Month: June 2013

Buzzard euthanised after caught in illegal leg-hold trap

More than nine weeks ago, a buzzard was caught in an illegal leg-hold trap. According to local sources this happened on land part-managed for gamebird shooting in central Scotland. The buzzard’s injuries were such that it had to be euthanised.

Police Scotland have still not informed the public about this incident. Why not?

It happened in March, before the Easter Bank Holiday. They’ve had almost ten weeks to inform the public. In whose interest is it to keep this incident a dirty little secret?

We’ve blogged about this a million times before. They don’t have to give away details that might compromise an investigation – all they need to say is that an illegally trapped buzzard has been discovered, it didn’t survive its injuries, and a police investigation is underway. It’s really that simple. Here’s a recent example:

Police Wildlife Crime Officers in Devon & Cornwall Police blogged on 27th May 2013 that two dead buzzards, found in suspicious circumstances, had been reported to them that day. A couple of days later they provided an update to say the birds had been retrieved and had been sent off for toxicology analysis.

Here’s another example:

On 22nd May 2013, Gwent Police appealed for information after a shot peregrine falcon had to be euthanised. The shooting had been reported to the police only two days previously, on 20th May 2013 (see here).

Here’s another example:

On 6th April 2013, Norfolk Constabulary issued a press statement to say that a man had been arrested on suspicion of a number of wildlife crime offences after the discovery of over a dozen dead birds of prey. He had been arrested just two days earlier on 4th April 2013 (see here). [Incidentally, this man’s bail expired on 22nd May and we’re waiting to hear the latest development in this case].

So you see it’s quite possible for police forces to release information in a timely manner when they want to. It’s not as though the public aren’t interested in buzzard conservation in Scotland – a recent petition urging the Scottish Government not to licence a buzzard cull has now reached over 20,000 signatures in about a week (see here and please sign it if you haven’t already done so).

 We’ll repeat the question posed earlier: in whose interest is it for Police Scotland to remain silent about this illegally-trapped buzzard?

Buzzard licensing: turning up the heat

buzzard 3Last Thursday we blogged about the buzzard licensing scandal and how new information had come to light (see here). We are still in the middle of taking legal advice on what information we can and can’t release.

We also posed two questions; one to Natural England and one to the National Gamekeepers Organisation:

Question to the National Gamekeepers Organisation: “Bearing in mind the NGO’s published Disciplinary Procedure (see here), did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application and has he ever been suspended or expelled as a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation?”

So far, the NGO has refused to answer.

Question to Natural England: “Did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application?”

Today, Natural England has issued a refusal notice, i.e. they are refusing to confirm or deny that they hold any details about convictions on the licence application.

Here is a copy of that refusal notice: 2018_response_RD_tcm6-36002

Natural England claim that the information we have asked for falls into the ‘personal information’ category as defined under the Data Protection Act 2000. As such, they consider it would be ‘unfair’ to disclose the information requested.

We disagree with them. If this individual did have a wildlife crime conviction at the time of his application, then details of that conviction would be a matter of public record, therefore it wouldn’t qualify as protected personal information.

The information we asked for was not, ‘What was the applicant’s conviction?’, it was ‘Did he have a conviction?‘ Natural England could have answered our question with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. By doing so, the disclosure of the information would not breach the individual’s privacy as the information could not be used to identify him. The question is not so much about the gamekeeper per se, but it is central to questions about Natural England’s policy on licence applications to destroy protected species and/or their nests and eggs. We believe that scrutiny of their policy is very much in the public interest.

As Natural England has issued a refusal notice, we intend to challenge it by asking for a review. We would encourage blog readers to also challenge it. If you’re not sure how to phrase it, you could always just cut and paste the following:

To: foi@naturalengland.org.uk

Dear Natural England,

Thank you for your refusal notice to prevent disclosure of whether the buzzard licence applicant had an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application.

I would like to request a review of your decision.

I don’t believe that the disclosure of the information I have requested meets the criteria as defined in the Data Protection Act, because a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer would suffice. A ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer would not compromise the privacy (hidden identity) of the buzzard licence applicant, but it would inform a wider debate on the policy used by Natural England to issue licences to destroy protected species and/or their nests and eggs. This is clearly in the pubic interest.

I look forward to hearing from you.

And if you’re in an email-writing mood, let’s keep up the pressure on the National Gamekeepers Organisation to answer this very simple question:

To: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

Dear Lindsay Waddell,

Bearing in mind the NGO’s published Disciplinary Procedure, did this gamekeeper have an un-spent work-related conviction at the time of his application and has he ever been suspended or expelled as a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation?