Following a comment made on this blog by an investigator from the animal charity OneKind, we would like to draw your attention to a blog on the OneKind website.
The blog, written by the OneKind field investigator, discusses the recent decision by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), supported by the Lord Advocate, not to prosecute an individual (identified by OneKind as a ‘head gamekeeper’ on a Scottish sporting estate) for allegedly beating crows to death inside a crow trap. The explanation given for this decision not to prosecute is astounding.
OneKind blog here
Raptor Persecution UK 
Surely it must be possible to see written down in full, the reasoning behind decisions like this. There may be a perfectly reasonable, legal argument why this particular case could not proceed…but if it was made on the grounds suggested [surveillance] then it just seems plain wrong. As the OneKind article states there have been many cases where such evidence was accepted and resulted in conviction.If this man had witnessed the gamekeeper being assaulted by a poacher, would that evidence not have been accepted?
Something appears to be very wrong with our justice system .
OneKind wrote to the Lord Advocate to ask why our field officer’s statement about gathering information in relation to the setting and using of legal snares had been interpreted as an intention to investigate potential snaring offences.
It was our belief that our field officer might legally take access to the land for the purpose of “furthering his own and others’ understanding of natural or cultural heritage” as provided by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 s. 1(5)(b).
We also said we could not see why Ward v McLeod was relevant in this case, as the field officer was not engaged in surveillance.
And we explained that in any case the witnessing of the incident was fortuitous and not connected with his purpose in taking access, as the Sheriff in WvM had made a distinction between these two instances.
Significant animal suffering was witnessed in this case and we believed that a prosecution and additional general guidance would have been in the public interest.
We were informed however that Crown Counsel’s decision in the case was final.
Amusingly, one of our readers posted a link to the OneKind blog on the SGA’s Facebook page. He asked, amongst other things, whether the individual filmed in the video was a member of the SGA? The post has now mysteriously ‘disappeared’!
SGA has released a statement on its website and claims the keeper filmed in the OneKind video is not an SGA member: http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/content/sga-response-wake-onekind-video
The criminal justice system in the country is part of the problem. Perhaps it should be renamed “criminal protection system”.
For the record, my comments & questions are in fact still visible on the Scottish Gamekeepers Association SGA’s facebook page.
N.B. You need to click on Everyone (Most Recent) at the top, for visitor’s posts to appear.
However my question, as yet, has not been answered.
As a former Gamekeeper myself, I was absolutely disgusted by the actions of this Keeper, especially given the fact that we are told he is actually a Head Keeper, so is presumably teaching younger Keepers that this sort of behaviour is acceptable.
Despite the attitude of the law in this case, I trust that the SGA will agree with me, that this sort of behaviour is absolutely not acceptable & that this Keeper’s totally inept & frankly barbaric handling of that situation, brings the profession into disrepute, at a time when keepers need all the friends they can get!
Nope, your comments and questions have been removed from the SGA’s facebook page!
Just received this response from the SGA!
Response from SGA RE: OneKind Video of gamekeeper dispatching crows with a small stick!
“Scottish Gamekeepers Association has clarified that the individual involved in the legal case is not a member of the organisation.”
See full reply here:
http://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/content/sga-response-wake-onekind-video-