Scottish gamekeeper Robert Alexander Christie (58) was convicted today at Forfar Sheriff Court for wildlife crimes relating to the illegal use of a crow cage trap. He was ‘punished’ by receiving an admonishment.
Christie pled guilty to taking a wild bird, possessing a wild bird, and using an illegal trap by failing to adhere to the terms of the general licence (this general licence governs the use of crow cage traps in Scotland).
The offences took place on the Lindertis Estate near Kirriemuir, Angus on 8 August 2010. Lindertis Estate is listed as a sporting estate providing pheasant and partridge shooting (see here). A tawny owl was rescued from inside a crow cage trap in a wood on the estate by a member of the public. The owl was reportedly in poor condition (severely malnourished and unable to hold its own bodyweight on its legs) when it was found and it was sent to a vet for treatment. The owl was released back into the wild on 13 August.
The crow cage trap reportedly did not contain food or shelter, and a tray of water contained green algae, and the trap did not have an identification tag, all contrary to the terms of the general licence.
Christie has 24 years of gamekeeping experience and has been employed as a full-time gamekeeper on this estate for approximately 18 years.
Also due to appear in court was Christie’s employer, who according to Burke’s Peerage is a hereditary peer: The Rt Hon The Lord Colyton, although in the court listing his name was given as Alisdair John Munro Hopkinson. Charges against Hopkinson related to allegedly causing/permitting the gamekeeper to use an illegal trap (Wildlife & Countryside Act). However, charges against Hopkinson were not proceeded, perhaps because Christie pled guilty.
This case was prosecuted by one of the new specialist wildlife fiscals, Shona McJannett. She is quoted as saying:
“Today’s conviction highlights the importance of ensuring that crow cage traps are operated legally in terms of the general licence. The protection of our wildlife is a priority and a robust view will be taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to any reports alleging breach of these general licence conditions.”
Now, it’s refreshing news to hear that COPFS will take a ‘robust view’ of this type of wildlife crime and hopefully they will continue to prosecute these cases, but the penalty handed out by the court doesn’t quite match the Fiscal’s view of the seriousness of the offence. Christie’s ‘punishment’ (the admonishment) is effectively no punishment at all. It’s basically a ‘telling off’ (see here for a definition) and because he wasn’t given a more serious penalty (e.g. a fine) it means he is NOT banned from continuing to operate crow cage traps under the general licence. What sort of deterrent is a telling off? What message does this send to other wildlife criminals? Does anyone think Christie will lose his job now he’s got a conviction for wildlife crime?
It is not known whether Christie is a member of the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. Anyone interested in finding out can ask the SGA by emailing: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk. We would be very interested to learn whether he is a member, and if so, does his wildlife crime conviction mean that he is now barred from the club professional body?
Despite the pathetic ‘penalty’ (can you even call it that?), big kudos to the SSPCA for leading on this investigation, and well done also to COPFS for prosecuting; it’s not often we have cause to congratulate COPFS but on this occasion its deserved.
If you are out and about in the Scottish hills and glens and come across a trapped raptor caught inside a crow cage trap (or any other trap for that matter), then you should call the SSPCA hotline immediately: 03000-999-999
SSPCA press release here
News article on Deadline News website here
COPFS press release here
See here for another blog on why Christie only got a telling off
STOP PRESS: One of our readers (thank you!) has contacted us to say he thinks this is the same estate that we blogged about last June (see here). Obviously we’re unable to confirm or refute this as the name of the estate in the June blog was kept a big secret, although the location is very similar!
Raptor Persecution UK 
Would be interesting to hear the mitigation used by this QC to defend the keeper…any detail on that?
If its suggested the keeper didnt know the Law here…it doesnt say much for this so-called profession…or indeed for those who are meant to be educating their fellow “professionals”…does it?
Just read the COPFS release…. “He indicated that he had heard of the open general licence but that he hadn’t read it and stated that although the trap has an ID number supplied by the police and although he had the required tag, they were not fitted”.
As I said above…so much for the “profession” of gamekeeping.24 years a keeper and doesnt know the basic rules covering his job.
Oh I think he will know the rules, but just does not give a dam, the same as his Boss. Here again I think it’s Gamekeepers being protected by there Lords and masters. Wonder what the going rate for a QC is nowadays.
Hi Ho. I do hope his slapped wrist doesn’t hurt too much! So much for vicarious liability being our new deterrent. Who says money (and title) doesn’t talk! As for asking the SGA whether Christie is one of their members, they have a very efficient answering system to deal with such enquiries – they simply don’t reply! No need to ask why I would suggest. It seems we are still in ‘ground-hog’ mode.
Hi Tony. Vicarious liability wouldn’t apply in this case as the offence took place in 2010 before VL was introduced (1st January 2012).
Point taken, but in reality I wonder whether it would have made any difference anyway. What do you think?
It’s hard to know but we’ll find out in a year or two when cases from this year finally make it to court…
Lord Colyton – and I suppose his great, great, great, great grandfather once lit the King’s pipe with a portable tinderbox…………………..
