this is recorded and explained.

Special Branch. – The statement in this question, ‘Yet the only person who knew they were going were the two SB officers following being contacted by the Gwent Constable’, is incorrect. Parry knew they were going because they had made an appointment to meet him! Parry told the other masters and one of them told me, because I had their trust at that time and nothing more sinister than that.

Exhibits. – There was no clear break in the continuity of the exhibits as described. The rationale as to why they had been opened was clearly displayed on the electronic property management system, (Force Imaging Unit). The completed exhibit labels were within the secondary packaging. On page 6 of my original statement which CID were already in possession of, I had written, ‘On Tuesday 26th July 2016 I took exhibits AA1 to AA12 to The Force Imaging Department at West Mercia Police Headquarters in Worcester. I had intended to copy all of these exhibits onto DVDs. Some of the SD card files were too large to copy on the equipment at this department and so I was unable to do this. I re-sealed the exhibits into the following sealed bags’. (I then listed down the page each exhibit number and the new bag numbers). ‘These exhibits were then replaced in the property store at Ross on Wye Police Station’.

This took up nearly half a page in my 7 page statement!! A DC, DS and a DI had just missed it!! (and then tried to get PSD to discipline me for it)!!

I finished my statement which fully explained the answers to all of these questions. Of course, once they had realised the errors they had made I received a full apology from the CID officers……….Oh wait, no I didn’t. Nothing.

The CID officers had simply chosen to believe a completely un-evidenced ‘report’ of an affair and then tried to make other concerns and questions they had, fit into that story. What or who was driving them to behave in this way? What was making them step outside of dealing with facts and evidence? Perhaps someone else with more power and influence was the driving force behind this and their integrity was overshadowed by this!

Lastly, did anyone from CID explain to ‘Andy’ about the ‘intelligence’ received about the affair. She was essentially one of the victims in the case and would deserve to know that someone was possibly trying to slander her. Well, no, sadly they didn’t . They decided not to give her the chance to defend herself or her family. They decided not to treat her with dignity and respect. I wonder why that was?

---

Post Navigation:

On Friday 30th November 2016, out of the blue, I received an email from my sergeant . ‘Richard, We both need to go and see Det Insp Taylor on Monday at 10am, he wants some clarification over some points of the South Herefordshire Hunt investigation. I don’t know the specifics I’m afraid. I am away until Monday so will assume you will make your own way there unless I hear differently’?

Now any officer will know, if you are required to attend a meeting with your supervisor, that’s not normally good news! I thought I’d try to find out what it was about. I’d ask the man himself.

‘Inspector Taylor, I have just seen this email from my sergeant. Could you let me know the points that need clarifying so that I can prepare myself for the meeting’?

DI Taylor responded, ‘Hi Richard. This relates to the issues we have come up against regarding third party disclosure. Unfortunately they are far too complicated to send by email as they link to various other statements / documents which you will need to be sighted on. When you get here Monday I will talk you and your sergeant through what I need from the both of you on the day’.

Mmmmm, smelling something fishy here!!

On the morning of Saturday 3rd December I was at home with my wife, Jane. I received a text message from a friend who asked me if I was alright. Curious, I replied that I was fine, why were they asking? The friend then said they had heard a rumour that I had been having an affair and that Jane had kicked me out! Immediately realising what was happening I asked if this ‘rumour’ had come from someone connected to the hunting community. My friend confirmed that it had!!!

Someone or some people were up to their dirty tricks again. And it should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain, why. (Shouldn’t it)?

I decided to phone Paul HALE, one of the joint Masters. I had known Paul for several years both through work and through a mutual friend, (although I didn’t know he had anything to do with hunting until I commenced this investigation). He confirmed that he had been informed of the same and that it had been brought up and discussed at a hunt meeting the previous week. He gave me the name of a hunt monitor with whom I was supposed to be having the affair. It was the same name as had been rumoured years previously after I’d arrested the master huntsman of the Ross Harriers. Paul said that the meeting was told that it had been for this reason that I had been removed from the investigation.

At work later that day I went to see DC Cleeton and told him what had happened. He assured me that he had no knowledge of this rumour. (I assumed he was lying because he couldn’t /wouldn’t look at me when he said this).

I sent the following email to Superintendent Sue Thomas…..

So, I guessed from this that this maybe what the ‘meeting’ on Monday would be about. Although upsetting, especially for Jane, hearing that the rumour was widespread in the community, it was an unfortunate occupational hazard , especially when you lived in the same community in which you worked. But I’m sure CID would try to get to the bottom of it!!!

On the morning of Monday 5th December I attended CID at Hereford Police Station. I met with my sergeant. We went into a small office along with DI Taylor and DS Wells. DI Taylor sat behind a desk in front of me, my sergeant sat beside me and DS Wells stood behind me. It was already getting quite oppressive!

DI Taylor then place the following list of 10 questions in front of me on the desk. ____________________________________________________________________

Relationship with Andy (HIT)

1. Have you or are you having an affair with ‘Andy (HIT)’; if no then confirm it in an email and if yes then it needs to go in the MG11. (Statement)
2. When did you first meet ‘Andy’ – MG11
3. When did you first know about the cameras – MG11
4. When did you first know about the tracking device – MG11
5. Have you advised or directed the investigation conducted by ‘Andy’ – MG11 Statement states first met ‘Andy’ at 1430hrs on 28th May 2016 RSPCA Chief Inspector states that on 27th May 2016 he spoke with ‘Andy’ regarding an ongoing investigation she was undertaking at an undisclosed hunt kennels where they had found live fox cubs being kept in a cage. She confirmed she already had a contact in the police. ‘Andy’ then rang him back at 0900hrs on 28th May 2016 informing him they had evidence of an offence in the form of video footage. At that point she also told him the police contact was PC Barradale-Smith. ‘Another HIT member’ has informed Beth Wells that the cameras were in situ over a period of weeks and during this time ‘Andy’ was talking to the RSPCA ‘and maybe Richard as well’. In addition to this during the later part of September 2016 Intel received that ‘Andy’ was having an affair with a police officer. Disclosing Evidence
6. When / where / why and to whom did you show the Master of the South Herefordshire Hunt the DVD of the offence – MG11
7. When / where / why and to whom did you sow the Master of the South Herefordshire Hunt the post mortem report – MG11 During the week commencing the 15th August 2016 several search warrants were executed at addresses of Hunt Masters, suspects in this investigation. During the subsequent interviews under caution it became apparent that PC Barradale-Smith, prior to the investigation being handed over to the CID, shared key police evidence i.e. video footage from the kennels and the Post Mortem report, with some of those persons interviewed. Compilation of DVD
8. Did you compile the DVD with ‘members of the HIT’, if so when / where / why – MG11 On 21st September 2016 ‘Andy’ emailed D.Insp Taylor the below request; I am just following up on the SD cards belonging to the HIT which I understand West Mercia Police were going to copy and return the originals to us. They do represent a substantial cost and we would like to retain the cards if possible. We have reviewed most of the data on these cards, however the original case was put together with the footage which we and the police considered to be relevant. We subsequently handed over all the unused material in anticipation of the defence requesting full disclosure. This material has been scanned but not studied thoroughly as it represents hours and hours of film of blades of grass moving etc. However, I think it would need to be reviewed properly before handing over to the defence. I presumed you had possession of these cards but I understand from Richard that he still has them. Special Branch
9. When and how did you know that the Special Branch officers were going to be at Nathan Parry’s address when you arrested him – MG11 Whilst DS Wells was speaking to PC Barradale-Smith, he disclosed the fact he knew the Special Branch officers were going to be there and when asked how he stated he could not recall. Yet the only person who knew they were going were the two SB Officers following being contacted by the Gwent Police Constable. Exhibits
10. When / why did you open the exhibit bags containing the SD cards – MG11 Tasked with taking the SD cards etc to Imaging at HQ to convert them into a viewable format. The exhibits, AA/1 through to AA/12 were present at Ross-on-Wye Police Station when PSI ‘Brown’ went to collect them on 22nd September 2016. The exhibits were all present and originally packed in evidence bags with the labels filled out and signed by PC Barradale-Smith. However, the original bags had been opened then the bag and items placed within another clear bag and a new tag attached. The tag numbers have been updated on the (electronic) Property Management System though there is no rationale as to why they had been opened. There were no exhibit labels attached to the secondary packaging. This resulted in a clear break in the continuity of the exhibits. However, none of these actions are recorded in PC Barradale-Smith’s statement. _________________________________________________________________

As I read the questions I could not believe what had been placed in front of me. I was stunned. It immediately became apparent that this was not a ‘meeting’ and was clearly an interview. It was an ambush of the most unprofessional kind.

I was told that i had to answer the list of questions and that I couldn’t leave the police station until I had!!

If they wanted to deal with me in this way, I should have been cautioned and entitled to legal representation along with having advice and representation from the Police Federation.

This was beyond doubt, completely unlawful.

Chapter 15 will cover what happened next.

Can I just start this blog by thanking every one of you for your support to date. There have been many compelling and professional comments and we are now at over twenty thousand views. (I appreciate that a fair number of these will be the police)!! Keep watching, sharing and following as the story gets darker.

On 29th July 2016 my inspector sent me an email telling me that he had nominated me for a commendation for the work I had done as a Safer Neighbourhood Team Constable.

Within his report he wrote………… ‘Richard’s interventions into the management of a long term anti-social behaviour issues in Ross-on-Wye by a small group of alcohol dependent individuals has seen levels of antisocial behaviour reduce. He worked in partnership with mental health colleagues, local GPs and treatment services to divert several away from this lifestyle. The small group that were left have been prosecuted for a number of theft offences and the resulting restraining notices have reduced theft offences by a third over the past year.

Richard has been key to rebuilding confidence in Ross-on-Wye, specifically amongst elected members after the changes to local policing styles. His personal interventions, attendance at meetings and always being available, made a huge difference to levels of confidence and satisfaction. Indeed the feed back I have received indicates he is held in very high esteem by local officials’. My Inspector went on to talk about some long term investigations I had managed. ‘In both, Richard has conducted himself impartially and with decorum. Also worthy of note is Richard’s work in investigating a number of offences in relation to local hunts and associated protester activity. Again, two are worthy of note. (He then details one of them).

The second is an ongoing investigation into an allegation of cruelty by hunt kennel staff. This has proven to be an investigation with national interest. Richard has conducted a meticulous, transparent and scrupulous investigation into these horrific and stomach turning allegations. For this investigation he has won the trust and admiration of the hunt protestors’.

The suggested wording for the commendation certificate was………… ‘PC 3202 Richard Barradale-Smith is to be commended for his sustained professionalism, dedication to duty and commitment to making the communities of the South Herefordshire safer’.

I was very touched by this. Now, I don’t usually go around ‘bigging’ myself up like this, but it becomes relevant later on, when you will see that I never got the award, as well as giving you an understanding of how I was regarded locally, by people who worked with me.

I continued my work as the safer neighbourhoods officer.

On Friday 5th August I attended a Critical Incident Management Meeting, (CIMM) in respect of Operation Childer. This was the first CIMM meeting in respect of this case. In this meeting, Superintendent Thomas thanked me for the trust and confidence I had obtained so far. She said that she still wished for me to be part of the investigation.

The meeting was told that it had been 11 days since CID had taken over the investigation but no contact had been made from them to the HIT, who weren’t very impressed by this. Superintendent Thomas said that this contact would happen at a senior level.

On 11th August DI Taylor went to Abergavenny Police Station to meet with Andy, the HIT member who had brought me the fox cubs. (This is important a bit later on)!

On 16th August 2016, The Ledbury Reporter published an article saying that five search warrants were executed at properties in Herefordshire and Abergavenny on that day and that five other people would be voluntarily interviewed as part of the South Hereford Hunt investigation.

I was told by people in the community that the remaining masters and the hunt secretary were the people who had the warrants served on them. If this was the case, did the police applying for the warrants disclose to the court my report of 26th July as would have been required for disclosure purposes? I doubt it very much!! Obviously I was not aware of any further evidence, if there was any, which implicated the other Masters but it seemed to me that the investigation was now being over complicated. One of the possible results in over complicating investigations is that they collapse. Perhaps this is what someone wanted!!

Upset the other masters who had been cooperative up until this point, and they would then become uncooperative and important evidence may be lost. (or am I just a cynic)?

I then started to get a real feeling of being deliberately isolated from the case. I have a good sense about when things aren’t right and I was definitely feeling this. The electronic file for the case, which would normally be accessible was ‘locked’ so I could no longer view it. There was virtually no communication from CID.

Plans were being made to police the forthcoming badger cull, (Operation Themis). I was a trained Police Liaison Officer. (The uniformed police officers who wear the blue tabards at protests etc). I was told that my role would be the community reassurance . I questioned this, as it made no sense. I said that I was the only trained officer in the area to do the police liaison work with people apposed to the cull. I then found out that they were sending another local officer to Yorkshire to be trained in the role I was already trained in, at a cost of £6000. This made no sense and made me extremely suspicious about what was happening.

I asked my supervisors and even Superintendent Thomas if there was something going on but they all assured me that everything was ok.

On 21st September 2016 DC Cleeton asked me to complete my statement. He also wanted a copy of my pocket note book. He asked if it could be done prior to 17th October so it could be submitted with the papers to CPS. I completed this on 5th October.

On 6th October I went to Hereford Police Station to see DS Wells. She had emailed me saying, ‘I need you to come to Hereford so that you and I can sit down and go through your actions on this job. I need to record a statement from you and ensure we have full continuity for all the exhibits. There are quite a few issues we need to cover, hence the reason you and I will do it together’. I took my statement and we went through it together. DS Wells asked me how I knew Andy, the HIT member who first reported the crime to me. I explained that she had brought me the dead fox cubs . DS Wells said, “Yes, but how do you know her”. This had turned into a line of questioning which was very strange. I was confused at what DS Wells was trying to get at. I again said that I knew her, because she brought me the dead fox cubs. She then asked me if I had known Andy prior to her coming to the police station on 28th May. I said that I had never met her or known her prior to this incident. it was all very strange. I then amended my statement to clarify the points that DS Wells and I had discussed.

During this ‘meeting’ with DS Wells, she told me that she had hunted both before the ban and after the ban when they then trail hunted!

I had been invited to attend the next CIMM meeting but was then informed I was no longer required to attend.

It was quite clear that something was going on but people weren’t being honest, open or transparent about this. I was being treated for a pre existing, work related mental health issue at this time, and this really wasn’t helping my condition.

However, nothing could have prepared me for what was then about to happen.

During the meeting with Stephen Davies at Hereford Police Station it had been suggested that the remaining masters of the SHH should be interviewed about this offence. Having been the only investigating officer until this point, and having slept on the suggestion of this, on 26th July 2016 I sent the following email to the CID officers. I wanted to be seen to be completely fair and impartial on both sides.

This may then lead to unnecessary complaints of the investigation not being impartial. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. Richard

I then received the following response from DI Taylor!”

So, having reviewed the case on 18th July and saying, ‘we have no intention of taking over this investigation’. 8 days later DI TAYLOR made a recommendation that the matter should be investigated by CID due to the complex nature of what we were facing! This, one day after I had challenged Stephen Davies on his discriminatory language.

No prizes for guessing why I had really been removed from the case!!

The CID officers, who were going to ‘help and support’ me, still gave me a list of tasks they wanted completing as a matter of priority!

