What does it take to get a hunting conviction? Monumental levels of perseverance...
A monitor, Gwent Police and the Curre and Llangibby Hunt
On 23rd December 2023, in a secluded part of the Welsh countryside, a mounted Huntsman belonging to the Curre and Llangibby Hunt was videoed swearing and threatening a 70-year-old monitor shouting, “I’ll follow you home! Fucking bitch! I’ll follow you home.”
That is clear from the video below, which we urge you to watch (it’s not otherwise graphic in anyway).
The monitor, Helen, was filming the hunt because they were hunting and trespassing in Hale Wood, a Natural Resources Wales (NRW) site near Shirenewton, where hunting is banned. She sent the video to Gwent Police assuming that even though there was very little chance the Huntsman would be taken to court, they would at least treat the incident as threatening behaviour or common assault and would speak to the Huntsman in the next week or so to make sure it didn’t happen again.
She was wrong. We have seen a lengthy series of emails between Helen, officers from Gwent Police, the Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner (Jane Mudd who was elected in May 2024), the Complaints Commissioner, and her local MP that prove what followed was months and months of delay, misinformation, and blatant victim blaming. It is clear that the police decided early on that there was no case to answer. The huntsman wasn’t officially cautioned - in fact, as this article shows, it’s unclear who Gwent Police spoke with or what was said.
Protect the Wild is often asked why there are so few hunt prosecutions. Hunting routinely uses the argument that because there are so few hunting prosecutions it means that hunts are not breaking the law. As any monitor, sab, or activist will tell you, the fact is not that the law is not being routinely broken (reports on Sabs and monitors Facebook HIT reports, and data in our annual Hunting Reports and on our new HuntHavoc.info website make it abundantly clear that it is), but that it is extremely difficult to obtain the evidence required to prosecute, and equally difficult to then get the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to take a prosecution to court. Even when the CPS decides to prosecute, there are numerous examples of cases collapsing through basic errors (see, for example ‘CPS blunder: dismay as trial of Essex and Suffolk huntsmen collapses’ from March this year).
The number of hunting prosecutions does not correlate with the number of hunting incidents taking place in any way at all. The difficulty in obtaining a prosecution does.
It is unusual to have the opportunity to look through an incident like this from start to finish, which is why we’ve been following Helen’s case for more than a year and have offered to write it up here. We want to clarify that we’re not suggesting that police officers didn’t want to prosecute the Huntsman (even if they had been able to), and Helen herself isn’t suggesting that either. But the sheer perseverance it took to see through to the end what on the surface looked would be a relatively simple investigation is striking.
The incident
As the footage shows, Helen was not physically assaulted. The Huntsman involved (as can be seen from the video) does not touch her, but neither threatening behaviour nor common assault has to involve physical violence (see for example ‘Melbreak Huntsman Christopher Nixon convicted of assault’). Threatening words or making a threat etc is enough for a crime to have been potentially committed if the victim fears that they are about to be attacked. The key elements to consider are would the action likely cause a reasonable person to feel fear or alarm and did the guilty party intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress..
Hale Wood is relatively isolated. Helen was with a colleague at the time of the incident, but was otherwise alone. Members of the hunt and support know her, know her car, and know where she lives. She has had her home address shouted out while monitoring on several occasions. Given the violence that accompanies some hunts (see for example ‘Cottesmore Hunt's masked thugs arrested’), many of us might have reasonably felt threatened by having “I’ll follow you home! Fucking bitch! I’ll follow you home” shouted at us. Had someone towering over us said that to us on a high street, the vast majority of us would have felt threatened.
This was also not the first time Helen had been involved with the Hunt in autumn/winter 2023.
Terrierman Adam Alderson drove at Helen and a colleague on 16 September 2023. He had made death threats in the past which the police responded to by removing his firearms.
A hunt supporter ‘mooned’ Helen whilst the hunt was trespassing in Briar's Grove Wood on 18th November 2023. It was reported (Police Ref CIT 273458) but appears not to have been followed up.
A Hunt supporter also shouted in Helen’s face on 18 November 2023.
The Curre was photographed by Bristol Hunt Saboteurs blatantly trespassing on Natural Resources Wales (NRW) land in Coetgae Wood on 04 November 2023. The Huntsman in the incident above swore at Helen and said that he would follow her home while the Hunt was trespassing in another NRW woodland on 23 December 2023.
A brief timeline.
Part One: The incident is reported
Given everything that already happened (in the span of just half of one hunting ‘season’, note, which surely should have been taken into consideration), the lack of action taken after the 23 December incident is (how can we put this without implying anything untoward) - surprising.
As stated earlier, we have seen the entire chain of over 40 emails between Helen, the police, and her MP. There is far too much information for us to reproduce everything here, but what follows is a condensed timeline.
23 Dec 2023 The Hale Woods incident took place.
26 Dec 2023 Helen was stopped and searched at a Boxing Day parade of the Monmouth Hunt. See our post 'Stop and search of monitor at Boxing Day parade raises serious questions’
28 Dec 2023 Hale Woods incident reported to Gwent Police. PC Harry Wilkes interviewed Helen and her colleague. He told them that he would approach the Hunt and if they refused to identify their Huntsman, he would ban the Hunt until someone put their hand up.
No further word from the police for three months.
March 2024 Helen was informed by PC Megan Robinson that the police had failed to identify the Huntsman, the Hunt had not been shut down (and it was wrong to have told her that it could be), and that the case was closed.
Helen responds. She is puzzled because the Hunt would know precisely who the Huntsman was because they only employ a small number of staff in such a senior role, and he was the only Huntsman with the Hunt on the day (and would have needed to be insured by the Hunt). In later correspondence Gwent Police state that “there was no legal requirement in criminal law” for the Hunt to name the Huntsman. This is accurate in that no one is legally obligated to report a crime to the police (even if they witness it), but numerous forces suggest on their websites that there is “a moral duty” to help the police with their investigations. That applies to members of Hunts as much as it does the public…
17 April 2024 Gwent Police officer Sgt Elizabeth Wilson emails Helen saying that while she understands “how frightening this must have been for you (worth noting as this is an official confirmation that Helen would have indeed felt threatened by the Huntsman’s behaviour)…PC Wilkes and PC Robinson have been investigating this incident and unfortunately after making thorough enquiries we have been unable to identify the offender. I would also confirm that we are unable to suspend a hunt until a person admits responsibility for this incident.”
Details of the ‘thorough enquiries’ are not given. A later reason given for not identifying the Huntsman is that both the first and last names ‘are common to people from this area’. Sgt Wilson also states that “I would also confirm that we will be unable to take any formal action as we cannot identify the persons responsible and as such the case will be filed with no further action being taken.”
Interestingly Sgt Wilson ends her email with what may have been an attempt at empathy but which actually comes across as a recognition of the risks involved in confronting illegal hunting: “For your safety please make sure that you keep a mobile phone with you at all times that is fully charged, and call police 999 immediately should you feel threatened or in fear that you will be harmed.”
Timeline Part Two: Identification
Almost five months after the incident and after being told that no further action was being taken, many of us might have shaken our heads and walked away. If Gwent Police assumed Helen was like the rest of us, they were very much mistaken.
On 19 April 2024 Sgt Wilson responded to another email from Helen writing, “If you should discover the identity of the offender please let us know.” Challenge issued, challenge accepted…
By mid June (so around eight weeks later) Helen and her colleague had indeed discovered who the Huntsman was: Garry Williams, a man who had plead guilty at Hereford Magistrates Court on 28 June 2021 to assaulting two female hunt monitors when working with the Ross Harriers! They sent the information to Gwent Police.
The assault is still easily found on the internet today, and convictions are recorded by the police on the Police National Computer, a national database that holds details of arrests, convictions, cautions, and other information relevant to criminal justice. The claims made in subsequent emails that officers had used “reasonable and proportionate methods” to identify Williams don’t appear to have included an internet search or a check of their own database…
It seems obvious to ask at this point just how “thorough” the efforts to discover this information for themselves had been?
Timeline Part Three: Statute Limit
Having failed to locate Williams themselves, Sgt Wilson now told Helen they were unable to proceed because they couldn't confirm his date of birth, necessary, they claimed, to be certain it was indeed him (even though, as previously stated, he was the only Huntsman out with the Curre on the day of the incident).
By this point, Helen had already supplied the police with numerous photos of Garry Williams, his Facebook page URL, details of his driving ban, and details of the court case previously mentioned. Yet, even after every piece of information she had supplied them with, they still responded with, "We need a date of birth!"
In total the police said they needed a date of birth four times. Eventually, Helen did indeed discover his date of birth - only for the police to say it was false. Undaunted, she kept searching and was able to submit irrefutable proof of Williams’ date of birth, which proved that the Police claims of her information being ‘false’ simply were not the case.
No explanation was ever given why the Police thought (or even suspected) that the information Helen had provided was wrong. Given that they had been claiming not to know who the Huntsman was, how was this even possible anyway?
This is especially relevant given that the spectre of a statute limit on Common Assault was also now being presented to Helen. In general terms, for "summary only" offences like common assault the prosecution must be started within six months of the incident. Helen emailed Sgt Wilson asking her to file a Report for Summary immediately, and pointed out that the case had only become close to the statute barred date “because of the 45 emails between myself and the police in which they continually said they needed a date of birth in order to identify the Huntsman.”
All these emails were subsequently forwarded to Catherine Fookes, who had been elected Labour MP for Monmouthshire in the 2024 General Election (a committed campaigner, in October 2024 Ms Fookes was elected to the Women and Equalities Select Committee). In July 2024, Helen was granted an interview with Catherine Fookes, who requested a copy of the video of the threatening Huntsman along with copies of all the emails to and from the police. In Helen’s words, Ms Fookes “was shocked that nothing had been done to find this Huntsman and said she would help me in these matters.”
Timeline Part Four: Official Complaints
Helen was becoming increasingly angry and upset that nothing appeared to be progressing. She instigated official complaints against Sgt Wilson and PC Robinson. On 19 June 2024, she emailed Jane Mudd, the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, citing ‘Police incompetence regarding incident CIT280270’.
On 14 October 2024, Helen wrote to Gwent Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) “to register a complaint about two police officers (PC Megan Robinson and Sergeant Elizabeth Wilson) who have failed to find a convicted criminal, Garry Williams, who swore at me and threatened to follow me home”.
In the email Helen points out that she had “supplied Gwent Police…with the Crime Reference Number 22//110054/20 and the name of the police woman who took him to court, PC Liz Callwood 21690” and that she had “supplied the police with the information that Garry was Huntsman for the Cotswold Vale Farmers Hunt until he lost his driving licence. The police could have checked this with the DVLA and obtained his date of birth that way.”
She states that “Gwent Police still insist that they cannot trace him without a date of birth”, which she had given them but had been told “it was false”. Helen also reminds him that the police had told her “that the statute of limitations was nearing and the case was therefore closed.”
She finishes with a sentence many of us might have felt compelled to write: “It beggars belief that with all the technology at their disposal and with all the details with which I was able to supply them, the police maintain that they are unable to find this convicted criminal.”
Timeline Part Five: Victim blaming
‘Victim blaming’ is holding a victim responsible for the abuse or harm they experienced. Women especially face victim blaming almost routinely: “What did you expect going out dressed like that?”, “Why did she get him angry?”, “She should never have gone out at night”. It almost invariably involves men blaming women for being victims of men, and can discourage victims from reporting incidents
By autumn 2024, with the complaints escalating, a new figure steps forward: Gwyn Pidgeon, a long-serving officer and a member of Gwent Police’s Professional Standards Department.
The contents of his email are worth quoting. Remember that it is the hunts that are breaking the law, that it is monitors and sabs that are acting lawfully, and that (in the opinion of many of us) it is monitors and sabs who are in effect doing the job of the police.
“You are passionate about hunting which is commendable. Everyone has a right to protest peacefully within the law.
HOWEVER … please do not put yourself or others in a vulnerable position where you would put yourselves and others in danger.
Please understand that some people may object to being recorded and have a right to tell you that.
If you were then to report matters to the Police, the law may not be able to assist or protect you if you are doing anything to antagonise or exacerbate a situation. That is basic common sense.”
Is a senior officer really telling a lone female monitor that if they are threatened or assaulted by a hunt member the law may not help or protect her? It certainly looks that way.
Gwent Police may not understand this, but those lines of ‘advice’ gives a Hunt all the excuse they need to blame the victim the next time they feel like stopping someone trying to monitor illegal hunting…
Timeline Part Six: Not ‘intimidated’ enough
Around the same time (28 October 2024), Helen was emailed by Jamie Jones, of Gwent Police Complaints Department
To quote Helen, Mr Jones says that the case was not going forward because “I do not look intimidated enough in the video of the threat! I do not show that I am in fear of violence.”
