Further to last week’s blog about a gamekeeper being due to appear in court charged with killing a Buzzard on a Pheasant shoot at Hovingham, North Yorkshire (here), the case was heard today at Scarborough Magistrates’ Court and Thomas Munday pleaded guilty.
Here is a press release from the RSPB:
GAMEKEEPER FILMED BRUTALLY KILLING PROTECTED BUZZARD
- In March 2024, secret RSPB filming caught gamekeeper Thomas Munday brutally killing a protected Buzzard whilst it was caught in a cage trap on a pheasant shoot near Hovingham, North Yorkshire.
- Today, at Scarborough Magistrates Court, Munday pleaded guilty to killing a Buzzard and was fined £1,215.
- Although cage traps can be legally operated under government licences, they have a history of being repeatedly used in unlawful ways to catch and kill birds of prey on land managed for gamebird shooting. These incidents are generally related to attempts by the operator to remove any potential threat to gamebird stocks, reared for commercial shooting.
- The RSPB is urging the UK Government to introduce a licensing scheme for all gamebird shooting to deter bird of prey persecution and to promote better practices.
On 30 March 2024, a covertly deployed RSPB camera caught a gamekeeper brutally beating a protected Buzzard to death inside a cage trap set in woodland near Hovingham, North Yorkshire.
The footage shows a Buzzard entering the crow cage trap. Four hours later, a masked and hooded individual arrives at the trap in an all-terrain vehicle. He enters the trap and is seen repeatedly striking the Buzzard with a stick. The injured and incapacitated Buzzard is then removed from the trap – clearly still alive – and beaten several more times with the same stick. The individual then picks up the bird by its wing and throws it into the vehicle before driving away from the site.
The RSPB shared the footage with North Yorkshire Police, who later identified the individual in the footage as Thomas Munday – employed as a gamekeeper.
Of all individuals convicted of bird of prey persecution-related offences between 2009 to 2023, 75% were connected to the gamebird shooting industry and 68% were gamekeepers.
A police-led search of the land, assisted by the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), resulted in a number of items being seized including the stick used to kill the Buzzard. Forensic testing by the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (SASA) funded by the Partnership against Wildlife Crime (PAW) Forensic Analysis Fund found traces of Buzzard DNA on the stick. Munday was subsequently charged with the illegal killing of the Buzzard, an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
On 12 January 2026, at Scarborough Magistrates Court, Thomas Munday pleaded guilty to killing a Buzzard and was fined £1,215.
Crow cage traps can be legally used under Government General Licence, issued by Natural England, to control corvid species such as Carrion Crows or Magpies, on condition that licence conditions are adhered to. Under these conditions, if a bird of prey or any other non-target species is caught in the trap, on discovery the bird must be released at point of capture without undue delay.
Sadly, this method of targeted killing of birds of prey is a persistent problem in the UK particularly on land managed for gamebird shooting. In a period of ten-years (2015-2024), 30 confirmed incidents of birds of prey being caught and/or dying in unlawful crow cage traps were recorded in the UK. 97% of these incidents were associated with land managed for gamebird shooting. 34 birds of prey were involved in these crimes with Buzzards, Goshawks and Sparrowhawks the most common victims associated with these crimes.
Howard Jones, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer: “The casual and brutal killing of the Buzzard is extremely upsetting to watch and it’s clear that Munday has a complete disregard for the law, and the legislation that protects these birds. Frustratingly, this incident isn’t a one off but is just the latest example of the cruel and disturbing lengths some individuals will go to in order to illegally kill birds of prey.
“These crimes and the wider issue of bird of prey persecution is significantly linked to the gamebird shooting industry. Without long overdue regulation of gamebird shooting we expect to see these crimes continue.”
James Robinson, RSPB Chief Operating Officer said: “Although we welcome Defra’s recent announcement of a review of corvid traps, this latest incident underlines a far wider and deeply entrenched issue for our protected birds of prey.
“For decades, these species have been illegally killed on land managed for pheasant, partridge and grouse shooting. More than half of all 1,529 confirmed persecution incidents recorded from 2009-2023 were linked to gamebird shooting. These crimes will continue without meaningful legislative change.
“Through the introduction of a robust licensing system for all gamebird shooting across the UK, the illegal killing of birds of prey could be effectively deterred. Scotland took this welcome step in 2024 when it introduced licensing for grouse shooting. We need the Government to take action, now.”
Though we welcome the guilty verdict in today’s case, we are disappointed that the sentence imposed is at the lower end of the provisions available to the court. This penalty provides little deterrent to others who may consider committing similar crimes and fails to reflect the casual and callous acts of cruelty involved.
The RSPB thanks the North Yorkshire Police, the NWCU and the Crown Prosecution Service for their vital role in investigating and prosecuting this case.
Members of the public are urged to report any suspected incidents of bird of prey persecution by contacting the police on 101 and by submitting a report to the RSPB.
This can be done via the RSPB’s online reporting form at www.rspb.org.uk/report-crimes or by calling the RSPB’s confidential Raptor Crime Hotline on 0300 999 0101. Reports via the RSPB’s reporting form and Raptor Crime Hotline can be made anonymously.
ENDS
The RSPB covert footage can be viewed here, but BE WARNED, it includes animal cruelty, suffering and death.
My commentary:
I’ll keep this brief because I’m short of time today but I’ll be returning to this particular case later in the week as there are several important points that were not covered in the RSPB’s press release.
For now, the RSPB deserves huge credit for capturing this horrific crime on camera and ultimately securing a conviction. It’s interesting that the defence did not challenge the admissibility of the RSPB’s video footage and the court accepted it without question.
More soon…
UPDATE 16 January 2026: Commentary on the conviction of gamekeeper Thomas Munday (bludgeoned Buzzard to death on Hovingham Estate, North Yorkshire) here
Raptor Persecution UK 
A verywell done ,on getting a conviction. but what a Bloody Pathetic fine !
Yet another pathetic slap-on-the-wrist punishment.
About time the judiciary were made to up the ante and increase fines and prison sentences for these abhorrent, sadistic crimes committed by these thugs in the guise of being a gamekeeper
What purpose do crow/Larsen traps actually serve? Taking out a crow/magpie here and there surely is no deterrent whatsoever to the general corvid population, if they were banned, then no birds of prey would be trapped and killed either, it would be interesting to know if any birds of prey are ever released unharmed
There is evidence of some gamekeepers releasing trapped raptors unharmed from traps.
yes they keep going on about a ‘few bad apples’ don’t they
These traps in the hands of a knowledgeable operator are very efficient at catching crows and magpies depending on the decoy. I know of one keeper 15 years ago using 20 Larsen traps who was catching up to a dozen crows a day. Remember Larsen traps catch single crows . I have seen crow cage traps with 20 jackdaws or half a dozen crows. The object is to reduce nest predation not wipe out the crow population, most only use them in late winter and spring, that is also when they are most efficient.
Hi 2bluetails, I think that the double-catch design of Larsen traps have now become the bog-standard. At least this is what I have noticed. I have also seen a few of the round design Larsens that have three catching compartments (the decoy sits in a small compartment in the centre). I personally would ban any type of trap that uses a decoy in an instant, and I would ban all Clam type traps in an instant. On the big cages I am troubled because yes I am fine with them as a humane method if (it’s a fairly big “if”) they are used properly but there are so many of them tucked around the hills and woods with no oversight and there are so many opportunities that are routinely exploited for deliberate abuse / misuse (like this case) that I am beginning to feel they might have to get banned too.
I understand the more modern Larsen traps are as you describe. I have a ringing colleague who was successfully and may be still ( he has moved house) is catching Jackdaws for ringing in the round ones without using a decoy. I don’t like any of them really and think their use in England should be licenced and the multi catch traps sites being noted on the licence so they can be checked. I would completely ban both clam and the round multi catch traps Dave Dick once described as legal raptor traps. Any misuse by an estate should then result in a permanent withdrawal of the licence. I also suspect that on many estates the killing of any raptor by catch is routine. Traps set in woodland are to catch Accipiters whatever the claims and again this ought to be banned.
Thanks for your reply but I still think they should be banned, I hate to think of smart, gregarious birds like the corvid families being trapped and killed in that manner, ban shooting altogether and there would be no need for them
Why was Munday ‘masked and hooded’? It’s odd isn’t it, because if he knew the camera was there then why would he commit the crime? But it also suggests that he knew there ‘might’ be a camera there (although why then not look for it?). Is this is now a common precaution taken by gamekeepers because a) they know what they are doing is illegal and b) there are likely to be cameras? Looks like it. Brazen criminality and an attempt to evade or frustrate accountability. Ugly, brutal and shameless.
Hi oldlongdog, yes it is a standard feature these days (started to be more and more over past 20yrs when digital cameras came in IMO) for a keeper to wear a hoodie and/or beanie type of headgear, and to couple that with a dull green coloured or camo patterned snood around the neck. It’s multi purpose – pulling the snood up and the headgear down covers your face in a second, but leaves plenty to see out. It’s useful and protective in a cold wind of course, and it will conceal the giveaway outline of skin tones when stalking about or hiding behind a wall to shoot something that is drifting above you and is perhaps sharp eyed like a crow (or a buzzard) and yes – absolutely – it is done as a matter of habitual precautionary practice by those of them (with any “craft”) when doing any dodgy stuff. This is a live game of “cat & mouse” going on out there – a tactical arms-race, and both sides know it. All but the most cocky, arrogant or old (who refuse to condescend) are well aware that there is a fair chance that some nosey git or worse someone with a camera might just be watching once in a while in most parts of the country.
This could perhaps have very easily been yet another case where everybody knew who he was but his ID couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt – this happens in cases on Estates with lots of similar dressed and similar age group (young) keepers, perhaps who pool/swap vehicles about every few months. Seems like a big well done is in order to both RSPB and Police for getting this one 👍
what the rspca should do,put a camera on the camera sat back,then them from whernside would of been filmed,and does this man lose his gun licence?
Munday lost his firearms/shotgun certs and no longer works as a gamekeeper. Now works as a tree-feller, apparently.
What kind of chillingly cold person can do such a cruel thing? Where is the human predisposition for empathy and compassion? Why should good people have to share the streets with horrible people like him?!
Why would you choose a profession based on killing things, unless you actually enjoy taking the life from living beings against their will? The suffering of the powerless clearly means nothing to gamekeepers, stalkers, hunters, shooters and so on; something I simply can’t begin to understand.
You can’t reason or compromise or negotiate with people with such cold brutality in their make up, they need to be stopped by law with a full ban on hunting and shooting. Nothing short of that will do,
“What kind of chillingly cold person can do such a cruel thing? Where is the human predisposition for empathy and compassion?”
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
Totally agree, David – especially with your last paragraph.
At least this criminal has lost his gun licence.
Let’s hope he has more respect for trees than he does for animals.
As for risible paltry fines – the judges will have guidelines in their decisions, so the fault lies with the legal system. Who does one lobby on this?
“Who does one lobby on this?”
Your MP, in the first instance.
If you know your law, and what you think needs to/can be done, you can write to the Attorney General (the office has an email address) explaining your thoughts with a copy to your MP also.
Thanks, Keith – I am always writing to my MP and have already done so on this.
But I don’t know enough about law so would have to get advice on that.
(The North Yorkshire lawyer has written a helpful piece.)
“(The North Yorkshire lawyer has written a helpful piece.)”
Yes, I noticed that, and thought it was also useful and interesting:-)
“But I don’t know enough about law so would have to get advice on that.”
It all depends upon what you wish to complain about….
Top topic: unduly lenient sentences
There is provision in English and Welsh law for any member of the public to make an official complaint about any sentence they think is unduly lenient… (absolutely excellent idea and very easy to do – not at all daunting) but only for certain crimes, and wildlife crime (even involving the use of guns) is not one of them!
So I complain about that. (Google around the topic)
Secondary topics…
I complain that wildlife crime is not a notifiable crime in England and Wales (Google around that) It is usually thrown on the rubbish heap of miscellaneous:-( Note here that Scots law does record wildlife crime!
I complain that wildlife crimes involving guns are not officially recorded as firearms offences in Police statistics (Google around that).
These are all important issues for various very good reasons.
Note that Scots law is different, and suffers from similar lapses (but not all)… so if you wish to complain about something which has happened in Scotland (and I think in many – maybe in all cases – you still can because we are all in the UK) then you need to check your Scots law on the topic and find out who may receive your complaint (but that bit might be harder, from outside of Scotland).
There is legislative change in the air, so now is a good time to start pushing…
Thanks again. Keith. I am in England.
You say:
I complain that wildlife crime is not a notifiable crime in England and Wales (Google around that) It is usually thrown on the rubbish heap of miscellaneous:
Yes, I have complained several times over the years to my local Police and Crime Commissioner about this. On one occasion, she referred me to a Police Officer who was tasked with Rural Crime prevention, but he never replied to my queries.
Now they are losing their jobs, I suppose the Mayors are the people to complain to – I shall try that.
Utter filth. I would do that to him myself and shame on any company employing him ever again. I hope he gets his karma 10000 fold.
Again the fine imposed and no custidial sentance shows this country is not serious about ending this type of criminality
I have been informed by a Magistrates’ Legal Adviser, who has dealt with such cases, that there are no specific sentencing guidelines that apply to this offence, and many others like it. Given that Munday was represented by counsel, the Court did not want to give grounds for an appeal. Relevant to the sentencing process was the fact that Munday pleaded guilty (well, he had to, on that evidence!), had no criminal record, lost his job, his home (a tied cottage, no doubt) and his gun licence, and is having to pay a decent 4-figure fine. In the absence of any guidelines, this sounds realistically as good as you’ll get. Well done, RSPB!
absolutely sickening, he should have been severely punished, not a measly fine!!
I agree but in reality the likelihood currently is always going to be a fine, plus the loss of shotgun and firearms certificates. That said the options for a huge fine are there but never really seem to be used, for me the starting rate should be £5000 and much more for a Schedule One bird such as a Goshawk or Peregrine. Even so well done to the redoubtable folk in RSPB investigations for getting the evidence in the first place and the various authorities in North Yorkshire for getting it in and through the court.
The court may well have checked on his resources and ability to pay when deciding how much the fine should be. No point in imposing a massive fine if it’s going to mean significant administrative action and costs in chasing it up . Having said this, taking into account the sheer, wanton, brutality of his actions, I reckon that three months in the slammer would have been more appropriate and would have sent out a clear message to other potential offenders.
Hi North Yorkshire lawyer, to me that video evidence alone (although of high quality – well done RSPB) does not identify the individual. Maybe there is more footage where his face is fully visible, who knows? But I am interested in this point (the ID-ing of individuals) as I know it has been and remains the first go-to defence where footage of similar wildlife crimes has been obtained particularly on grouse moors that employ lots of keepers. The keepers know to say nothing, then a specialist lawyer get involved and says (more or less) “prove that person is my client then, there are a number of slim, 5’10”- 6’2″ young men in that area, they all wear similar clothes and they routinely share the same vehicles”. etc, etc.
I think there is rat away on this one and the only reason he agreed to roll over and plead guilty was in return for the quiet assurance/likelihood of a soft sentence.