Case against gamekeeper William Curr, Glenogil Estate: part 4

scales-of-justiceCriminal proceedings have continued against Glenogil Estate gamekeeper William Curr, who is accused of various snaring offences alleged to have taken place in the Angus Glens in August and September 2014.

An intermediate diet was called at Forfar Sheriff Court on 19th January 2016 and the provisional trial date of 9th February was dumped. There will now be a further intermediate diet on 12th April and a new provisional trial date has been set for 9th May 2016.

Previous blogs on this case here, here and here.

9 thoughts on “Case against gamekeeper William Curr, Glenogil Estate: part 4”

  1. It is no wonder that a review should take place on the Scottish Legal System. It moves along at the pace of a snail and all to suit the legal ‘establishment’ who make mega bucks out of all the delays.

    Can we not find out what is causing the diets to be delayed and dates for trial to be abandoned? Should that not be public knowledge?

    1. Maybe you will be relieved to hear that the Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review (Gill Review) was published relatively recently (in 2009). The Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, passed as a response to the Review, is probably the biggest overhaul of the Scottish court system in decades (some of its provisions are not yet in force though).

      There was another review which looked into summary procedure back in 2004 (pretty much all wildlife crime ends up as a summary case). This report listed a number of issues re intermediate diets (some of these might be still pertinent):

      The point of the intermediate diet is to ensure that the case is ready to proceed to trial. If not, the sheriff will either adjourn the diet, but keep the trial date; or (perhaps less commonly) set new dates for intermediate diet and trial. These things can happen for a great number of reasons, such as issues with witness citations, the defence/prosecution is not prepared, insufficient court time.

      It is public knowledge in the sense that court proceedings are normally open to the public.

  2. So this is a snaring related case and xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx and unfortunately that is all that can be said except to say that the xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. What on earth is going on? Even the witnesses for the prosecution have had to find out about the change of dates from reading this RPS blog today! It is really a xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx so why the year plus long delay? There is a snare review coming up in Scotland this year and I am sure that the evidence gathered on this incident wouldn’t sit nicely with those who support snaring and are trying to persuade the Scottish Government that these crude, cruel and indiscriminate devises are humane. You decide.

  3. Same old; same old; same old – with the usual silence from ‘Aileen the Silent’. Does she actually exist?

  4. Agree with all the above about pace of court proceedings…the streamlining of the court system [including closing courts] doesnt seem to have achieved much?

  5. “the streamlining of the court system [including closing courts] doesnt seem to have achieved much?”elaye

    Criminals wont be complaining about this particularly those that are employed on wealthy sporting estates and whose employers pay for expensive rottweiler lawyers to defend them. Request endless adjournments for spurious reasons to put years between when the incident happened and when it eventually is dealt with by the courts.

    Add to to that fiscals that have not appitite to prosecute sporting estates.

    Summary justice indeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: