Who is named—and why?
- Ian McIver — Community Safety and Public Health Officer, Torridge District Council, in the 2024 correspondence; monitoring and relocation communications. Related Council record.
- Matthew Millichope (Environmental Protection and Community Safety Team Leader, Torridge District Council, in the 15 March 2024 noise assessment) — Environmental Protection and Community Safety Team Leader, March 2024; author of the assessment.
- Phil Gilbert (Public Health and Community Safety Manager, Torridge District Council, in the December 2024 correspondence) — Public Health and Community Safety Manager, December 2024; author of the renewed-complaint reply.
- Timothy Edmund Walsh (Circuit Judge, Western Circuit; appointed to Exeter Law Courts on 27 June 2022) — Circuit Judge; Mr J challenges the findings in the supplied transcript and alleges deliberate wrongdoing.
- Mark John Mayo (claimant in L00BP152; Higher Barley Hayes, Torrington area, Devon), Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell and Seldons LLP — claimant and legal representatives in the connected case; questions concern funding, control and instructions.
- David Daniels — identified by Mr J; asked to explain his shooting role and any involvement in the litigation.
Officer titles are those recorded in the dated correspondence. Read the source basis and status of the wider allegations.
HUNT-01 · Public accountability question
Torridge District Council · Ian McIver · Matthew Millichope
80–90 dB—or up to 80 dB? Show the measurements.
The 7 March summary describes several readings of 80–90 dB; the 15 March assessment describes some gunshots up to 80 dB. Miss E’s 29 March letter records McIver telling her one shot measured 89.9, and her experience of shock and ringing ears. What explains the different accounts of the same monitoring period? Identify the event, metrics, settings and measurement position behind each figure. Produce the complete monitoring and assessment record.
HUNT-02 · Public accountability question
Torridge District Council · Ian McIver · Matthew Millichope
Did the monitoring capture the complaint being made?
Miss E’s 5 March email says the final shooting days involved fewer participants than earlier occasions. How was that representativeness challenge assessed? What evidence considered the recurring Saturday pattern, the diary, her home recording and the reported impact on rest, work and ordinary use of her home?
HUNT-03 · Public accountability question
Torridge District Council · Matthew Millichope
The season ended. What prevented the reported disturbance returning?
What separate assessment addressed likely recurrence under section 80? Explain the relevance of the seven-day informal-action provision and identify the evidence distinguishing a seasonal pause from effective mitigation. What reasons supported the conclusion that statutory nuisance had not been established?
HUNT-04 · Public accountability question
Ian McIver · Torridge District Council · the shooting organiser
Where was the shoot to be relocated—and who checked?
The 19 April email reports a response from “Mr Daneil” saying the shoot would be relocated. Identify the responding person and organiser, the agreed location or mitigation, the timetable and any verification. What answered Miss E’s questions about distance and what would happen if the disturbance returned?
HUNT-05 · Public accountability question
Phil Gilbert · Torridge District Council
Why begin again without explaining what the previous protection achieved?
When renewed disturbance was reported in December, how were the existing diary, monitoring, March assessment and April relocation assurance considered? Explain why a fresh diary was necessary before allocation, what immediate advice or proportionate protective options were considered, and how the recurring complaint was followed up.
HUNT-06 · Public accountability question
Torridge District Council · complaints management
She was at home, not choosing exposure. What protected her?
Miss E and Mr J describe gunfire starting without warning or an opportunity to protect their hearing. Where did the assessment address that account, the fear, tears, ear pain and disruption inside her home? Identify an uninvolved reviewer and preserve the complaint file, recordings, instrument settings, calibration records and organiser correspondence. Why did reported recurrence lead back to diary sheets? State what protective action was considered, what was delivered and what remedy will follow any established failure.
HUNT-07 · Public accountability question
Timothy Edmund Walsh · the judgment and appeal record
What was not proved: the shooting, Mayo’s responsibility, or the nuisance?
The supplied transcript says the pleading alleged shooting “on or next to” the property, then contrasts that with evidence of shooting next to it. What material allegation did that distinction defeat? Explain separately the finding on Mayo or his agents, the statement that no video or other evidence substantiated the allegation, and the pleading defect. Which submitted recordings and witness accounts were considered? How were frequency, duration and impact on ordinary home life assessed?
HUNT-08 · Public accountability question
Mark John Mayo · Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
Who funded the litigation—and who controlled its instructions?
Answer the family’s allegation that shooting interests used the litigation to retaliate against their complaints. Did any shooting organiser or David Daniels fund, direct or seek to influence the proceedings? What records establish the funding arrangements, authority to give instructions and responsibility for decisions, insofar as these can properly be disclosed? Identify the records that answer the allegation.
HUNT-09 · Public accountability question
David Daniels · identified by Mr J
What was your role in the shooting and any involvement in the litigation?
Mr J alleges a connection between the shooting dispute and the direction of Mayo’s litigation. Are you the person referred to in the relocation correspondence? State your role in organising or hosting shooting, and whether you funded, directed or sought to influence the litigation. Address the allegation with records and a clear account of your involvement.
HUNT-10 · Public accountability question
Matthew Millichope · Ian McIver · Torridge District Council
Nine pages. A video. Where is the point-by-point answer?
Miss E sent her nine-page letter to Millichope on 29 March 2024 at 18:56 GMT, copying McIver and Mr J, then sent the video link at 19:33. She recorded an earlier viewing by McIver, challenged the different noise figures, and said Millichope had confirmed reading two letters to Daniels. Who reviewed the letter and footage? Produce a point-by-point answer, the two letters and Daniels’s response, and identify who prevented disclosure and why. What happened to the reported assurance that an inadequate response could lead to consideration of an abatement notice?
HUNT-11 · Public accountability question
Mark John Mayo · Bradley Ithildîn · Devon and Cornwall Police
Why was opposition to the shooting syndicate raised with the police?
Mayo’s 2 August 2024 email refers to the family’s dispute with the local shooting syndicate and characterises their noise complaint as opposition to countryside sports. What evidence supported that characterisation? Mayo: explain your role in or relationship with the shooting group alongside your statement that you preferred to remain neutral. Ithildîn: how did you distinguish a legitimate noise complaint from the conduct being investigated, and obtain the family’s account?
HUNT-12 · Public accountability question
Timothy Edmund Walsh · Ian McIver · Matthew Millichope · Phil Gilbert · Torridge District Council and responsible senior management
How was Miss E supposed to sleep or rest in her own bedroom when the Council’s monitoring summary reported gunshots reaching 80–90 dB inside her home?
The 7 March summary says several readings reached 80–90 dB; the 15 March assessment says some gunshots reached up to 80 dB. Mr J says the equipment stood beside Miss E’s bed. Each of you should answer within your responsibility: where were her ability to rest, the recurring shots, reported ear pain and filmed distress assessed? Council officers: identify the protective decisions, reasons and everyone responsible for them. Walsh: identify the evidence before you and the reasons addressing its impact in the claim you decided.
HUNT-13 · Public accountability question
David Daniels · the shooting organiser · Ian McIver · Matthew Millichope · Phil Gilbert · Torridge District Council
A recurring commercial shoot beside a home: who assessed the impact, and what controlled it?
Mr J says Daniels told him shooting supplemented his income, that the syndicate rents the land, and that its representatives described hand-rearing pheasants to shoot. Daniels and the organiser: confirm the arrangements, shooting locations, number of guns, dates and noise controls. Council: how did you assess the reported scale, repeated Saturdays and likely recurrence alongside the indoor readings and filmed distress? What explains allowing the reported disturbance to continue without an abatement notice, and what effective restrictions or mitigation protected the resident?
HUNT-14 · Public accountability question
Torridge District Council · Matthew Millichope · Ian McIver · Phil Gilbert
The evidence reached the Council. What protected Miss E—and who answers for avoidable harm?
Identify each decision-maker and the evidence available at each stage. What justified not serving an abatement notice, how was likely recurrence assessed, and what checked that the promised relocation worked? Explain how the March video submission and December renewed complaint affected the response. Will an uninvolved reviewer examine whether failures prolonged Miss E’s distress, identify any avoidable harm and recommend corrective action and redress? Preserve and produce the complete complaint, monitoring, assessment and mitigation records.