Criminal proceedings continued at Elgin Sheriff Court today against Scottish gamekeeper Stanley Gordon.
Mr Gordon, 60, of Cabrach, Moray, is facing a charge in connection with the alleged shooting of a hen harrier in June 2013. He has denied the charge.
Here’s a summary of what’s happened so far in this case:
Hearing #1 (19 May 2016): Case continued without plea until 16 June 2016.
Hearing #2 (16 June 2016): Case continued without plea until 14 July 2016.
Hearing #3 (14 July 2016): Case continued without plea until 11 August 2016.
Hearing #4 (11 August 2016): Case continued without plea until 1 September 2016.
Hearing #5 (1 September 2016): Mr Gordon enters a not guilty plea. A provisional trial date is set for 19 December 2016, with an intermediate diet set for 18 November 2016.
Hearing #6 (18 November 2016): Case adjourned for another intermediate diet on 2 December 2016.
Hearing #7 (2 December 2016). Provisional trial date of 19 December is dumped. Case adjourned for another intermediate diet on 10 February 2017.
Hearing #8 (10 February 2017). A new trial date has been set for 21 March 2017.
10 thoughts on “Case against gamekeeper Stanley Gordon re: shot hen harrier, part 8”
My bet is that by the time this case eventually comes to trial, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
[Ed: Fair comment, David, but not prepared to publish at this stage in proceedings]
Please let me know when they get to part 18 !!
You couldn’t make it up could you. There will probably be a film about it one day! Probably called xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Are they just waiting for everyone involved to die of old age?
Is this all happening so that eventually the prosecution will be ‘time’ barred? and the case is thrown out?
The prosecution can no longer become time barred. Prosecution proceedings against the accused began within the three year time limit (just!), i.e. within three of years of when the alleged offence took place.
That’s not to say the case couldn’t still be called off – the Sheriff may decide for a number of reasons that the case shouldn’t proceed, but if he/she does that, it won’t be because the case has become time barred.
Thanks RPUK for clarifying the legal position with regards to the prosecution of this case.
If the courts keep delaying this for long enough, the guy will be dead of old age!
Probably not the court’s fault – the question should really be why it took COPFS almost 3 years to make decision to prosecute.
This case has gone through the court system relatively quickly, in contrast say, to this one:
Are you sure that the new trial date is 21 March (and not in April)?
My understanding is that on 10 February the intermediate diet was adjourned to March, so the case will call for an ID again on 21 March to allow parties to deal with the preliminary issue before the trial.