Racster Dingwall, the now former Head Gamekeeper on Conistone and Grassington Estate in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, pleaded guilty at York Magistrates’ Court last month to conspiring to kill a Hen Harrier.
His crimes were captured on camera after the RSPB installed covert equipment on the grouse moor, capturing video and audio recordings of Dingwall and his two armed accomplices, as shown on Channel 4 News, here.
Dingwall’s sentence was a fine of just £1,520. I’ve written previously about the judge’s remarks and how this derisory penalty was determined (see here).
Now the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF, representing raptor fieldworkers) has added to the commentary in a new blog (here), which is well worth a read.
Here are some of the highlights:
Dingwall had a previous conviction for violence, but this was discounted because it was dissimilar to the offence before the court. However, there is ample evidence in the literature showing that violence towards people and animal cruelty are frequently linked.
It was accepted by the court that Dingwall’s actions in this case were “completely out of character”. Was it really? The RSPB Investigations Team didn’t just turn up on the estate and install covert recording equipment. The team was there as a result of intelligence they had received and had spent several months confirming that the information was correct. They also identified the precise location where Dingwall and his colleagues usually sat. There was nothing random in the enquiry. Dingwall and his two underkeepers, recorded during the filming, were dressed in camouflage clothing, using radios, and armed with shotguns. They were clearly on a mission when sat in their allocated positions, waiting for dusk and for Hen Harriers to come in to roost.
Mr Ryan, Dingwall’s solicitor, told the court that his client “regrets enormously” his actions. If that were true, why were he and his colleagues there in the first place, dressed and armed with shotguns? Why didn’t he chastise his staff when they discussed having killed a Buzzard and a Raven? Why didn’t he call the whole thing off when they talked about not shooting a Hen Harrier—now known to be Ataksak—because it was wearing a box and would cause problems for the estate? Why, when the next Hen Harrier arrived without a “box”, did Dingwall leave his post to go and shoot the bird, which he subsequently told his staff he had done? He had every opportunity to prevent his underkeepers from killing the Buzzard and Raven. He also had a duty to ensure that Ataksak and the untagged Hen Harrier were not threatened with death. He failed on all accounts. Clearly, the only thing Dingwall regretted was being caught.
There is no requirement for a defendant to identify who his two underkeepers were, and Dingwall chose that route and stood in the dock alone. That was his choice, and the identity of his underkeepers remains unknown—at least in the public domain. Obviously, their employer knows who they are; but will they be sanctioned? Will they lose their jobs?
What we do know is that the owner will not be sanctioned, and it is business as usual. This loophole in the law is ludicrous and needs to be closed. Owners and land agents responsible for managing shooting estates need to be held accountable for the criminal activities of their employees. Until they are, they have no incentive to ensure that their estates are managed in compliance with wildlife legislation.
To read the full blog on the NERF website, click here.
I’ll be writing a further blog about this case shortly…
Raptor Persecution UK 
would it not be a robust reaction as affirmation of the seriousness being taken of the persecution of the raptors, by putting a blanket ban on grouse shooting for as long as this raptor killing goes on, it would hurt the perpetrators more than any other sting
Can someone cleverer than I explain why a charge of vicarious liability isn’t brought more often against employers?
Because that law only exists in Scotland.
When these type of people refuse to name their ‘colleagues’, Judges and Magistrates should jail those who would otherwise have got a fine and double the sentence of those who are going to jail.
Almost certainly both an apt and accurate commentary not only what Dingwall and his two “unknown” colleagues were about but quite probably this is the case on any number of moors where satellite tagged and otherwise Hen Harriers have been shown to ” disappear.” In such places most of such crimes will not be a fortuitous event for the criminal, far from it they will be a carefully laid and sprung trap at some known ( to them) haunt of harriers quite often a roost. This is the reality that the pro DGS cabal most want to disguise and deny, if their loud professions of being anti persecution rhetoric were a truth such things wouldn’t be happening in the almost routine manner the regular loss of harriers suggests. This is the proof of their lie about their professed intolerance of persecution. That as much as anything is a most important outcome of the case.