Pip – or rather Pip-pip
How quickly you’ve rushed to your keyboards to punch out vitriolic criticism from a position of ignorance, so I’ve logged into this site purely to express a more balanced view from a platform of actually having knowledge of both the man involved and the charges against him as I was to some extent involved in the defence.
I’ve know Bob Christie for many years and can assure you all that he’s a fine gamekeeper and an equally fine countryman who spends his life in the protection of wildlife rather than its unlawful destruction. I know this for certain because, although now a resident Estate deerstalker, I spent many years as a head gamekeeper myself and am therefore in a reasonable postion to judge.
Bob fell foul of no more than the red tape of the strictest letter of the law in this case, and that’s why he received what all of you would describe as a derisory punishment. He’d rendered the trap out of use many
months previous to the incident by jamming open the door with a very large log, thus ensuring that anything accidentally getting into it could very easily makes its own escape. Unfortunately for him the strict letter of the law dictates that true decommissioning of a trap should involve unscrewing the door hinges and removing the door entirely and in that regard he failed.
The offence was therefore somewhat akin to you or I being caught and prosecuted for doing 33 mph in a built up area. In other words an offence at the very bottom end of the scale of wildlife crime. The Court recognised that simple fact and accordingly dealt with the matter by way of a mere admonishment in what you’ve described disparagingly as “a slap on the wrist.”
Given that he went a long way – albeit not quite far enough – to render the trap useless I wonder if you’ve considered at all whether a more appropriate way forward for the authorities would have been to simply have a word of caution for him rather than spending so much public money on this prosecution, only to end up being rewarded with what must be to them such an unsatisfactory result. Was all this really in the public interest ? Or indeed of raptors in general ?
Whilst asking yourselves that question you might spare a moment to exercise your intellects on this one too – isn’t it just a stunningly gigantic stretch of the imagination to believe that this unfortunate owl managed to get into the trap and then remove the large log jamming the door open and close the door upon itself and lock it shut ? Only then a short while later to be miraculously discovered and saved by a “passing” member of the public ! Do any of you really believe that all this occurred without some sort of human intervention ? Do any of you know of the remoteness of the wood in which the trap was placed, or indeed have any knowledge of the almost non-existent passing foot traffic in there ? Just think for a second or two about the level of coincidence involved here.
These are matters that would have crossed the judge’s mind in his considerations, even though they might well fail to have crossed your closed minds.
Removing the door of the trap completely would have made this “coincidence” impossible and in that regard Bob failed and therefore, rightly and honourably, recognised his shortcomings entered a plea of guilty. So the Crown got its hollow victory. This wasn’t a case, as you’ve suggested, of the high and mighty succeeding in protecting their own sporting interests but one of simple pragmatism and common sense on the part of the judge in recognising the truth in the case and the truly minimal nature of the offence.
Those of us who devote our professional lives to making the countryside work all take violent exception to those in our professional who knowingly and intentionally kill wildlife in contravention of legislation. It does happen, of course, and I accept that as fact but when they get caught and it becomes publicised it does us decent men in the profession nothing but great harm. We all become tarnished by the criminality of the few.
I ask you to dilute your fanaticism and think outside of the box for a change. Read between the lines a little. Maybe even ask if you’ve ever yourselves accidentally strayed just that little bit over the line that defines the law in its precise written form rather than rushing to attack and castigate what is a perfectly decent and honest man who simply did just that.
In case you’re in doubt let me stress that I thoroughly approve of what organisations like yours purport to achieve. I simply struggle at times with the manner in which you express your blinkered fanatical views. It might be an idea to consider that the vast majority of us are actually on your side rather than against you.
Will Gallant
Will,
Thanks for your comment but you’ve got to be kidding, right? Are you trying to tell us that this was a set-up job (by the RSPB, perhaps?) as opposed to Christie’s actions (or lack thereof) being responsible for causing that owl to suffer?
And removal of the door is not the only way of making the trap lawfully immobilised – he also had the option of padlocking the door open. How hard is that?
Sorry if you feel we’re fanatical but you only have to read through a few of these blog pages to see why there is so much anger and frustration. It is widely known that many gamekeepers are using crow traps to illegally target raptors, so yes, it is absolutely in the public interest to prosecute cases that involve misuse of these traps.
For the record, we don’t think all gamekeepers are at it, but we know that a lot are.
Perhaps with your insider knowledge of Christie you could tell us whether (a) he’s a member of the SGA and (b) whether he is the gamekeeper who received a Fiscal’s warning last year for snaring offences?
No, I’m not kidding – even in the slightest. We’ve no actual hard evidence of this being a set-up but we know fine well in our own hearts and minds that it was. If we but had that evidence then someone else would’ve been in the dock rather than Bob, but without it we weren’t able to use it as any form of defence strategy and that’s precisely why a guilty plea had to be entered. We’re as sure as we can be this was done by a private person and no accusation is levelled against any organisation. Had you seen for yourself the trap and the way it was left then you too would know that the owl simply couldn’t have become entrapped without some sort of “help” and you’d then also have your own strong suspicions about this sorry affair.