So helpful, so supportive!!

I told my sergeant about the decision who said, ‘What did you do since the 18th’? I replied, ‘Questioned some suggestions/ decisions’?

It was fairly clear that they were acting on the recommendations of Stephen Davies, who clearly, for some reason had some influence over them. But what was that?

I responded to DI Taylor’s email, informing me I had been taken off the case.

I had no response to this email.

On 27th July I received an email from DC Cleeton. It was in response to my handing over the case to him and clarifying some issues. He said, ‘Thank you for your help and I want you to know I thought that you should remain on the investigation, as you had progressed it this far and had a good understanding’.

I received an email from the RSPCA Inspector who said, ‘Hi Richard. I have just been told you have been taken off the case. Why is that when you were doing an excellent job’? Why indeed?

I continued to do some limited work but CID had now taken on this investigation.

Oh well, there wasn’t much left for them to do, was there?

---

Post Navigation:

On Monday 25th July 2016 I attended Hereford Police Station for the meeting with Stephen Davies, a senior prosecutor for the CPS. Also in attendance was DI Taylor, DS Wells and DC Cleeton. At the beginning of the meeting, Stephen Davies said that what was discussed should not be talked about anywhere else, which confused me because this had not been a covert investigation. I asked what the issue was and Mr Davies replied, “Have you had any experience in dealing with these sort of people before”?

I replied, “What sort of people”? Mr Davies said, ” Animal rights people”.

He then went on to talk about the possible problems surrounding prosecuting the case due to the methods used to obtain the evidence. I could not believe that this ‘label’ had been attached to the HIT who had produced and reported this evidence. Mr Davies then went on to say that he shoots, (although I did not see the relevance), and that he had been investigating such cases for many years.

What was never explained is why the meeting needed to be confidential. These were essentially the victims that were being talked about. I immediately felt we were in danger of discriminating against them for no apparent reason. I had concerns that Mr Davies, the person heading the prosecution/ decision to prosecute this case would say and think such things. None of the other officers present challenged him for what he said. I did not think that it would be possible to investigate the crime impartially, if you had this mindset from the start.

He did not like me challenging him about this. I just couldn’t believe what he had said, in the animated way in which he said it.

On 02/11/09 Keir Starmer QC was the Director of Public Prosecutions. He wrote in the Statement of Ethical Principals for the Public Prosecutor…… ‘Public prosecutors and those external advocates briefed by them, uphold the rule of law and deliver justice for and on behalf of their communities. That function is central to the maintenance of a just, democratic and fair society.

The way in which we perform this role is of crucial importance. It has long been recognised that the prosecutor has a special and overriding responsibility to act without fear, favour or prejudice, in the interests of justice and to provide the cornerstone of an open and fair criminal justice system’.

‘The manner in which prosecutors discharge their powers and duties directly affects victims, witnesses and defendants as well as society as a whole. The behaviour of prosecutors also affects the ability of others in the criminal justice system the police and other investigators, the courts and defence practitioners, among others to fulfil their own responsibilities’.

The document goes on to say……….‘Professional Conduct in General’ When acting in the course of their employment or in accordance with their instructions, prosecutors must, at all times, adhere to the highest professional standards. This means that prosecutors must:

d. strive to be, and to be seen to be, consistent, independent, fair and impartial; g. respect the right of all people to be held equal before the law – prosecutors must never act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests.

Prosecutors must perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. They must:

a. take decisions based upon an impartial and professional assessment of the available evidence, independently and with objectivity within the framework laid down by the law,

Prosecutors must not knowingly participate in, or seek to influence, the making of a prosecution decision in regard to any case where their personal or financial interests or their family, social or other relationships would influence their conduct as a prosecutor. They should not act as a prosecutor or advise in cases in which they, their family or business associates have a personal, private or financial interest or association.

And it goes on…………..as does The Code for Crown Prosecutors.

So, my question is, ‘What was Mr Davies doing, getting involved in this case when he had a clear conflict of interest in shooting and why was he generalising about the victims in the case?

