Press release from South Wales Police (28 June 2024):
NEATH MAN GUILTY OF DISTURBING RARE BIRDS OF PREY
A 68-year-old man from Neath has appeared before Swansea Magistrates Court where he was found guilty and fined more than £1,600 pounds for offences against the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 after disturbing a nest of one of the country’s rarest birds.
On Tuesday, June 25, John Paul Haffield was sentenced following a trial of disturbing a nest containing an extremely rare breeding pair of Honey Buzzards and their eggs.
He visited nest sites of Schedule 1 protected birds such as birds of prey and other species throughout Wales taking photographs of the birds and their young or their eggs within the nest and then offered those photographs for sale online on his own website.
The website contained more than 200 photographs of birds, many of which were protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Amongst those photographs were pictures of the Honey Buzzard, which he visited on a number of occasions. It is currently the only recorded nest in Wales.
Police Constable Mark Powell on secondment with the Natural Resources Wales Industry Regulation team said:
“Officers from Natural Resources Wales are successfully working with police forces across Wales, and the National Wildlife Crime Unit to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing wildlife and rural crime offences.
“This was a particularly upsetting case. The defendant was actively taking photographs of birds protected under Schedule 1 and offering them for sale.
“Climbing to nests causes extreme stress to adult birds resulting in eggs not being properly incubated. On the Honey Buzzard nest there were two eggs and one failed.
“This is very disappointing as the Honey Buzzard is considered to be one of the rarest birds in Wales and this was the only known nest. Recently the nest featured on the BBC documentary Iolo’s Valleys and is actively monitored as part of a nest monitoring programme to help ensure the species survival.
“Mr Haffield maintained his innocence and elected to go to trial. Unfortunately for him he was found guilty and received fines and costs totalling £1,620.
“I would like to thank the Licencing Team at NRW and the expert witnesses who gave evidence in Court. Multi agency cooperation has never been better and together we will continue to investigate and prosecute offenders“.
To report an environmental incident, please contact NRW’s Incident communication line open 24/7, on 0300 065 3000.
ENDS
Raptor Persecution UK 
Hi all,
I’ve been following this blog for a few years now and never felt the urge to comment, well atleast nothing that could be published however this Honey Buzzard case has changed that.
Inconsistent courts in the UK, “do my head in” this is the best example so far. He could have photographed the nest and adults, then shot the adults, taken the chick/s and sold them to the Middle East and got away with a 100 hours community service had he played his card right! Looks like the sheriff/judge is not part of the shooting fraternity perhaps? Iain LivCRG
I’m not quite sure I follow you, in this case, Iain.
I think 100 hours community service is a greater punishment than a fine of £1620. I think the proceeds from the image might well have paid for that, given the buyer…
Although I generally agree about inconsistencies, and especially lenient sentences. This is a ‘strange’ case, however…. See my posting….
well said 👏
just a huge thank you for everyone involved for saving our wildlife. God bless all of you x
I think you will be surprised at his web site, if you look.
https://www.fieldsahead.co.uk/
I certainly am surprised to say the least. The question now is will these organisations continue to commission him for work, or even allow him to continue being a member, given the nature of the offence he was convicted of?
On reflection this is a classic example of both the temptations and the reality of mixing environmentalism and private income streams that go directly to an individual…. at a micro level. At the macro level we have Driven Grouse Moors to mull over. As usual, there were too few questions asked at upper management level.
Sadly allowing well heeled and well connected individuals like him who are cavalier with the laws and guidelines in this deeply contested and controversial field does huge damage to the many meticulous field workers out there — if it was a fair trial and i see no hint of anyone suggesting that it was not.
Taken on an international scale, are there not incidents such as this one being perpetrated against the sanctity of nesting birds and endangered mammal species, to provide “sensational shots for magazines, without the public being aware of the attrition to biodiversity of poor reproduction rates?
Of course, there is a code of unobtrusiveness practised by ethical photographers, however, humanity has its dark sides, and that feeds the “needs” of the unscrupulous for a price. The provision of Peregrine eggs and chicks is another mercenary activity disturbing our vulnerable wildlife species, to satisfy the Middle Eastern demand of falconers, who are egregiously rich enough to quell many consciences.
Such a fine is paltry compared with what the online seekers would be prepared to pay for much sought after items. Our prisons are full, which means a custodial sentence may not be a possibility, and early release is being practised on a larger scale. Where is the deterrence on matters of wildlife crime? The dedicated work of the Police and conservationist groups is not leading to the satisfactory result of reducing wildlife crime in all its sordidness.
Hmm, 55 years devoted to the preservation of birds, yet gets done for what he’s paid to do. Something is a bit off here. Please visit his website at https://www.fieldsahead.co.uk/ to understand a little better. Surprised at lack of comment from you Ruth.
Doesn’t matter who he is or what he has or still does No disturbance licence and it is an offence. He above all ought to have known that. The law after all applies to us all without fear or favour as they say. Given it is the only known pair in Wales I think he got away lightly.
Hi Dennis,
I’m not sure what you’re expecting me to say, really. It appears that he didn’t have a Sched 1 licence (or maybe he did have one of those but not a photography licence – the police press release isn’t clear on that). He’s someone who has been involved in professional raptor photography for a long time so he knows the rules. He didn’t comply, he was caught and subsequently convicted. What else is there to say?
I’d be more inclined to comment on the police officer’s comments: “This was a particularly upsetting case“. Hardly, in comparison to some of the horrendous cruelty we see in many other cases.
And:
“Climbing to nests causes extreme stress to adult birds resulting in eggs not being properly incubated. On the Honey Buzzard nest there were two eggs and one failed”. Climbing to nests per se rarely causes eggs to fail. It depends on the species, the weather, the temperature, the length of time it took, how many previous visits there’d been etc etc. I’d be surprised if the failed egg in this nest was attributable to someone climbing to the nest when the other egg hatched successfully, but given that we don’t know the many variables involved it’s difficult to say with certainty. I’d have been interested to hear whether the prosecutor was trying to make this case in court and if so, on what basis. The police officer’s comment seemed hyperbolic to me, although I’m not going to condemn him for telling the public that these are protected and sensitive species and you can’t just climb to their nest to disturb them whenever you like unless you have an appropriate licence.
Thanks for you reply Ruth and yes it is difficult to know what to make of this.
I just have the feeling that this whole thing was a stich up on many sides and skulduggery lurks in the background. It will be interesting to see how often this conviction is quoted and used against you and us.
[Ed: Thanks, Mike but I can’t post your comment without seeing evidence to support your allegations otherwise I’m at risk of being sued for libel]
[Ed: Thanks, Mike but I can’t post your comment without seeing evidence to support your allegations otherwise I’m at risk of being sued for libel]
Something decidedly fish here. Ruth?
I have done a bit of digging and as it’s an ongoing investigation I won’t comment other than there seems to be a bit more to the story.
[Ed: Thanks, Mike but I can’t post your comment without seeing evidence to support your allegations otherwise I’m at risk of being sued for libel]
Sorry, I meant to word that last comment ‘possible ongoing investigation’. Not this case exactly but connected.