Earlier this year I blogged about the prosecution of a gamekeeper from Ruabon Moor, near Wrexham, Wales in relation to wildlife crime offences alleged to have been committed in 2022: Using a trap to kill or take a wild bird and possession of an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence.
The first court hearing was heard at Wrexham Magistrates Court on 28 March 2024 but by April 2024 the case had been discontinued without public explanation (see here).
The circumstances of this case, and the reason it was discontinued, have now been reported in the RSPB’s 2023 Birdcrime Report (page 25), reproduced here:
Hawk trap in Wales – case discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service
In March 2022, an RSPB Investigations Officer discovered a large cage trap in an area of private woodland bordering Ruabon Moor, near Wrexham, Wales.
The trap consisted of two compartments, one lower section contained two live Magpies and one upper section fitted with a trigger-mechanism door. Decoy birds, such as Magpies, are often used lawfully in cage traps to attract other Magpies which perch on the trigger mechanism, causing the trap door to close on them and they are then dispatched under license by the trap operator. However, the design of this trap gave concern – notably the thickness of the trigger perch – which was considered only capable of being triggered by a large and heavy bird, likely one with a greater mass than a Magpie or Carrion Crow.
It was decided that the cage trap was interesting enough for the RSPB to deploy remote surveillance cameras. Whilst it is unknown who placed the trap, the subsequent footage obtained showed an individual attending the trap and no one else. On the final RSPB visit, all three RSPB cameras and the trap had gone. Interestingly, Goshawks were noted in the area during the RSPB visits, a species that is slowly expanding its range and increasing in numbers, after years of persecution nationally.
The RSPB reported the trap to North Wales Police and shared the footage which had been gathered. A police investigation was launched and the individual in the footage was subsequently identified and charged by the police with offences relating to the possession and use of the trap. The case reached court, but in March 2024 was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, as the penalties for any subsequent conviction were low, there were potential identification issues and that no birds had been seen to have been killed.
RSPB, North Wales Police and the National Wildlife Crime Unit were surprised at this outcome and questioned the decision directly with the Chief Crown Prosecutor for England and Wales. The matter was passed to CPS Wales and Iwan Jenkins, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, who in a letter stated: “I believe that in this case the decision not to proceed should have been the subject of further discussion.” He continued “The matter required more detailed discussion and consideration before arriving at the final decision.” Sadly, by then it was too late.
It is unknown what the trap was being used for, or what the outcome of the case would have been if it had progressed, but as a result of the CPS decision not to prosecute the defendant is now fully cleared of any wrongdoing. Going forward, it is hoped that much better dialogue can be achieved between prosecutors and the specialist agencies who spend valuable resources investigating wildlife related incidents.
ENDS
The RSPB’s 2023 Birdcrime report can be found here.
Raptor Persecution UK 
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the depicted trap [Ed: could be used to] target Goshawks.
Not anywhere near a good outcome especially considering the trap looked like a modified Swedish Goshawk trap.
I am not sure if this is part of the Wynnstay Estate which is based in Ruabon. This is well known to all Hunt Saboteurs.
[Ed: first part of comment deleted – some of it is libellous]. Stating that the consequences aren’t in the public’s interest should be an indicator that something should be done about sentencing guidelines regarding wildlife crime.
There’s never any good news for these birds. Without positive enforcement of existing legislation they will continue to live a tightrope of existence. It’s very depressing.
[Ed: comment deleted as libellous]
Why is it too late? All of the evidence gathered is surely still valid? They said it was not in the public interest – but now they acknowledge they made the wrong call. As we are the public and we are still interested, why not have the discussion that they regretted not having now?
Unfortunately we are not told the exact charges that the suspect was charged with, other than they were related to the possession and use of the trap.
I fail to see how any charges relating to raptor persecution would ever not be in the “publics interest” to prosecute, when raptor persecution is a national wildlife crime priority.
Without knowing the full details of all the police evidence and whether there was sufficient evidence to draw a correlation between the use of the trap and raptor persecution, then this might offer some explanation as to the CPS decision?
Perhaps this case does highlight the need for the Police and CPS to work more closely together on wildlife crime offences, so that even in cases when the Police can make charging decisions without mandatory referrals to the CPS, a CPS prosecutor is consulted throughout the investigation so that all wildlife cases have the greatest chance of a successful prosecution at court.
It also raises the question as to whether the CPS have specialist wildlife crime prosecutors, to which the police can have access to throughout an investigation.
Such an issue of specialist wildlife crime prosecutors could become even more relevant with the introduction of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill in Scotland, and the legal challenges which may come when the authorities attempt to revoke a shooting estates licence.
Would it be practical and proper to adjust the CPS interpretation of ‘The Public Interest’? Perhaps a letter and/or email campaign organised by one of the national charities could have that effect? I recall long ago a senior Judge being interviewed: asked about the public’s viewpoint he replied ‘I meet a lot of ordinary people at dinner parties’.
“The case reached court, but in March 2024 was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, as the penalties for any subsequent conviction were low”
You could do worse than write to the Attorney General and your MP (England and Wales) about why wildlife crime and animal abuse offences are exempt from the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme (and maybe copy it to the RSPCA, RSPB, LACS and WildJustice).
From Wikipedia : “The attorney general advises the government, individual government departments, and individual government ministers on legal matters, answering questions in Parliament and bringing “unduly lenient” sentences and points of law to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.”
Scotland is worse: it does not even have an Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme.
I feel it would take an organised campaign.
Whilst Goshawks might be doing well in some areas it should be noted that the majority of Raptor monitoring groups covering Northern England are still reporting this bird as a non breeder, birds are seen in suitable areas prior to breeding season then subsequently disappear, virtually all areas of Northern England is a black hole for this species as can be seen once again in the recently published annual report by NERF.
It beggers belief that a case deemed as a wildlife crime priority could be thrown out on the excuse of not being in the public interest, tell that to the forester’s, here is an apex predator that in many studies preys heavily on Grey Squirrels, up to half it’s diet in many cases. Grey Squirrels do an estimated £37 million pounds worth of damage annually. tell it to the Farmers whose crops can suffer serious damage from Corvids, Woodpigeon and Rabbits also very high on the Goshawks prey list.
The situation becomes more ridiculous when you realise it is getting persecuted because it sometimes takes a few pheasants which cost the landowner a measly £5 each to buy as a poult and then charges Johny the sharpshooting accountant from london, (who knows everything about the countryside because he’s read a few copies of Shooting times and has purchased all the gear) £50 each to shoot, the landowner does not expect to shoot half the birds he put down so why prevail with this criminality
Briefly, about grey squirrels – I learned at a well-known national charity that they strip the bark from trees with smooth bark – eg beeches and sycamores. They sit on side branches high in the tree and attack the top of the branch and/or the trunk above. This exposes bare wood and admits fungi and bacteria. Rot then makes the tree dangerous as branch or trunk may fall. The damage can be invisible from ground level.
No surprises here. I reported suspected placing of poisoned Pheasant carcasses in a Goshawk area in Derbyshire recently. Because I didn’t have a poisoned raptor as proof and the Pheasant carcasses mysteriously disappeared within 48 hours of me reporting it, neither the Police or the RSPB were interested. No wonder nothing is ever done, it would be a joke, except it’s not funny…
To clarify from this document there was no recorded evidence of a crime, only that there was a potential that a crime could have been comitted as it is also a legal magpie trap, so there wasn’t actually a case, also under legal guidlines catching a raptor is not illegal in itself as it can happen accidentally, improper checking of traps to release an accidentally captured birds or dispatching of a captured raptor is the cause for the offence which under there own admission never happened, if they started prosecuting for the use of a legal item for the potential misuse then we would be arresting contractors with crowbars for potential breaking and entering
One of the issues being that nobody (such as keepers, RSPB Investigations, BASC, GWCT, many birders, some rural police officers, rural-craft historians and a few others) with decent knowledge of the design and use of cage traps for birds could honestly suggest that this trap was designed and built to catch magpies. It’s design resembles almost exactly one of the longstanding and favourite designs used to catch hawks which hasn’t changed greatly since the days when that was legal. There is actually a name for the design, from when they were mass marketed between the wars. It was something along lines of “The Parnell & Barrett Patented Hawk Trap” , you know – that type of thing? You will see them in reprints of old shooting and gamekeeping books from that period. I will look through my book collection later this week, and post an update here.
I forgot that discussion of the trap including a picture of one of the turn of the century mass production hawk traps was featured on the Wildlife Guardian report into what they saw at Ruabon
“Ruabon Mountain Grouse Moor”
https://www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk/blog/ruabon-mountain-grouse-moor/
Same design is also discussed and described as a hawk trap in “Shooting Notes and Comments” by Kynoch (the cartridge company) in one it’s publications during the Edwardian period.And also there’s a good explanation about use of same design of trap by John Foyster (the Raby Castle Headkeeper of 1970’s & 1980’s) in his memoir “Gamekeeper” with a photograph of (again) same design. He talks about caching finches for use as bait in these hawk traps, etc.
I think you will struggle to find much evidence that this design and shape (in effect a tower with a main catching compartment at the top, and a lower compartment baited with live attractor bird(s) on the bottom) is used to target magpies.
It’s another reason why I think all bird traps (and mammal traps) should be legal only when bought as licensed factory manufacturered products to strict specifications that leave no grey area to exploit as an escape from prosecution loophole. Otherwise the “rotten apples” can continue to use something that is fairly useless for the actual purpose they rely on as a defence, but very useful for something else that they wouldn’t admit to. And get away with it again and again by a whisker.