Prominent falconer and eagle breeder, Andrew Knowles-Brown, 70, has been sentenced after investigators from the Scottish SSPCA found approximately 90 eagles and other birds were living in ‘unimaginable squalor’ at his breeding facility (the Scottish Eagle Centre) in Elvanfoot, Scotland.
Last October after a trial at Lanark Sheriff Court, Knowles-Brown was found to have caused unnecessary suffering to the eagles and parrots and to have failed to protect them from injury, suffering and disease between June and December 2019 (see here for details).
Photos via Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)
The Sheriff warned that she was considering disqualifying him from keeping birds but with so many, it was not known whether suitable, specialist homes could be found. Sentencing was deferred until 2025 as the court was told Knowles-Brown was ‘scaling down his facility’ and making improvements to the remaining aviaries (see here).
In June 2025 SSPCA inspectors returned to the Scottish Eagle Centre and noted some improvements.
Earlier this month, Knowles-Brown returned to court for sentencing and was fined a total of £13,437.50. He was also disqualified from keeping birds apart from 20 individuals (species unknown) – the rest of his collection has either been rehomed already, or will be rehomed.
Faye Cook from COPFS said:
“This was a shocking case of animal cruelty. These birds were forced to survive in almost unimaginable squalor.
“The public will be appalled. Andrew Knowles-Brown had established a reputation as an international bird breeder. But this was a betrayal of trust by someone who had some standing among breeders.
“Animal welfare crime will be robustly prosecuted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service when there is a strong presumption in favour of prosecution of the cases reported to us and where there is sufficient evidence to do so“.
A spokesperson from the SSPCA said:
“We are satisfied with the outcome that Knowles-Brown has been disqualified from owning birds, with the exception of 20 birds, and the remaining birds who were in his care will now be transported to appropriate homes.”
Knowles-Brown is a prominent figure in the falconry world, having served as the Chair of the Scottish Hawk Board and Vice-Chair of the UK Hawk Board.
The Hawk Board, which enjoys close ties with the Countryside Alliance, represents falconers, hawk-keepers and falconry clubs and provides welfare guidelines for those keeping raptors in captivity.
It also engages in political lobbying (e.g. it was against the Scottish Government’s decision to afford the Mountain Hare full legal protection) and Knowles-Brown himself has provided evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee when it was considering its draft Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.
Raptor Persecution UK 
The amount of the fine is derisory given the number of birds involved. It beggars belief that he has been allowed to keep any birds in view of his conduct. I wonder how he managed to persuade them to allow him to keep these. Why haven’t they specified the type of birds he has kept? Any ideas on the reasons for the bizarre conduct of Lanark Sheriff’s Court?
“I wonder how he managed to persuade them to allow him to keep these”
It is possible no suitable homes could be found? So it might have been that or euthanasia?
I wholeheartedly agree with previous comment made. Where is the ‘robust’ proscecution mentioned by COPFS as there was sufficient evidence over a prolonged period in this case.
It makes you wonder how much animal abuse goes on and reported, but not prosecuted. The “stables” need cleansed regularly by determined organisations/individuals, who would remind those who govern us that animal welfare is high with a public sickened by lackadaisical application of hard-fought for laws on this matter. Why the constipation to impose larger fines and even jail sentences? Who are those in privileged positions holding back a more humane society?
“Why the constipation to impose larger fines and even jail sentences?”
We are not told of this man’s means to pay any larger fine, and any jail sentence may well have meant a death sentence for whichever birds could not have been re-homed?
One wonders quite why this ‘man’ was permitted to keep a single bird or even why he didn’t receive a permanent ban. He is clearly not fit to work with any living creature…
As Ruth reports and several people have said:” …with so many, it was not known whether suitable, specialist homes could be found….”
That is understandable, but I agree with those who wonder why this man – and many others – are not banned for life from being in control of any animals in future.
They are obviously not fit to do so.
“That is understandable, but I agree with those who wonder why this man – and many others – are not banned for life from being in control of any animals in future.”
The Scottish Courts are on a hiding to nothing here… It is quite possible that they would have been happy for him to have been plucked clean by one of his neglected falcons, but they do have to think of the birds’ welfare.
Also, we are not privy to all the circumstances….
If they could not re-home all of the birds – which is a tremendous ask for 90 birds requiring such specialist care and loads of space – and some simply had to be left with him (and the SSPCA are reported as saying the conditions were improved) then how could they ‘ban him for life from being in control of animals’ whilst simultaneously leaving him with 20?
Those 20 would, presumably, have then had to be euthanised?
But, maybe there were other reasons, too…
Its probably only the tip of the iceberg there is so much animal cruelty in this country these birds were owned by someone in high esteem but that accounts for nothing xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx like all cruelty it’s only until uncovered dogs cats horses farm animals watched RSPCA raid xxxxx xxxxx onTV awful dogs in appalling conditions and loads of money to be made . Your right these birds need to be removed responsibly placed in specialist places .
When there are numerous falconry displays and reenactment societies who have these beautiful intelligent birds why could they not have been donated and cared for by those who do. There are lots of shows across the country and the birds are magnificent to watch in action. They could at least have given them a proper home where they still fly and catch prey as they are taught. Or were they in such poor condition there was no chance of survival or recovery? If so why was this xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx allowed to keep a single feather never mind 20. As for that fine it was just insulting.
There’s things worse than death. The birds should have been euthanised if no home could be found (just like all the feral cats, cockerels etc etc that quietly don’t find homes). It was noted there were ‘some’ improvements in conditions but I’d bet my bottom dollar that as soon as nobody is watching they’ll deteriorate again. You simply don’t keep animals like that if you have any ounce of compassion or empathy about you.
Well said. He is dispicable.