Protect the Wild completely agrees with Helen when she asks, “Isn’t that to be commended? I am a 70-year-old lady, I wasn’t going to show him I was frightened.” Bullies thrive on the fear of their victims. Had Helen not stood up for herself, it is entirely possible this incident could have escalated.
Mr Jones also says that Helen does “not step back” from Williams. The video unequivocally shows a large metal barrier between her and the Hunt. Williams couldn’t have ridden into her even if he had wanted to, and she had no need to either step back or step out of the way. Why was this nonsensical point made? Had Mr Jones even watched the video properly before responding?
Besides, as Helen also rightly says, what had her show of fear (or lack of fear) got to do with the fact that Williams, who was trespassing and illegally hunting, had been recorded threatening to follow Helen home. That surely is the point here. The law says that the key elements to consider in a case of common assault or threatening behaviour are would the action likely cause a reasonable person to feel fear or alarm and did the guilty party intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It does not, at least as far as we can ascertain, put an onus on the victim to look intimidated or scared.
For good measure, Mr Jones also stated that the Hunt had disbanded anyway. As Helen says, this is utter nonsense. The Hunt is a business that operates 24/7, and as of writing this article (June 2025) is very much still active. As Helen pointed out, though the hunting ‘season’ runs from September to April, the Curre and Llangibby Hunt run other events throughout the year and even have a secretary and a business collecting fallen stock from farmers…
Timeline Part Seven: A mistake?
December 2024 was a busy period in this frustrating and at times baffling chain of events.
Gwyn Pidgeon wrote to Helen again on the 19th, almost exactly a year after the original Dale Wood incident. In that email he confirmed something Jamie Jones had written that had made no sense to Helen at the time. He said:
“I can see that there is an entry on 28/10/24 that PC Robinson had spoken to the offender and and gave him words of advice regarding his behaviour that was recorded. He stated he does not remember the incident but remembered a woman trying to get in his way which was dangerous as he was on a horse.
In summary, the offender has been dealt with for the matter in April I hope that will give you closure in respect of that incident.”
Helen had not tried ‘to get in his way’ (the video showing her standing the other side of a metal barriers proves that), and as for closure? Hardly. As Helen responded, the last communication she had with either PC Robinson or her supervisor, Sgt Elizabeth Wilson, had been on 21 June 2024 when she’d been told that Williams couldn’t be traced and that the offence was reaching the Statute barred date so there would be no further investigation. What was going on?
She wrote to Mr Pidgeon saying:
“Now you are telling me that on 28/10/2024 PC Robinson has indeed spoken to the offender and has given him words of advice regarding his behaviour that was recorded.”
Was this simply a lazy mistake and more poor communication, or a less than subtle attempt by Gwent Police to mollify and placate Helen?
Finding out would have to wait, because Helen received an out-of-office response saying Gwyn Pidgeon was away until the 30th…
More than three weeks later, on 21 January 2025, Helen emailed Gwyn Pidgeon again saying she “would appreciate a reply to my email of 26th December last.“ She also mailed the office of Catherine Fookes MP, referencing the fact she’d emailed Pidgeon citing ‘Complaint against Police (Case Ref: CF02343)’.
On 28 February 2025, she again emailed Mr Pidgeon requesting a response…
Timeline Part Eight: The end is in sight
On 16 March 2025, Helen received an email from Sam Edey, a member of Gwent Police’s Complaints & Professional Standards Department. He sent documents relating to her complaint and apologised for the delay, telling her that “this has not impacted on your review date which has been extended.”
The documents included a summary of Helen’s original complaint that officers “failed to track down and deal with the offender who had threatened her during a Fox Hunt”, and the conclusion that Police had found the “service provided [by them] was acceptable”.
Yet again, it appeared that Helen was being brushed off.
But once again, Helen refused to give up. As far as she was concerned, the ‘service’ was not acceptable at all. In fact, given the confusion around identifying him and whether Williams had or had not been spoken to, plus that no action seemed to have been taken against him in either case, she was determined to push on.
On 27 March 2025, Helen wrote to Jane Mudd, the Police Commissioner for Gwent, laying out the entire, long and wearying process she had been through, saying:
“Please find attached a record of my complaint against Gwent Police. I should be very grateful if you would investigate the issues I have raised in the complaint. “
Includes key passage: “I then approached Police Standards regarding these matters and was told by Gwyn Pidgeon that Jamie Jones had told me that the offender was eventually identified and “dealt “with on 24th October.
Now I am totally confused! So in between his emails to me of 22nd and 28th October both saying they could not identify the offender - the police found the offender on 24th October! How could Jamie Jones be unaware that the police had found the offender?”
Timeline Part Nine: An Apology of sorts
On 01 April 2025, Gareth Jenkins from the Complaints Department emailed Helen “to address some ambiguities in the letter you received from us on March 10, 2025. I apologise for any confusion caused on our behalf. Additionally, I have copied the Crime Commissioner's office so they are aware of the communication. As you have raised this matter with your MP to act on your behalf, I have also copied in the right honourable Catherine Fookes.”
Mr Jenkins attached a letter (General Letter 236) which stated that:
"Inspector Jones explained how the offender was eventually identified and dealt with on the 24th of October 2024." This is not an accurate account.
The date should have read the 22nd of October 2024. The sentence was poorly worded. What it meant to convey was that on the 22nd of October, Inspector Jones reviewed this case and produced a chronology of the investigation, which he sent to you on the same date via email. In that communication, he explained when an offender was identified and what action followed.
Subsequently, Inspector Jones replied to your response with a further explanation on the 28th of October.
I agree that the sentence suggests that an offender was dealt with on the 24th, but I can confirm that this is not correct. I apologise for the misunderstanding. We meant to explain that the inspector has replied to your concerns.”
As clarifications (and apologies) go, this is - in our opinion - as clear as mud. Why were the Police still looking for Williams months after they had stated (repeatedly) that he couldn’t be identified and that there was no case to answer anyway. Was he spoken to, and what was said (it could have been anything from ‘Do not threaten members of the public’ to ‘Be more careful’ or ‘Yes, she annoys us too' as far as Helen knows)?
Timeline Part Ten: Finally, a conclusion and an apology!
This whole affair was - understandably - exhausting for Helen. Sixteen months had passed since she had contacted the Police about the incident in Hale Wood. She had written multiple emails, been ‘victim blamed’, and been repeatedly told no action could be taken. For months, she was told that the Police couldn’t find Williams, only to be told later that he had apparently been spoken to after all. But as far as she knew the Police had taken no action against Williams, who in the meantime had apparently moved on from the Curre anyway.
The ‘service’ she had received clearly wasn’t acceptable, and she responded to Gareth Jenkins on 03 April 2025 saying so.
On 16 April 2025 Mr Jenkins emailed Helen to admit that the police service was indeed not acceptable after all. He wrote that after a review into her police complaint, the Professional Standards Department had decided:
that the outcome of ‘service provided was acceptable’ be re-assessed as ‘service provided was not acceptable’.
that there should be a written apology on behalf of Gwent Police.
that the PSD provides the opportunity for PC Robinson to learn and reflect as a result of this complaint.
Additionally, he wished “to apologise for the lack of a key update in the crime investigation and for my misunderstanding of some of the circumstances. I will ensure that both the officer and I learn from this experience and adhere to the obligations within the victims' charter.”
Our conclusion
This detailed article is almost the definition of a ‘long read’. We wrote it because we wanted to help Helen tell her story from beginning to end, to show the monumental levels of perseverance sometimes needed to get an interaction between a Hunt and a member of the public investigated.
We suspect many monitors and sabs will recognise and concur with every word of Helen’s experience. Incidents like this are not unusual in any way. They take place every single week during the so-called ‘hunting season’. Police forces respond in different ways, but we don’t think that Gwent are any worse or any better than other forces up and down the country. That’s not a commendation. incidentally.
The fact is that Hunts know full well that in almost all cases, despite video evidence and a determined activist, they will still ‘get away with it’. Little wonder Hunts still act as if the law doesn’t apply to them.
Thanks to Helen for working with Protect the Wild on this article and Bristol Hunt Sabs for permission to use their image of the Curre Hunt trespassing in Coetgae Woods.
Bristol Hunt Sabs regularly sab the Curre and Llangibby Hunt. Please consider donating to them here.
It has always been difficult to find justice in a UK court of law regarding fox hunting criminality. The police themselves being a major obstacle as well as the court justice system. It fact they are both corrupt and rotten to the core on blood sports and other hunting criminalities and barbarities. Things are now changing rapidly as this matter has highlighted, hunts are truly on the run with nowhere left to run or hide behind including the courts or police.
What a scumbag coward id av loved the fat nonce follow me home id have had a party waiting for him pikin on a 70 year old lady utter coward fat useless piece of shit and well done to Helen for standing her ground