Indeed, why was he ever given the role of ‘Wildlife Crime Lead’ with the CPS? Am I missing something?

Unfortunately Stephen Davies’s conflicts of interest did not stop there which I will cover later on!!

My first face to face contact with CID was on 17th July 2016, two weeks after that had first contacted me. I was asked to go to Hereford Police Station where I saw Detective Constable Cleeton who had initially contacted me and his supervisor, Detective Sergeant Wells. DS Wells asked me what the police incident number was when the offence was reported. I explained that there was no incident number. In line with force policy at the time, there was no requirement to create an incident if someone reported something directly to you. DS Wells didn’t seem very impressed with this. (I didn’t make the rules)!!

DS Wells then asked me what the crime number was for the offence. I had little previous experience or interaction with DS Wells who was publicly officious in her questioning. I’ll bare with it, I thought. She’s here to help me.

I explained that ‘Animal Cruelty’ offences under the Animal Welfare Act , (along with reported hunting offences), were non-recordable crimes. (ie they were not given crime numbers). When I had first discovered this, I thought that it must have made recording statistics for these reported offences extremely difficult, if not impossible . (Oh wait, maybe that was the plan)!!

DS Wells then repeatedly said that she didn’t believe me. (Again, I didn’t make up the rules). I suggested that perhaps she should try to record it. Somewhat bemused, I then watched on with the DC, as, over the next half an hour, DS Wells made phone calls to try to get the crime recorded. Of course, it did not get recorded. We seemed to achieve little else and I then left.

After I had left, the DC Cleeton sent me an email. He started this by saying…….. ‘I hope that DS Wells hasn’t left you feeling that CID are taking over. Let me reassure you that will not be the case and I have stressed all along that you have done a very thorough investigation which is almost complete. I fully understand your thoughts about how this has been dealt with and want to stress I am here to assist and help you, progress to conclusion’.

On the following day I received an email from DS Well’s supervisor, Detective Inspector Taylor. (Again, I didn’t really know him very well). He said………………….. ‘Hi Richard, I have today reviewed the investigation into the fox cubs being fed to the hounds. Firstly I just want to say you have done a great job to date. I imagine this has not been an easy task due to the political nature of what’s gone. I want to give you some reassurance that we have no intention of taking over this investigation, as far as I am concerned you are the officer in the case. Our role in this matter is to provide you with all the support we can. As such I have spoken with DS Wells and DC Cleeton regarding what support we can give. DS Wells will supervise this investigation, and DC Cleeton will be your critical friend / support who will dip in at peak times to help you out or guide you if you need to be pointed in the right direction. I will provide the organisation overview. Please do not consider anything we are doing as a criticism, as its certainly a long way from that, we are here to help you build on the great work you have done so far’!

It’s fair to say that at this point, apart from the slightly bizarre conduct from DS Wells, I was feeling pretty good about the investigation.

A little later DI Taylor sent me another email saying that the more suitable offence is ‘Cruelty to a wild mammal’

I then explained that the Animal Welfare Act was a more suitable offence. Under this act, as soon as a wild animal is taken captive it becomes a protected animal. Whoever captivates the animal is then responsible for its welfare. The Wild Mammals Protection Act is mainly used for cruelty offences against animals which are still in the wild at the time of the offence.

A meeting had been arranged for the CID officers and myself to see The Crown Prosecutor, Stephen Davis on Monday 25th July. HIT had given me an address for another suspect, Paul Rees, who was on the film. The case had now been given the name, ‘Operation Childer’.

I was feeling very positive .

---

Post Navigation:

During the investigation I was informed by HIT that The League Against Cruel Sports wanted to put out a press release. I told them that I had concerns about this possibly prejudicing the court case.

I was assured that advice had been sought from a Barrister and that they intended putting out the press release. I made it clear that although I couldn’t stop them from doing this, the press release would be without the backing of West Mercia Police.

