BREAKING NEWS…
Further to this morning’s blog, gamekeeper Racster Dingwall has pleaded guilty to two charges, including conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor on the Conistone & Grassington Estate in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024.
He was fined £400 for each offence, plus a surcharge of £320 + £400 costs (total = £1,520).
The judge made some remarks that I found absolutely staggering….much more on that later.
In haste.
UPDATE 15.15hrs: Gamekeeper pleads guilty in England’s first ever Hen Harrier persecution case (RSPB press release) here.
UPDATE 18.00hrs: Statement from North Yorkshire Police on conviction of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall (here)
UPDATE 30 January 2026: Some commentary on the conviction and sentencing of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall (here)
UPDATE 7 February 2026: Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group in desperate attempt to divert attention away from conviction of Yorkshire Dales gamekeeper Racster Dingwall (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Absolute insult. £800 is nothing, all this does is demonstrate that even when on the very, very, very few occasion they are actually caught they still get away with it. Surely this can be appealed?
Judging by the barrister lugging the suitcase down the steps of the court looks like even the defense were anticipating a custodial sentence.
“Absolute insult. £800 is nothing, all this does is demonstrate that even when on the very, very, very few occasion they are actually caught they still get away with it. Surely this can be appealed?”
If we all learn anything from this blog it is that this sentence CANNOT be appealed for leniency:-(
Only sentences from a restricted list of crimes can be appealed for their leniency, and wildlife crime (and animal abuse) – even ones involving firearms(!) – are EXCLUDED from that list.
Having said that, of course, any guilty defendant can appeal both their conviction and/or their sentence!
The law regarding wildlife crime and animal abuse sentencing is one-sided in the UK:-(
https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
What I do is contact the Attorney General to review such a lenient sentence – knowing perfectly well that they cannot review it – just to let them know someone is unhappy with the situation:-( I make a copy of my request and forward it to my MP.
When thousands of people start doing that, maybe Westminster will change the law? How many members do wildlife and animal charities have?
As far as I’m concerned, every type of crime should be included in the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, but I am happy to start with wildlife crime and animal abuse…
Far too lenient a punishment. He should have gone to prison.
This sounds like another pathetic sentence – green light given for the wiping out of raptors on grouse moors.
Yet another meek slap on the wrist fine for xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. When will our weak judiciary start handing out sentences that fit these crimes against nature?
Was he expecting a term behind bars as he seems to be carrying a suitcase with him? If only, if so.
Pathetic sentence!
Pathetic sentence!! This makes me so angry!
Made it onto the 1pm BBC news on Radio 4.
There was extensive coverage on the main lunchtime news on BBC One, pictures from court, library images of Hen Harriers, comments etc… sob story from the defendant’s solicitor…
By six o’clock, however, it had been dumped in favour of the news that Polar Bears are getting fatter.
So many thoughts on this and much to comment myself (for later). But my gut feeling just now looking at his face on the photo above is formed by considering the duality of the image of guilty keeper on the court steps with the countless posts of the ego-centred keepers on social media – posing next to their lovely estate 4wds, or with their kennels of dogs gambolling about, ego enhancing guns atop the quad, bucolic cottages, etc and all the cringeworthy hashtags like “grousekeeper life”… “Living the dream”…”keeperslife” and on and on…
And I just think you absolute f—g mugs, you bovine, pigshit ignorant, selfish f–g stooges – can you not see you are just being used by a tiny minority to get what THEY want???
Open your minds FFS, feed your brains – develop some true emotional & ethical intelligence and ALL stop selling yourselves out for this parody of a meaningless ego boosting fake lifestyle you can brag about on social media.
(Sorry, I’m quite angry just now)
Big well done to RSPB Investigations though✊ – I’m upping my direct debit to their Birds of Prey Defenders fund.
Angry or not you are of course right, many of them are too stupid to know otherwise, conned into believing their “betters” know best. Especially if they are the sons or daughters of gamekeepers themselves, as many are proud of their scorched earth Victorian ignorance when it comes to predators and the public. Many try these days to bridge that gap still, I gave up long ago. I’m told I’m “banned” from a number of estates in the Dales, although of course they are almost all open access. We need proper regulation of shooting and if that fails as it might with grouse then a total ban except perhaps for walked up. Of course there are agents out there that require this sort of mindless criminality from their employees, yet one can have little sympathy for any estate law abiding or not as they haven’t driven such folk out of their grubby pastime.
Well done indeed to RSPB investigations, the fines may be paltry but it still is making a difference, even though we are all hoping for another George Much.
Paltry fine will be no detrrent to further Raptor persecution
Vicarious liability is the only way forward!
“Vicarious liability is the only way forward!”
Why do you say that?
Since vicarious liability for wildlife crime was introduced in Scotland in 2011 (Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011) it is reported that there have been just two successful convictions.
In Scotland, an employer can avoid liability by proving they did not know the offence was being committed and took all reasonable steps to prevent it (for example, by issuing written instructions to their employees not to commit such crimes – see recommendations above).
Are we all agreed that Scottish shooting estate owners and organisations are conspicuously honest on the matter of wildlife crime and are incapable of being deceptive?
In England and Wales, there is no vicarious liability legislation for wildlife crime – partly because it is seen as a failure in Scotland.
https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/13/vicarious-liability-and-landowners/
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-01/156289
So, is there something wrong with the Scottish legislation which could be corrected?
Or, is it really true that the owners of Scottish shooting estates and their organisations are doing absolutely everything in their power to prevent wildlife crime?
Or… is the pursuit of vicarious liability simply a red herring, a waste of time?
I notice that the RSPB supported the introduction of vicarious liability legislation for wildlife crime in the rest of the UK after its introduction in Scotland in 2011. But that was in 2012. I haven’t found any calls since…
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/writev/1740/wild32.htm
In 2020, the Wildlife and Countryside Link organisation called for vicarious liability legislation as enacted in Scotland to be extended to the rest of the UK. I wonder why?
https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Link_Annual_Wildlife_Crime_Report_06.11.20.pdf
He’ll no doubt feel that he’s got off lightly with little more than a slap on the wrist! Having said this, it’s good that the case came to a proper conclusion with no unforeseen technicalities arising. Not sure how much of a precedent, if any, the admission of the taped evidence here sets for future cases.
Why no charges for vicarious liability in these cases?
That law only applies in Scotland.
Has he kept his job and gun license? just curious because we know just how hard the shooting fraternity are coming down on this behavior from the few bad apples!
If you believe what was said in court today, he has “lost his job, livelihood, reputation, and realises he has no prospect of working as a gamekeeper again”.
Personally, I don’t believe much of what was said in court today. The reason for that will become apparent in later blogs.
I agree, that is BS. He was/is regarded as among the best. He learnt from the best. He will still be welcome pretty much everywhere.
Has he lost his gun licence? Has be been banned from being a gamekeeper or being involved in any other “countryside pursuits” that are behind these crimes? Has he been banned from being involved in any associated activities?
Is the judge, or any close family or friends, a member of any “countryside sports” organisations and their spin offs? Something has to explain these weak and feeble sentences!
I sound like a broken record saying the same thing for decades. The reason such paltry fines are given for such serious organized crime, and remember [many] gamekeepers have been killing raptors every year for the whole of their career, before they slip up, is very simple. If they gave them an appropriate sentence of quite some years in prison, they would not accept their conviction lightly. They would be shouting about the hypocritical grouse moor owners, shoot managers, estate managers, land agents, who put them up to it. We couldn’t have that, could we? Some of the most senior members of the establishment, including Royals and Aristocrats, implicated in serious organized crime. Let’s keep to the paltry fines, so the clumsy gamekeepers who get caught, can be paid off behind the scenes, to keep them quiet. They would stay quiet if they were facing long prison sentences, and don’t the establishment know that.
No wonder these criminals laugh at us with joke sentances like this