Further to this morning’s blog about the sentencing of part-time gamekeeper Timothy Hall, 48, and his son Lewis Hall, 23, who had previously pleaded guilty to multiple offences relating to the illegal laundering of wild peregrines stolen from nest sites across Scotland and then sold on under the guise of being legally captive-bred birds (see here), I want to write a few thoughts about this outcome.
There’s a lot to say about this case but I first want to acknowledge the multi-agency partnership working of all those involved in getting these criminals in to court. Beginning in May 2021, this investigation has been long-running, painstakingly meticulous and exceptionally diverse. The staggeringly inadequate sentences handed down today do not in any way reflect the dedicated and exemplary efforts of these agencies, all of whom deserve our appreciation and thanks.
Very well done to the Scottish Raptor Study Group (SRSG), Scottish SPCA, Police Scotland, National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) and the Animal Plant and Health Agency (APHA).
So, sentencing. We learned earlier today that Timothy Hall had been ordered to complete 220hrs of unpaid work over a period of 18 months and his son, Lewis Hall, 150hrs over a period of 15 months. They were both also banned from having birds of prey in their possession or under their control for a period of five years.
To say this is a disappointing sentence is a massive understatement. It’s not what any of us had expected, especially given that the presiding Sheriff, Peter Paterson, is no stranger to hearing wildlife crime cases (more on that below). It wasn’t as though this case was heard by an inexperienced and naïve member of the judiciary, nor that he wasn’t provided with extensive and compelling evidence about the scale of offending, which had been going on for several years and clearly met the standard of being serious and organised crime.
So why the staggeringly pathetic sentence, then?
I’m not going to try and justify it because I can’t. It’s even more inexplicable given the Sheriff’s track record. This is the Sheriff who presided over the notorious case against gamekeeper Alan Wilson in 2019, whose extensive wildlife crimes on the Longformacus Estate resulted only in an order to carry out 225hrs of unpaid work (and a 10-month curfew) – another monumentally inadequate sentence.
However, in that case Sheriff Paterson had acknowledged that Wilson’s offending warranted a custodial sentence but said that as the Wildlife & Countryside Act only allowed sentences of up to six months, and Scottish Ministers had recently introduced a presumption against jailing offenders for less than 12 months, he felt he had no choice but to impose a different sentence (here).
I argued against that logic (here), suggesting that because Wilson had been convicted of multiple offences, each carrying a maximum six month custodial penalty, a potential custodial sentence for all his offences would have exceeded the 12-month limit and so should have been imposed.
It wasn’t to be, but we consoled ourselves with the knowledge that increased penalties for wildlife crimes in Scotland were imminent (new legislation was enacted in Nov 2020), which elevated custodial sentences for certain wildlife crimes to five years in custody and unlimited fines, and so any future prosecutions would surely result in a tougher sentence, right?
Well apparently not.
There is some legitimate justification (although I don’t agree with it in this case) for Lewis Hall not to receive a custodial sentence. As of 26 January 2022 the Sentencing Young People guidelines in Scotland came into force, which argues that anyone under the age of 25 years should preferentially be given a rehabilitation order instead of a custodial sentence. However, and this is important, the guidelines state that the full range of sentencing options, including imprisonment, remains open to the court, but that a (shorter) custodial sentence should only be imposed on a young person when the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate.
Given that Lewis Hall (23) was up to his neck in serious organised crime, receiving huge payments from the Middle East into his own bank account, for the sale of stolen peregrines (according to the evidence), what possible reason did Sheriff Paterson have for only imposing a sentence of 150hrs unpaid work?? It doesn’t make sense.
And as for Timothy Hall (48), I can’t see any reason whatsoever why he shouldn’t have received a custodial sentence. Under the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, Timothy Hall’s offences, committed over a number of years, included crimes relating to Section 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (Protection of wild birds, their nests & eggs) and Section 6 (Sale, possession etc of live or dead wild birds, eggs etc), both of which now attract penalties of up to five years imprisonment and significant fines. The Sheriff even agreed Hall’s crimes had passed the custodial threshold, so why only impose a sentence of 220hrs unpaid work??
It makes a total mockery of the court’s sentencing powers, of the Government’s will to crack down on wildlife crime, of the investigating agencies’ hard work, of the public’s desire to see wildlife criminals held to account and of effective deterrents put in place for other would-be criminals.
Sure, Lewis Hall is still facing action under the Proceeds of Crime legislation, and both he and his father face an ongoing investigation by HM Revenue & Customs for undeclared income (£41,164 according to COPFS), but that should have all been in addition to punishment under the wildlife crime legislation.
I just can’t comprehend how they got off so lightly. Compare and contrast with two other recent cases, where a falconer was fined over £7,000 for a minor admin error when selling legitimately captive-bred peregrines (here) and a drug addicted tree surgeon was given an eight-week custodial sentence for robbing eggs from a single peregrine nest (here).
Timothy Hall’s wife, a serving police officer whose not guilty pleas were accepted by the court in December 2023 (but has a reserved fraud charge hanging over her, see here), remains suspended from Police Scotland on full pay. I don’t know how long she’s been employed as a serving officer but the pay scale for a constable ranges from £30,039 on commencing service up to £48,237 for up to 11 years of service.
I don’t doubt the Hall family will be celebrating this evening.
Here’s Lewis Hall leaving court after sentencing, screen-grabbed from BBC Reporting Scotland this evening:
UPDATE 26 June 2024: Prosecutors seeking to recover £164,000 from Scottish peregrine launderer Lewis Hall (here)
UPDATE 23 November 2024: Suzanne Hall, wife & mother of convicted peregrine launderers ‘no longer a serving police officer’ (here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
Well I won’t be celebrating. I’m as outraged as you evidently are. The Scottish Parliament is evidently wasting its time if thr judiciary disagree with the legislation passed.
They should have been fined £500] each and banned from ever coming in contact with any raptors gor life.
“They should have been fined £500”
Really?
Is there an opportunity for the sentences to be reviewed? This mere slap on the wrist is not going to deter anyone from taking our peregrines and other birds of prey for lucrative sales
“Is there an opportunity for the sentences to be reviewed?”
Not at the request of the general public in Scotland (unless the Scots campaign for an Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme).
Truly disappointing. I would be interested to know how many offenders actually complete their community hours and, if they don’t, what sanctions are imposed. I suspect the authorities just don’t bother but I really don’t know
How can we the Scottish tax paying public get this appalling sentencing reviewed – can we appeal it in any way or force some form of ‘judicial’ review ? Maybe Sheriff Paterson needs his head scanned ? xxxxx xxxxx Seriously though your final image just shows how this whole sorry affair brings the judiciary and the law into disrepute.
“How can we the Scottish tax paying public get this appalling sentencing reviewed – can we appeal it in any way or force some form of ‘judicial’ review ?”
No. The Scottish Government has declined to implement an Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme, so the general public can have NO say about the suitability of any sentencing.
You could complain to your MSP about that.
So, yet another case of just the proverbial slap on the wrist for those two serious offenders.
This is our governments seriously cracking down on crimes against wildlife?
Utterly ridiculous and pathetic. And after all the hard work completed by those various agencies to get those two to court. It must be terribly frustrating.
So, just the odd ten-hours per month of unpaid work then. That will really put them out, I’m sure.
They shouldn’t be allowed to have any bird of prey in their possession or under their control for the remainder of their lives.
It does make me wonder if Timothy Hall’s wife, being a serving police officer, had anything to do with the paltry sentencing.
Let’s hope HM Revenue & Customs deal with them far more harshly
Just a small point. The appalling sentencing for wildlife crimes generally, and in this case in particular, are not the fault of the government. In fact, the government appears to be making many of the right noises with the Wildlife Management (grouse moor reform) Bill.
“The appalling sentencing for wildlife crimes generally, and in this case in particular, are not the fault of the government.”
Of course they are! The Scottish Government could implement an Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme, but does not. You say that is not the fault of the Government. Why?
I believe there may be a problem with prisons already full. Thus there may be pressure on judges to use other punishment.
This is very well presented, Ruth. I hope some of our judiciary learn of the public disquiet shown here, and perhaps elsewhere.
Watching the news it clear that judiciary have let down the public. This organised crime and a custodial sentence should have been given to both. Worse still the wife and mother a policewoman. She xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. Xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.
I hope their is public outcry about this. We need to protect nature and this flies in face of this.
The agencies bringing these two villains to trail did great and this must be hugely disappointing.
Its an utter joke! Wildlife crime sentencing constantly makes me shake my head in disbelief. The judiciary just dont get the seriousness of wildlife crime in this country. The offenders are laughing in the faces of all the people working so hard to protect our wonderful wildlife. I cant for the life of me understand why offenders dont get banned from keeping birds of prey for life. They’re not going to abandon their attitude to bird crime and have a complete epiphany moment, in the years the limited ban is in place!
“The judiciary just dont get the seriousness of wildlife crime in this country”
I agree. But there is something we can do about that. If you live in either England or Wales you can complain to your MP that the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme excludes wildlife crime. Ask them to campaign to include wildlife crime.
If you live in Scotland, there isn’t even an Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme. You can ask your MSP to campaign for a Scottish version of the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme, and make sure it covers wildlife crime.
I totally agree with the sentiments uttered so far about these farcical sentences – living in Scotland and viewing many of the court cases , other commentators are correct – there is a disconnect between Parliament and the judiciary. No fines at all? Suspended sentences could have been useful if there was a reason not to jail them. On TV, they were obviously celebratimg as they left court
‘there is a disconnect between Parliament and the judiciary.”
On the contrary the Sheriff here was following the law made by the Scottish Parliament, who, in their wisdom, have just about made it impossible for a sheriff to send a first offender to prison for any less than 12 months. The reality is that these two were never going to get more than 12 months, so the chances of them ending up in prison were very slight.
This one, I’m afraid, is down to the politicians, not judges.
It’s a disastrous outcome.
Thumbs up and a big smile on my face, says to me …… ” I got away with it “. Disgusting.
It did occur to me that given their employment and and the accompanying network tone would think that the store of information they hold between them might make a number of people nervous. The extended network reaches all the way from those who come into contact with the birds nest to the end consumer, who must be extremely wealthy individuals who would be aghast if publically linked with an organised crime network.
Would, could pressure have been applied from that direction and there must have been others who facilitated the transactions who would not have been happy if they beleived that the convicted duo might be more than happy to sing a song about other adventures in the hope of a less severe sentence if pushed into a corner?
He is a gamekeeper with part-time hours. Calling him a part-time gamekeeper makes it sounds as if he only carried out part of the work and creates a sense of distance from the likes of those in full time employment. What have the SGA got to say about this case?
I look forward to the proceeds of crime being clawed back and donated to fighting wildlife crime.
The image at the foot of this piece about the ‘Lovely Lewis’ leaving court says it all. His thumbs up and huge grin may have well been two fingers up to the world.
We’re going backwards instead of forward in the fight against wildlife crime. Remember the cry ‘We Will Win’ by the protesters at the Hen Harrier gatherings years ago….Mmmmm!
And Timothy Hall’s wife didn’t know about any of this? It beggars belief.
She was securely living off the wages of a gamekeeper who only worked part time….hmmm?
If they adhere to a 5 year ban it would be a miracle.With all their contacts and expertise……they will just carry on but more carefully.The photo just shows they don’t give a damn.
The Police…..what a wonderful job they have done and the specialist evidence proving these were wild birds.How disappointed and let down must they feel.
Is it possible to launch an appeal to this pathetic JUDGEMENT?
What do you have to do to get a custodial sentence for pity’s sake?
“What do you have to do to get a custodial sentence for pity’s sake?”
That’s easy. In Scotland you start campaigning for an Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme – and for it to include wildlife crime – by writing to your MSP. You can use these sentences as examples…
Thank you Ruth for providing such a detailed account of how this sentence may have come about. I really hope some MSP’s read your blog, and raise the issues you highlight in the Scottish parliament. From what I have read, many in Scotland want Scotland to be a lead nation in protecting its valuable natural environment and wildlife. When criminals are convicted of wildlife crimes, then surely one would expect the courts to impose sentences which meet the expectations of the public who want such crimes taken seriously, and which reflect all the legislation being passed by the Scottish parliament to protect its wildlife. What has happened in this case has the potential to undermine the value of that legislation, which makes me wonder if some members of judicial system are out of touch with public expectations.
“When criminals are convicted of wildlife crimes, then surely one would expect the courts to impose sentences which meet the expectations of the public who want such crimes taken seriously”
How are such ‘expectations of the public’ arrived at, systematically?
The Scottish prisons are overflowing so it is not a surprise that there are no custodial sentences, see the article link below. There is no excusing the lenient sentences but under the present circumstances custody was never going to be an option hopefully they will have to pay back a lot of money
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68152057
Are costs awarded in Scottish Courts? If so, they may be substancial.
Does anyone know if there is redress under the Scottish system to get such inappropriate sentences reviewed?
“Does anyone know if there is redress under the Scottish system to get such inappropriate sentences reviewed?”
If you read all the comments you would find the answer. In short, there is no Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme for the Scottish general public to use. Whereas, in England and Wales there is. However, the English and Welsh Scheme excludes animal abuse and wildlife crime.
See, for example https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
Anyone can do it. I have used it myself. I think it is by far the best way of democratising sentencing.
We need to lobby our Parliamentary representatives to make changes. If you look deeper you will find plenty of Parliamentary support for extending the English and Welsh Scheme to include more types of crime… but not yet enough to make that change.
However, I have found no political support at all for allowing the Scottish Public to have any say whatsoever on sentencing for any type of crime:-( It is all kept within the small, professional, elite group which set and pass such dubious sentences. I don’t think that is democratic.
I suspect the fact his wife was a serving police officer is a factor here. It sounds as though she is under investigation otherwise so I won’t make any further comment. Having lived in Scotland for the past 9 years I would have to say it is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt. Scottish Rite Freemasonry is a major influence.