Of course Bob managed to get it wrong and I think I said just that. He fell short of securing the proper decommissioning of the trap by failing to remove the door or padlock it open. He certainly should have taken the door off if only to safeguard himself against third parties attempting to incriminate him, and he’s paid the cost that the Court saw fit to impose in this particular case. I’m fairly sure you’d have to agree that his misjudgement was extremely low level and accept that the judge saw it that way too, however disappointing that may be to you.
Take no offence with my use of the word “fanatical”. There’s nothing wrong with it and I’m as much a passionate fanatic about shooting, stalking, fishing and generally being a worthy countryman as you are about the protection of raptors. Where it can go wrong, however, is when you allow that passion or fanaticism to blind you to the other side of the story wherever they may be one and stop you from taking a balanced view. I accept that there are cases where there simply isn’t another side to it and then the offender normally gets the book thrown at him by the judge, and quite rightly so. This just wasn’t one of those cases.
I disagree that many keepers are targeting raptors. Of course some are, as we all know, and I’m glad when they get caught and punished and lose their jobs and careers by consequence for that’s all they deserve. They’ve no right to live in the same countryside that I do. I’m equally glad and relieved that you don’t think all keepers are engaging in this but I think you’re wrong in your assertion that a lot are. I think it’s a few bad apples who simply can’t or won’t see that there’s a place in the countryside for everything, including even species that harm our gamestocks. It simply goes back to an appreciation of balance, which is what the true countryman understands completely.
I’m not sure if Bob’s in the SGA and I think if he’d had a previous warning I’d probably know of it – and I don’t.
Finally, he was represented simply by his solicitor David McKie. And Lord Colyton, his boss and also a friend of mine, is not a “pip, pip” sort at all (see a previous contributor’s unnecessary and unintelligent comment) but a very straight down to earth hard working guy who’d never in a month of Sundays countenance any form of wildlife crime on his ground.
Thank you for at least having the guts to post what I had to say previously but I make no apology for expressing views that are not entirely consistent with your own. In all candour I’m sick of us in fieldsports constantly coming under suspicion and attack when a raptor meets an untimely death for there are certainly other dark forces at work as well sometimes. I think you need to recognise that as and where it applies.
Will
Will
Thanks for your further comments. Forgive our cynicism but all the available evidence points to the widespread persecution of raptors by gamekeepers. How else do you explain the gaping holes in raptor population distribution, many of which just happen to coincide with land managed for game shooting (and particularly but not exclusively driven grouse shooting)? How else do you explain that of all those convicted of raptor persecution the vast majority (70+%) were gamekeepers? How many times have we heard gamekeepers say, “It wasn’t me, someone else must have planted that poison bait/dead bird to set me up”? And how many cases has there ever been against ‘someone’ planting evidence?
It was interesting to read your comment: “I accept that there are cases where there simply isn’t another side to it and then the offender normally gets the book thrown at him by the judge, and quite rightly so”. Can you name a single case of raptor persecution where the offender ‘got the book thrown at him’? The truth is that the maximum penalty has NEVER been applied in any of these cases (hence the blog about Christie’s admonishment – it’s part of a much wider picture). Typically these offenders (if they’re caught at all) receive an admonishment or a community service order or a derisory fine, despite the availability of harsher penalties.
The ‘few bad apples’ theory simply doesn’t wash anymore. This has been going on for decades all over the country and we think the public are finally beginning to understand this. You’re right, and we agreed earlier, not all gamekeepers are at it but it’s exceptionally difficult to differentiate the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’ because the ‘good’ seem so reluctant to ‘out the bad’. Most are simply in denial.
Perhaps you could ask Christie directly about his SGA membership and also whether he received a Fiscal’s warning for snaring offences last year?
Well, I take my hat off to you for such an eloquently put together reply backed up with stats that weren’t within my sphere of knowledge.
As to the size of the book that may get thrown at anyone convicted of this sort of thing is concerned I don’t think it relies purely on the Court. My understanding is that the sentence is generally coupled with job loss, along with the loss of the house and vehicle that usually go with it, and the revocation of shotgun and firearms certificates that then lead to effective expulsion from the whole profession. That’s why I think that any decent keeper simply can’t even consider getting involved since there’s so much at stake for him to lose.
On the matter of people being set up I firmly believe that to be the position in more cases than any of us would be comfortable accepting. Certainly I have personal knowledge of two cases in which I had some involvement where prosecutions thankfully collapsed due to underhand dirty tricks on the part of the authorities suddenly coming to light. Therein lies the birth of my own cynicism and you’ll agree that everone’s views are formulated by their own personal experiences. Add to that the simple truism that that the shooting world comes under attack from all quarters and it’s little wonder we become sick of the whole thing and generally defensive of our own position.
I posted what I wanted to say as an expression of my own personal views and it’s become clear that we’re simply on opposite sides of the street looking at the same traffic but from somewhat differing perspectives. I can only assure you that the enormous number of countryside professionals that I know and would call friends – and, yes, that very much includes Bob Christie – are thoroughly decent people who are totally opposed to the persecution of raptors and any other form of wildlife crime.
Perhaps I’ve just been lucky in my choice of friends.
Will