James Kempster, a roofer, has been acquitted of criminal damage charges related to the incident of dumping 50 dead hares and two birds outside a village shop in Broughton, Hampshire.

Criminal Damage Charges Dismissed

The case revolved around accusations that Kempster transformed the store into a scene resembling a 'horror movie' by smearing blood on the windows and scattering hare carcasses. Magistrates determined, after over two hours of deliberation, that they could not establish 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the person in the CCTV footage was Kempster.

Evidence Challenges

The prosecution presented CCTV evidence and DNA analysis linking Kempster to the scene. However, the defense successfully argued the evidence was insufficient for a definitive conviction. CCTV showed a person resembling Kempster near the shop 26 hours before the incident, but clothing similarities weren’t conclusive. Forensic experts also had differing opinions on the DNA technology’s reliability.

Conviction for Bird Possession

Despite the acquittal on the criminal damage charges, Kempster was found guilty of two counts related to possessing the dead birds – a barn owl and a kestrel – under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Magistrates established Kempster’s possession of the birds based on DNA evidence, deeming possession alone sufficient for conviction.

Sentencing to Follow

This conviction carries the potential for imprisonment, and Kempster will be sentenced in June following the preparation of a report. Throughout the trial, Kempster maintained his innocence, stating he had no involvement and couldn’t explain how his DNA ended up at the scene.

Defense Arguments and Prosecution Response

Kempster’s defense barrister, Juliet Osborne, emphasized the high standard of proof required for conviction, arguing that even probable involvement wasn’t enough. The prosecution countered that establishing a motive wasn’t necessary, only certainty of evidence.

Discrepancies in Evidence

The court acknowledged Kempster’s DNA on the animals but questioned the strength of the evidence linking him to discarding them. Discrepancies included the CCTV footage showing a logo on trousers that didn’t match Kempster’s clothing. The possibility of 'transferable DNA' due to contact with his brother was also raised.

A Peculiar Exit

In a striking conclusion, as Kempster exited the court, he addressed reporters with a peculiar exclamation: 'Tweet, tweet, tweet.' This unusual response has drawn significant media attention.