If I’m honest I didn’t know what, if any, ramifications this would bring. I informed my supervisors who weren’t able to offer any further help or advice.

On 23rd June 2016 the press release took place, including some video footage. The story appeared in the National Press.

The following day a senior West Midlands Crown Prosecutor, Stephen Davis contacted the police wildlife crime spoc, Acting Inspector Emma Whitworth. He was apparently raising concerns over the National and Regional reputational issues that the case could bring forward! Mr Davis was the Crown Prosecution Service, (CPS), wildlife crime lead. Mr Davis wanted to have an early oversight given the issues surrounding the case!

Acting Inspector Whitworth contacted my Inspector asking if he would be adverse to having some CID input and oversight or maybe even CID taking the investigation on. (especially as the covert disclosure issues could cause any case to collapse as per the Wainwright case which was a West Mercia case and highlighted by CPS Nationally).

My sergeant was keen for me to remain on the case and continue playing a part in the investigation. (Which was, I thought, all but complete). He wrote a strong case for this to my Inspector. My Inspector replied to him saying that he completely understood. He said, ‘The relationships and work Richard has done has clearly been invaluable. The leg up is in relation to assisting with CPS liaison and disclosure support. It has been agreed that due to the reputational / risk issues that is attracting this investigation, it is therefore appropriate to be supported by CID’.

CID were going to liaise with Stephen Davis and myself with a view to organising an early CPS consultation meeting to assess current evidence and determine an action plan moving forward. I was on holiday at the time……..

The DC who had been asked to give a CID input sent me an email, He said, ‘I am aware that you have put a lot of work into this already and can reassure you that the investigation will not be taken away from you, I am merely here to help and support you’. He said that he would arrange the meeting with Stephen Davis and asked me to prepare a copy of the case summary, which I did.

The press release had attracted a lot of attention, including from The Home Office! I had a visit from My Superintendent who showed me an email from them. She said they were asking for an update on the case!

Why would the home office be interested in the case? It was a summary only offence. Or might it have been because the Conservatives had promised to repeal the hunting act!! Or is that me being incredibly cynical? How many other summary only offences do they try to get involved with? What business do they have sticking their noses in? The Government make the laws and the police uphold them. Mmmmm.

Other hunts were trying to desperately to distance themselves from The South Hereford. Ledbury Hunt contacted their members ……………..

LEDBURY HUNT LIMITED

1st July 2016

Following the recent League Against Cruel Sports ‘revelations’ of alleged cruelty and malpractice at the South Hereford Hunt kennels, as Masters of a neighbouring pack we have decided to write to you to clarify our position. We, along with the rest of the hunting world, absolutely abhor and condemn the alleged actions brought to light by the LACS, currently subject to both a criminal and MFHA, (Master Foxhounds Association), investigation.

The MFHA have set up an independent enquiry and the panel chaired by Appeal Court Judge, Sir John Chadwick has just released its First Interim Report. The panel have recommended to the MFHA that until a full enquiry or prosecution has taken place “the committee of association exercise it’s power to suspend all hunting activities of the SHH until further notice”.

The chairman of there MFHA has also stated, “The allegations made about the activities of individuals of the SHH are horrific. No one is more shocked then the hunting community and there is absolutely no doubt that such behaviour is totally unacceptable and has no place in hunting nor in the countryside”. For the avoidance of doubt, the allegations are of actions that can only be described as utterly cruel and defenceless whereby live fox cubs were thrown to hounds in kennels. Should the criminal investigation result in a successful prosecution we have been advised that the perpetrators can expect a custodial sentence and a lifetime ban, and it is our view that both would be justified.

It goes without saying that we have total confidence and trust in our team at the kennels who oversee the welfare of horse and hound to the highest level and care passionately about animals. We would like to thank you for your continued support at this challenging time for hunting.

Yours sincerely Louise Daly MFH Edward Phillipson-Stow MFH David Redvers MFH

I will leave that with you!!

---

Post Navigation: