Another trial and yet another gamekeeper convicted of offences relating to the illegal killing of birds of prey.
The trial of gamekeeper John Bryant, in relation to the illegal killing of a red kite and two buzzards, concluded at Lincolnshire Magistrates Court last week where he was convicted of four of ten alleged offences.
Gamekeeper Bryant, 40, of West Ashby, Horncastle, Lincolnshire had been summonsed to court last September following a police investigation into reports of three birds of prey, a red kite and two buzzards, being poisoned and killed over a five year period between 2017 and 2022.
Bryant had pleaded not guilty to ten charges (two charges of using a trap to kill or take a wild bird, six charges of possessing an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence, and two charges of contravening health & safety regulations) so he faced trial starting 6th March 2025.
He will be sentenced for the four offences next week when full details of the case and convictions will be published.
UPDATE 20 March 2025: Lincolnshire gamekeeper John Bryant sentenced for crimes relating to raptor persecution – police statement (here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
This is a great result but the sad reality is that the person convicted is just an employee doing his employers bidding. It’s the landowners who should be prosecuted for these crimes. If that requires a change to legislation, let it happen. Gamekeepers are doing what they are paid to do in the hope they get away with their criminal activity.
I think we need to wait for the full details of the case to emerge. There’s nothing in the public domain at the moment to indicate that Bryant was working under instruction from anyone else. We may ‘think’ it’s the case but that’s very different from showing it was the case.
we don’t know if he was doing his employers bidding but if it was proven to be the case then yes “shoot owners” should be held accountable.
Not sure what you mean by “Gamekeepers doing what they are paid to do “
‘My role is to protect game – buzzards presented a risk to those birds’.
The above is what gamekeeper & convicted buzzard-bludgeoner John Orrey said in his defence (or his lawyer said it on his behalf) in 2022.
If someone was working in any other industry, then I doubt that that excused would be relevant and the employer would have been investigated to show what processes and procedures they have in place to prevent his employees from committing foreseeable acts that are illegal unsafety actions. The employer would have to show what training has been given and what disciplinary procedure are in place as well as the records kept.
Although I can’t see any rural wildlife officers going around his lordships house and questioned him?
And what will he get a telling off perhaps or a severe beating with a soft cushion?
I wonder if there are any gamekeepers who are not criminals
Yes of course there are, albeit IMO it is only a very small minority that are truly squeaky clean throughout all of their years in the job. My issue with these poster boys is (1) that they generally do nothing* to inhibit the approach of the others – and they easily could (which somewhat takes the shine off their public image/involvement in social media groups and the like), (2) they are happy to reap the reputational esteem and plaudits (thinking more of grouse number production here) earned by the risks and the dirty work undertaken by their neighbours.
* only two cases I can bring to mind were reported on here years ago, first where two newly appointed keepers in succession shopped a fellow young keeper on same estate and he was convicted, and the other was to do with a keeper defying instruction of his boss to shoot a golden eagle.
Believing that all gamekeepers are criminals does nothing but drive a big wedge between the differing parties . Really is nonproductive
It is still a very small wedge compared to the really big wedge produced by people who try to cover up the true state of affairs i.e. the deniers, liars, obfuscators, distractors, political influencers and the “it’s only one or two bad apples” apologists, etc, etc