Vicarious liability prosecution: Andrew Duncan (Newlands Estate) part 4

scales-of-justiceCriminal proceedings continued last week against Andrew Walter Bryce Duncan, who is alleged to be vicariously liable for the crimes committed by gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick in April 2014.

Gamekeeper Dick was convicted in August 2015 of killing a buzzard on the Newlands Estate, Dumfriesshire by striking it with rocks and repeatedly stamping on it (see here). Dick was sentenced in September 2015 and was given a £2000 fine (see here), although he is appealing his conviction.

Proceedings against Andrew Duncan, 71, who is believed to be responsible for the pheasant shoot on Newlands Estate, began in August 2015 and a provisional trial date was set for 23rd November 2015 (see here). However, at an intermediate diet hearing in October, the November trial date was dumped and a notional diet hearing (where a trial date may be set) was set for 18th January 2016 (see here). At the January hearing, proceedings were adjourned again for another notional diet and a debate to take place on 11th March 2016.

At last week’s hearing the case was continued again, pending the result of William (Billy) Dick’s appeal.

The next installment of Andrew Duncan’s case will be heard on 4th April 2016.

Vicarious liability in relation to the persecution of raptors in Scotland (where one person may potentially be legally responsible for the criminal actions of another person working under their supervision) came in to force four years ago on 1st January 2012. To date there have been two successful convictions: one in December 2014 (see here) and one in December 2015 (see here).  One further case did not reach the prosecution stage due, we believe, to the difficulties associated with identifying the management structure on the estate where the crimes were committed (see here).

Previous blogs on the Andrew Duncan case here, here and here.

6 thoughts on “Vicarious liability prosecution: Andrew Duncan (Newlands Estate) part 4”

  1. [Ed: Thanks crypticmirror, that was amusing and probably ‘safe’ but as you can see, we’ve not posted it just to be on the safe side. These cases are all too rare and all too important to jeopardise, and even though your comment probably wouldn’t have jeopardised it, someone might have tried to imply you/we had].

  2. [Ed: Thanks Tony. Agreed, but to be on the safe side we’re not publishing your comment while this case is still being heard]

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: