Not for the first time, a gamekeeper has been convicted for raptor persecution crime on Moy Estate, a notorious grouse- shooting estate in Scotland.
The RSPB has issued the following press statement:
GAMEKEEPER PLEADS GUILTY TO SHOOTING SPARROWHAWK ON SCOTTISH GROUSE MOOR
- Gamekeeper caught by footage taken by RSPB Scotland Investigations team
- Fined £1500
- The conservation charity is calling for urgent implementation of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill which will bring in grouse moor licensing, aimed at stopping crimes against birds of prey
At Inverness Sheriff’s Court today (31 March 2023), Rory Parker (24), pleaded guilty to shooting a Sparrowhawk whilst employed as a gamekeeper on the Moy Estate, Inverness.
He is the 56th gamekeeper to be convicted of raptor persecution offences in Scotland since 1990.
The conviction was secured after the incident was directly filmed by RSPB Scotland Investigations staff on 16 September 2021. Footage shows the bird circling overhead, before a gun is raised by the defendant and then the bird is shot out of the sky, before finally being collected by the gamekeeper. A plastic ‘decoy’ owl can be seen close to the gamekeepers position and is most likely being used as a lure to attract live birds of prey to be shot.
A search led by Police Scotland of the suspects address and land on the Moy Estate took place on 19 September 2021 when he was arrested and interviewed.
All birds of prey are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and killing them is against the law, punishable by an unlimited fine and/or jail.
Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations for RSPB Scotland, said: “This conviction was the end result of exemplary partnership working between Police Scotland, RSPB Scotland, the Wildlife DNA Forensics team at Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture and the Wildlife & Environmental Crime Unit of COPFS.
“It is clear, however, with the shooting of a red kite on another Highland grouse moor earlier this week [Ed: see here], and ongoing investigations into incidents on other estates, that current sanctions appear to be no deterrent to criminal activity by employees of the grouse shooting industry, with their onslaught against protected birds of prey continuing unabated”.
Ian added: “We hope that the Scottish Parliament expedites the passage of laws in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill introducing proper regulation of that industry, where the right to shoot grouse is dependent on operating within the law”.
Nationally, the RSPB’s recently published Birdcrime report for 2021 found that over two-thirds of confirmed raptor persecution incidents were in relation to land managed for gamebird shooting.
ENDS
There’s a lot to say about this conviction, and this estate, and it will probably take several blogs to get through it all.
For those who don’t know, Moy Estate is already serving a three-year general licence restriction (June 2022-2025) after Police Scotland provided the licensing authority (NatureScot) with evidence of wildlife crime against birds of prey on the estate, notably the discovery of a poisoned red kite in 2020 and ‘incidents in relation to trapping offences’. I wrote a blog about it at the time (see here) which also includes details of the long and sorry history of raptor persecution uncovered on this estate over the last decade.
And they’re still at it.
More on today’s conviction shortly.
UPDATE 31st March 2023: Moy gamekeeper convicted – cue damage limitation exercise by grouse shooting industry (here)
UPDATE 1st April 2023: The sentencing of raptor-killing Moy Estate gamekeeper Rory Parker (here)
UPDATE 4th April 2023: Game-shooting industry’s response to the conviction of Moy Estate gamekeeper Rory Parker (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
One of the many sad things about this is the fact that this man does not automatically lose his firearms (shotgun) certificate. As the shotgun was an implement used in the process of a criminal act then then losing access to firearms should be written into law as an automatic sanction in cases like this. The shooting industry would appear to many to have special treatment in this area — and that should be rectified immediately.
“As the shotgun was an implement used in the process of a criminal act then then losing access to firearms should be written into law as an automatic sanction in cases like this”
Shockingly, the official statistics of “Offences involving the use of firearms” – published each year by the Office for National Statistics from data supplied by police forces in England and Wales
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/previousReleases
and collated in
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/offencesinvolvingtheuseoffirearms/yearendingmarch2019#how-are-firearm-offences-defined-and-measured
*exclude* all crimes involving firearms and wildlife.
However, I do not believe that is true of the Scottish statistics. See section 3.8 Classification in this
https://www.gov.scot/publications/recorded-crimes-offences-involving-firearms-scotland-2018-19-2019-20/pages/4/
If this act was caught on camera then it is a clear cut case. Why hasn’t this criminal been sent to prison!
And they won’t stop until we metaphorically [Ed: sorry, Steve, I can’t publish that!]. As God made little green apples…
The only other option open is going to be banning shooting, especially as despite this estate being punished for previous shootings* they continue to misbehave and abuse birds of prey and xxxxx xxxxx They will only have themselves to blame if this is the end result and maybe its the only way for some of those xxxxx estates owners to get the message. Well done to the RSPB, the police and its other partners for getting a result.
[Ed: *This estate hasn’t been punished for ‘previous shootings’. Other types of raptor persecution, yes, but not shooting]
Thanks for the correction, it still proves they have little regard for the rules though. Which makes you wonder how affective just regulating them would be.
So video evidence is admissable now? (good! btw) When did I miss that change?
It always was, it’s how it’s collected that was the previous issue (and a contentious one at that)
Okay. I need to rephrase; how was this video evidence admissible?
I love the story that KC spouted about shooting pigeons, seeing the bird and a rush of blood. So pigeons are a problem on a grouse moor????? You use an owl decoy to lure pigeons??? Then you get so angry at the sparrow hawk for not eating enough pigeons that you have to kill it.
Pigeons causing damage to a grouse moor? How does that sit with the general licence?
So he’s fined – and the estate will no doubt pay. When are we going to see someone imprisoned, something the estate won’t ‘take on’ for him?
Nor was the xxxxx xxxxx or xxxxx up on the same charge. The principle of “vicarious responsibility” is surely as applicable in these cases as in any other. It seldom happens though.
Are senior police and fiscals too chummy with the lairds? Nor are the culprits, when convicted, required to pay costs. The costs in a case like this will run into thousands of pounds and make the fine look trivial, as indeed it is.
[Ed: We’ve yet to hear whether there’ll be a charge for vicarious liability in this case. Hurdle one was identifying/convicting the perpetrator. If a prosecutor can demonstrate that his immediate boss didn’t take all due diligence etc, then a charge may be coming]
I just note that he was allowed to resign and not sacked. So his employer didn’t consider that what he did was gross misconduct? I wonder who paid for his KC?
I have never seen any indiction that an employee was ever sacked. The employer was apparently [Ed: rest of comment deleted as libellous]
I rather think that it is fortunate that the person pleaded guilty.
Had he not done so, then the COPFS may well have interceded to dismiss the case.
In 2017 several cases were dropped because the law was “re-interpreted”, perhaps by persons in the Crown Office who did not like to see gamekeepers convicted of crimes or possibly because they actually believed the law was being misinterpreted (I trust that is not too close to being libellous). The main issue was, as stated in a COPFS letter :
“(i) The statutory access rights granted by section 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 are granted for specific purposes. The purpose of investigating and detecting crime is not one of those purposes. It follows that someone who is on land for such a purpose is not there pursuant to the rights granted under the Act.” Unless the RSPB was able to view the event away from the estate or had the permission of the landowner to be present it seems to me that the would fall foul of the 2017 reinterpretation.
I hope that the COPFS has had second thoughts on the matter since that time. I have believed, as stated by several gamekeepers as well as myself, that the Crown Office is on their side. It should be almost impossible to obtain a conviction for a wildlife crime in Scotland. I note test the COPFS was mentioned by the RSPB as being part of the team.
I rejoice that, however it happened, a conviction has been obtained.
The Crown Office does not take the same stance when a gangster shoots dead a rival on private property. The Crown view is only sustainable because it is being held up by politicians. Police have the right to enter property without a warrant when in “hot pursuit”.