The incident occurred on March 15, 2024, at 3:23 am outside Broughton Community Shop in Hampshire, according to court evidence. Three men wearing balaclavas and tracksuits arrived in a silver Suzuki Vitara. Two got out and dumped approximately 50 dead hares on the forecourt, while a barn owl and a kestrel were wedged into the shop's door handles. Blood was smeared on the shop windows and forecourt. The whole incident lasted about three minutes, according to CCTV evidence. The vehicle was later found burned out about three-and-a-half miles from the shop, as reported in court.
Kempster was identified through DNA evidence, phone tracking data, and clothing matching CCTV footage. He was not wearing gloves during the incident, according to the prosecution. However, magistrates found him not guilty of criminal damage because they could not be sure 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the individual in the CCTV footage was him. Kempster's defence barrister, Juliet Osborne, argued that there was not enough evidence to convict him. She said the crown must show he was in possession of the owl and the kestrel and caused the damage to the shop. Osborne noted that CCTV from a service station showed Kempster 26 hours before the incident in different clothing and a different vehicle. She added that similar clothing can be seen on any high street and that the Crown was 'clutching at straws'. Osborne also suggested that there was as much evidence against Kempster as against his brother, implying the wrong brother may have been charged. Forensic experts disagreed about the value of the DNA technology used.
James Kempster sits in court an innocent man and he remains one.
Kempster previously told the court he had nothing to do with the incident and did not know how his DNA got on the animals. He said he could not remember events from two years ago and that he had not been to the shop. He speculated that transferable DNA from his brother might explain the evidence. The two other men seen on CCTV have not been charged. Kempster will be sentenced for the bird possession offence in June after a report is written. As he left the court building, according to Daily Mail - News, Kempster described 'tweet, tweet, tweet'. William Hacking, a volunteer at the shop, discovered the scene shortly before 8 am. The motive behind the incident remains unknown.
There is not enough evidence against Mr Kempster to be sure.
The crown must show he was in possession of the owl and the kestrel and caused the damage to the shop.
It is accepted that the service station CCTV shows Mr Kempster but shows him 26 hours before the incident took place and in clothing which does not match clothing from the shop and in a different vehicle.
If you walk down any high street you will see similar clothing. You cannot possible conclude based on the clothing that that person is Kempster. We say that the Crown is clutching at straws.
We suggest that there is as much evidence in this case against James Kempster as there is against his brother. You might think that we have the right family but the wrong brother and therefore you cannot convict him.