RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust are calling on the authorities to start imposing jail sentences on those convicted of killing birds of prey, and also to start using the option of prosecutions under vicarious liability legislation.
A prison term as a sentencing option is already in place – no new laws are required, just a willingness from the authorities to start using existing legislation to its full effect. To date, nobody has ever received a jail term for the persecution of raptors. The new measures for vicarious liability in relation to raptor crime came in to force on 1st January 2012 – over two years later and we’re still waiting to see the first case.
The Scotsman is running an article on this today (see here), and there was also an interesting radio debate on BBC Radio Scotland between RSPB Scotland’s Head of Investigations, Ian Thomson, and Scottish Land & Estates’ Moorland Group Director, Tim Baynes. The debate can be listened to here for another 7 days (starts at 50:36 and runs to 58:11).
Talking of vicarious liability, we’ll shortly be blogging about a presentation on this very subject that was given to the annual Police Wildlife Crime conference last week. The presenter was none other than David McKie, the defence lawyer for the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. An interesting choice of speaker, we thought, and we’ll be examining what he, and several other speakers, including the Environment Minister, had to say in due course.
Tomorrow there will be a debate in the Scottish Parliament called: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland. More on this later…
Raptor Persecution UK 
It’s more than time that we saw both prison sentences and use of the vicarious liability legislation. What is the POINT of having legislation that is not used, penalties that are not imposed? We’ve seen exactly the same scenario, over the years, in regard to industries such as salmon farming, which can cause serious environmental damage – e.g there have been massive fish escapes which were CLEARLY due to bad operation rather than the weather, seals, etc, and we’ve not seen anything done about it, though the law providing for that was passed several years ago.
Thanks for keeping us up to speed with events including through the various links. With Tim Baynes on behalf of the landowners still in denial of raptor persecution on grouse moors, there is obviously not going to be cessation of criminality in those areas.
Good luck with that !!!
Yes, if anyone is imprisoned, or if vicarious liability legislation is used, the first thing I will do is check for a blue moon.
I hope I am wrong, but my suspicion is that VL legislation is no more than a sop to those of us who have been calling for a robust approach in dealing with wildlife criminals. I doubt if there is any intention to use it because it is likely to fall at the first hurdle (If that happens it is finished). The principle of prosecuting a landowner who has staff committing wildlife crime, but without tested evidence that PROVES said landowner is involved or had pre-knowledge of his staff’s activities will have lawyers rubbing their hands all the way to the ECHR.
Can anyone realistically expect the ECHR to uphold a conviction against someone simply because the offence occurred on that person’s land.
I’ve mentioned it on here before, but I don’t think it coincidental that in the year that Vicarious Liability was introduced, fewer raptors were found poisoned, but then those landowners with an inbuilt hatred of all things predatory realised that it was rarely going to used (or ever!), and poisonings have risen again, including the recent mass poisoning at Conon Bridge, and the attempted mass poisoning at Leadhills last year.
Unbelievable……… The radio report was ended with Mr Baynes trotting out the half truth of the raptor persecution incidents decreasing markedly in recent years, and the presenter talking over Mr Thomson’s attempt to correct that. Sadly, the majority that don’t look up the facts will be most likely to believe that last statement. Journalists and the media know this, and the opportunity to reply should have been allowed.
I agree Chris. Ian Thomson should have been allowed to get his final point across to the listener, free from the deliberate interruption by the presenter.
On recent blogs if I try to post I get:
You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.
Help please
[Ed: Hi Andrew, someone else told us this over the weekend, too. We haven’t seen anything obviously wrong at this end but we’ll have a closer look…]