Full letter now available
H-S12 · Miss E’s nine-page letter sent 29 March 2024
Read Miss E’s full letter · 9 pages
Attached to “Follow up Letter to Mr Millichope re FS - CASE - 573249905”, sent to Matthew Millichope (Environmental Protection and Community Safety Team Leader, Torridge District Council, in the 15 March 2024 noise assessment) at 18:56 GMT, copying Ian McIver and Mr J. Outlook displays 30 March at 01:56 in Bangkok time. The PDF has nine pages; the date is established by the covering email. This is a different document from the ten-page Council disclosure at H-S03.
- Pages 1–2: the 20 March call; the reported 5 March promise and 7 March refusal; her revised belief that McIver had written the letters but another person prevented disclosure; Millichope’s reported confirmation that he had read two letters to Daniels; questions about FOI and sound-analysis access.
- Pages 3–5: the reported approach of working with a business; representativeness of the final shooting days; the 7 March summary; the bedroom-window position; the reported 89.9 reading and her experience of shock and ringing ears; the reported possibility of an abatement notice and her renewed trust in McIver.
- Page 6: the outstanding response from Daniels and her direct comparison of the two officers’ numerical accounts.
- Pages 7–9: sudden impulse noise, ordinary use of the home, reported health concerns, distances and controls, and the footage that she then sent separately.
The letter is Miss E’s contemporaneous account of her experiences and conversations. Its medical propositions are her statements, not clinical findings established by publication. The reported 89.9 figure is not a substitute for the original measurement event and instrument record requested in HUNT-01. Her thanks to McIver and revised position on the existence of the letters remain part of the complete text.
Read the article’s direct challenge · Read HUNT-10 · The accompanying video email
H-S01 · Diary signed 22 January 2024
The two-page diary under Council reference FS-CASE-573249905 describes recurring commercial pheasant shooting from October 2023. The 13 January entry records multiple shotguns and shouting and describes ear pain, frightened cats and tears. The 20 January entry records 76 dB(A) in the bedroom and interruption of work. These are Miss E’s recorded observations, not an independent medical assessment or confirmation of every measurement.
“caused pain in my ears, scared my cats, and obliterated my peace, which led to tears from distress.”
H-S02 · Phone report, 13 January 2024
“Record 1”, 1:45 pm, Torrington. Duration 25:54. iPhone 11 Pro, iOS 17.1.2; A-weighting; Fast (0.2s); calibration setting +0.0 dB. Average/Leq 73.6 dB; minimum 35.7; maximum 103.9; peak 109.0. The +0.0 setting is not a calibration certificate. Peaks and maxima are not continuous exposure levels; occupational-dose settings printed by the app are not residential legal limits. The report differs in duration from the edited film and is presented as a separate measurement record from the same day according to Mr J.
The Council’s indoor monitoring was on different dates. No fixed allowance for walls has been added to estimate outside levels. Statutory nuisance requires assessment of the interference or health risk, not an automatic verdict from one decibel threshold.
The linked NIOSH study measured 12-gauge shotgun peaks of 154.6–162.7 dB near shooters using slug ammunition. Instruments were generally 4–6 feet from shooters, near ear height. These are research measurements, not readings at Miss E’s home or directly at a muzzle. Study methods and results.
H-S03 · Council disclosure: 3 January–7 March 2024 correspondence
The 23 April FOI response, reference 9078, supplied a ten-page redacted correspondence file. Page 8 records Miss E thanking the officer for the 22 December call. Page 2 contains her 5 March concern that final shooting days involved fewer participants. Page 1 contains the 7 March summary, subsequently identified by Millichope as McIver’s account:
“The recordings made during this period showed the average dB level experience when shots were fired was between 50-60dB but several were as high as 80-90dB.”
The same summary describes monitoring from 26 January to 2 February and says written measures were requested to prevent those levels being experienced again. The FOI response withheld an officer/third-party letter on personal-information grounds and supplied a summary; withholding is not, by itself, evidence of improper concealment.
H-S04 · Matthew Millichope’s assessment, 15 March 2024
Millichope, Environmental Protection and Community Safety Team Leader, confirms equipment was installed 26 January, reset 31 January after reported power interference, and collected 2 February. It captured morning and afternoon shooting on 27 January and afternoon shooting on 1 February. He describes measurements inside the property, mainly low 40s to mid 60s, with some gunshots up to 80 dB. His letter confirms indoor monitoring; the bedroom location is also described in Miss E’s 29 March letter, which says “bedroom window”, alongside Mr J’s later eyewitness account.
“insufficient information has been obtained to establish a statutory nuisance on this occasion”
The reply considers duration, intermittency, locality and other factors; acknowledges possible significant annoyance; states that no abatement notice was served; refers to shooting ceasing after 1 February and future mitigation; and rejects the allegation that McIver acted improperly. It says the Council expedited monitoring despite receiving fewer diary sheets than usual. That explanation is part of the record under scrutiny.
The FOI disclosure also supplies six pages of graph screenshots for 27 January and 1 February. They are selected traces, not playable audio or a complete technical assessment. The supplied graphs do not themselves identify every spike as a gunshot or include an instrument/calibration record.
H-S05 · Relocation correspondence, 19–22 April 2024
Ian McIver’s 19 April email says a response from “Mr Daneil” stated the shoot would be relocated. Miss E’s 22 April reply calls him Mr Daniels, thanks McIver, and asks about sufficient distance and future breaches. The chain does not contain the organiser’s original response or confirm implementation. The source spelling is retained; Mr J identifies David Daniels, whose precise role remains a question.
H-S06 · Renewed complaint and reply, December 2024
Following Mr J’s 14 December report, Phil Gilbert (Public Health and Community Safety Manager, Torridge District Council, in the December 2024 correspondence), Public Health and Community Safety Manager, replies on 16 December. He logs it as a complaint and requires diary sheets before allocation, saying the Council will not depart from or expedite its process. He refers to the previous investigation and the absence of further recurrence communications until 14 December, and mentions the direct statutory-nuisance route. Later correspondence acknowledges Miss E had received earlier sound recordings. The eventual outcome of the renewed complaint has not been established here.
H-S07 · Witness account, allegations and publication status
The film supplied in the trial material lasts 9:45.518. Mr J confirms on 1 October 2026 that the footage represents one day, edited from longer activity. Its opening personal statement repeats near the end. The source and audio remain intact in the publication copy apart from delivery compression. Playback volume depends on the viewer’s device. Her account includes distress about animal cruelty as well as the gunshots.
The challenge to Timothy Edmund Walsh
Circuit Judge, Western Circuit; appointed to Exeter Law Courts on 27 June 2022 · Official judicial appointment ↗
On 2 October 2026 Mr J supplied the transcript extract reproduced at H-S10. It replaces the earlier paraphrase that shooting “was not a nuisance” with “would not necessarily constitute a nuisance”. It also records findings about proof, Mayo’s denial and inadequate pleading. Miss E’s working rebuttal challenges the treatment of electronically supplied evidence; the court’s filing, admission and access records are needed to test that question. Council receipt is not proof of trial admission.
The collusion and funding allegations
Mr J alleges deliberate dishonesty, criminal collusion and a connection between shooting interests and the litigation. These are allegations, not established findings. H-S09 supplies a direct reference to the local shooting syndicate in Mayo’s police correspondence. It does not establish a relationship or instructions between Walsh and shooting organisers. The relocation correspondence refers to Mr Daneil/Mr Daniels; Mr J identifies David Daniels. It does not establish litigation funding or direction by Daniels, or his ownership of the disputed bank account. Estimates of someone’s assets or income do not establish those matters. No verified body called the “hunting commission” has been identified.
Third-party funding is not inherently illegal. The questions concern the alleged retaliation, direction and control, which require evidence of the actual arrangements. A disputed judicial finding is not itself proof of a criminal offence.
Publication and redress
The fourteen questions are published here; they have not newly been sent to recipients by this publication. The Council’s historical replies remain in the source record. Miss E and Mr J are considering a damages claim; this update does not issue one or serve a formal pre-action notice. Council complaints, Ombudsman remedies and litigation are distinct routes.
H-S08 · The Council video emails: January and March 2024
Mr J’s 17 January email, “Re: FS-CASE- 573249905: Activation of the Next stage”, to Environmental Protection and copied to Miss E and McIver, refers to video showing a high level of distress. The PDF header is 23:15:54 Hong Kong time, equivalent to 15:15:54 GMT. His 22 January “Diary log regarding FS-CASE- 573249905” email says he will show McIver a seven-minute snippet during the arranged visit.
Miss E’s “Video re FS - CASE - 573249905” email to Millichope, copying McIver and Mr J, contains a Drive link labelled “Re FS-CASE- 573249905.MOV”. The original Date header is Friday 29 March 2024, 19:33:22 +0000. Outlook’s 30 March 02:34 display reflects the local timezone and receipt time. The body expressly records that the video had already been shown to McIver before equipment installation.
The email establishes transmission of the link and Miss E’s account of an earlier showing; it contains no confirmation that Millichope watched it. The seven-minute January version, the March linked file and the currently published 9:45 film have not been established to be identical edits. Private email addresses and the original Drive link are not republished.
H-S09 · Mayo’s shooting-syndicate email and the police–Council sequence
Physical PDF pages 78–79 of Miss E’s CPN appeal exhibits reproduce an email from Mark to “ITHILDIN Brad 18754”, dated 2 August 2024, 08:24. It sits within Cornwell’s 18 November 2024, 11:40 forwarding wrapper. Page 78 describes Mr J approaching Mayo and neighbours in November 2023 and records Mayo’s preference to remain neutral. Page 79 contains:
“You are aware of the trouble they are causing with the local shooting syndicate, claiming a noise nuisance when the real reason is that they are vehemently anti countryside sports.”
This is Mayo’s characterisation, not a finding about the family’s motives. The email permits sharing with colleagues and TDC officials. Page 74 contains the 31 July discussion about forwarding material to supervisory officers and Ian McIver. Page 80 contains Ithildîn’s 2 August 16:46 report of a meeting with a Council ASB officer and sergeant and the start of the CPW process using Mayo’s previous statement and exhibits. It does not specify that the shooting paragraph itself was forwarded or relied on. The published correspondence and linked notice investigation.
H-S10 · The supplied judgment extract
Text supplied by Mr J on 2 October 2026 as an extract from Timothy Edmund Walsh’s judgment transcript. Family names are replaced in square brackets; other wording, including apparent transcription errors, is retained.
[Miss E] further pleaded that mr. Mayor or his agents had, and I quote, been firing shotguns or other firearms on or next to the defendant's property. But in evidence, she said that there had not been shooting on her property, only next to it. The defendants had not discharged the burden on them of proving this allegation. It was denied by mr. Mayo in his reply, where he stated that he had not applied a firearm on his property in the period since [Miss E's] purchase, and neither [Miss E] nor [Mr J] produced evidence in the form of videos or otherwise to substantiate this allegation. Moreover, the discharge of a shotgun would not necessarily constitute a nuisance, so the allegation is inadequately pleaded in any any way.
This passage contains three distinct matters: proof of conduct attributed to Mayo or his agents, nuisance, and adequacy of pleading. Its “not necessarily” wording is not a categorical exclusion of gunfire from nuisance law. The full judgment, pleadings and admitted evidence provide the wider context for the appeal challenge.
H-S11 · Bedside monitoring and the reported commercial operation
On 2 October 2026 Mr J specified that he witnessed the Council apparatus beside Miss E’s bed. The Council letter confirms indoor monitoring; the precise bedside position is his eyewitness account. The published figures remain the Council’s 7 March range of 80–90 dB and its 15 March reference to some gunshots up to 80 dB, with the additional contemporaneous account in H-S12: Miss E wrote that McIver told her one shot registered 89.9. Her letter places the recordings at her bedroom window; the more specific bedside position is Mr J’s later account. The underlying event data are requested for verification.
Mr J also reports an in-person statement by David Daniels that shooting supplemented his income. He says the shooting syndicate rents land on Daniels’s neighbouring farm and its representatives told them pheasants are hand-reared for shooting. His account describes numerous guns and recurring Saturday shoots in season. These are attributed witness accounts; the tenancy, operator and financial arrangements are the subject of HUNT-13’s request for confirmation and records. Miss E’s January diary independently records her description of recurring commercial shooting; it is not a tenancy document.
The sleep question concerns the ability to rest at home, including during the day; the Council’s described monitoring events were morning and afternoon. Neither a decibel maximum nor a business label alone determines statutory nuisance or diagnoses hearing damage. The complaint calls for examination of recurrence, duration, character, impact and received exposure. Read the direct sleep and protection question · Read the commercial-operation questions
Read the full investigation · Read the fourteen questions and their context