On Monday 20 July 2026, at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, all charges were dropped against two gamekeepers who had been on trial for the alleged shooting of Red Kites, as well as alleged firearms offences, in the Cairngorms National Park.
What follows is my understanding of the case, based on material published by the media, court documents, and conversations I’ve had with people who attended the trial. As far as I’m aware, the outcome of this case has not been reported formally, either by journalists, Police Scotland or the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service. It’s pointless me asking for case details from the Crown Office or Police Scotland because they are protected by data protection regulations. For this reason, the following account should be treated with caution, i.e. it is not provided as a definitive account of the legal proceedings.
CASE BACKGROUND
On 4 February 2025 a member of the public notified the RSPB that a dead Red Kite had been found on private property in the Glenbuchat area of Strathdon, in Aberdeenshire, and the finder said that he had concerns that it might have been poisoned. The RSPB’s Investigations team collected the kite carcass and submitted it to Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) lab for examination, notifying Police Scotland of their action. A short time later a post mortem revealed the kite had been shot, which led Police Scotland to open a wildlife crime investigation.
As part of that investigation, an appeal for information was issued by Police Scotland on 28 February 2025. Shortly afterwards another member of the public, William Johnstone, came forward with footage that had been captured on a night vision trail camera that he and local landowner, Roderick McGilvary, had installed in Knockie Wood (owned by Mr McGilvary) to monitor wildlife. Although the footage was not properly date/time stamped, Mr Johnstone and Mr McGilvary both stated that the footage had been captured over the preceding three weeks.
Aug 2026
The footage showed two armed individuals, with night vision equipment, carrying the body of a(nother) Red Kite. Mr Johnstone and Mr McGilvary both said they recognised the two armed men and named them as Graeme Rankin and Steven Hague, the Head Gamekeeper and underkeeper from nearby Glenbuchat Estate.
Mr Johnstone said he recognised the two men from shooting events he’d attended and from living in the local area. Mr McGilvary said he’d previously given Mr Rankin permission to kill ‘vermin’ on his land.
The trail camera footage was passed to Police Scotland and after examination, several officers, including a Firearms Licensing Officer, also said they recognised the two armed men as gamekeepers Graeme Rankin and Steven Hague.
On 1 May 2025 the Police executed a search warrant at the addresses of the two suspects and firearms were seized.
Following police interviews, to which both suspects gave ‘no comment’ replies, they were reported to the Procurator Fiscal and subsequently charged as follows:
Charge 1 (Graeme Rankin & Steven Hague) – Between 1 – 26 Feb 2025 at Knockie Wood, Strathdon, intentionally or recklessly killed a wild bird (Red Kite) with a firearm, contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981;
Charge 2 (Graeme Rankin & Steven Hague) – Between 1 – 26 Feb 2025 at Knockie Wood, Strathdon, were in possession and control of a dead wild bird (Red Kite), contrary to Section 1(2)(a) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981;
Charge 3 (Graeme Rankin & Steven Hague) – On 3 or 4 February 2025 at [REDACTED], Glenbuchat, Strathdon, intentionally or recklessly killed a wild bird (Red Kite) with a firearm, contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981;
Charge 4 (Steven Hague) – On 1 May 2025 at [REDACTED], Glenbuchat, Strathdon, failed to keep keys for gun cabinets in a secure place, failed to ensure the key safe lock was secure and worked properly, and failed to secure ammunition, contrary to Section 1(2) of the Firearms Act 1968.
THE TRIAL
Both defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges so a two-day trial was scheduled to begin in Aberdeen on 9 December 2025. The defendants were each represented by an advocate of Kings Counsel (KC) status. Brian McConnachie KC, one of Scotland’s leading criminal lawyers, represented Graeme Rankin, and Shelagh McCall KC, also highly experienced, represented Steven Hague. Karen Rollo, an experienced Procurator Fiscal from the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit at the Crown Office, appeared for the prosecution.
Before proceedings really got going, the Sheriff made a declaration of being a monthly subscriber to the RSPB, which resulted in the two defence KCs lodging a motion that the Sheriff should consider recusing himself because the ‘public might perceive some bias’.
After giving the motion some consideration, the Sheriff agreed to stand down because this case involved RSPB staff members as witnesses for the prosecution.
Unfortunately, no other Sheriff was available immediately to hear the case so it was adjourned and rescheduled as a four-day hearing in April 2026, this time in front of Sheriff Peter Hammond.
Due to the large number of witnesses called by the prosecution in the first four days, the trial was further extended to another two days on 15-16 June 2026.
Prosecution witnesses included the finder of the first dead Red Kite (that was later confirmed shot), RSPB Investigations staff who had collected the kite carcass, William Johnstone who had installed the trail camera at Knockie Wood (landowner Robert McGilvary had since passed away but had previously provided a statement to Police Scotland), the SRUC vet who had performed the post mortem examination of the first dead Red Kite, a ballistics expert who could comment on the weapons and ammunition seen on the footage compared to what was seized during the search warrant, and multiple police officers who had been involved in viewing the captured footage, identifying the individuals (and their equipment) in the footage, and those involved in the execution of the search warrant.
There were significant delays at the start of the trial due to technical challenges in getting the video evidence to be shown in court; this seemed to be due to formatting issues regarding the ‘stitch video’ (a single film of various clips knitted together to make it easier to view). These were eventually resolved, although prosecution witnesses noted that the quality of the video shown in court was poorer than the raw footage they had been able to view at the police station.
A number of witnesses told the court that they couldn’t identify the suspects based on the poor quality of the footage shown in court but reiterated that they’d been able to identify them from the original footage at the police station.
Police Firearms Officer Tomas Spracklen told the court he’d attended Steven Hague’s cottage on 1 May 2025, alongside other officers executing the search warrant. He said he found that a safe, which stored keys to a gun cabinet, was not secure as he was able to access it and remove the key without having to use a code. He said that the key to a second gun locker was hanging on a hook behind a table leg just yards away in the same room where shotguns were kept. He also told the court that other Police Officers had found an unsecured pouch of ammunition in the gun room.
The two defence KCs challenged the provenance of the video footage, focusing on the fact that it wasn’t properly time/date stamped. They also challenged whether there had been procedural errors by the Police Officers during the execution of the search warrant.
The defence then lodged a motion to the Sheriff that on all charges, there was no case to answer. With respect to the charges of the killing of the second kite, they contended that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that their witnesses had identified the defendants on the basis of the(poor quality)footage played in court, and that the prosecution had also failed to demonstrate that the footage captured was consistent with the dates of the charges libelled. They suggested, therefore that all these witnesses’ evidence should subsequently be disregarded.
The defence further suggested that the prosecution’s reliance on the established Scots Law ‘Moorov principle’ that allows for the use of similar factual evidence to corroborate multiple charges, should also mean that despite apparent similar circumstances surrounding the killing of the first Red Kite, if the charges above were dismissed, then charge 3 should also be dismissed.
The defence also argued that the fourth charge, relating to unsecure ammunition, should also be dismissed as they suggested that there was no corroboration of the lack of security of the accused’s gun room (i.e. the key to the gun cabinet hidden behind a table leg, shown to one Police Officer by the accused).
On 20 July 2026, the Prosecution made a lengthy submission in response to the defence’s motion, countering all of the above points, including giving examples of case law to support its case. However, although the Sheriff agreed that the footage captured was within the dates of the charges libelled, he accepted all of the other points made by the defence and made a ruling that there was no case to answer on all four charges. The defendants were then told they were free to go.
MY COMMENTARY
What follows is my opinion. It does not infer any guilt on the two defendants, but rather focuses on the mechanics of the case.
To start, it’s worth mentioning Police Scotland’s early appeal for information after they’d received confirmation from a post mortem that the first Red Kite had been shot. It was a direct result of that appeal that two witnesses came forward with their trail camera footage showing two armed men carrying a(nother) dead Red Kite, in the same area, and around the same time as the discovery of the first dead Red Kite. Some police forces don’t bother putting out appeals for information when birds of prey have been persecuted – this case highlights the value of issuing timely appeals, so plaudits to Police Scotland for making the effort to do so, and quickly.
On to the case itself…
It’s really difficult to comment on the legal complexities because (a) I wasn’t in court to hear the evidence; (b) I’m unsighted on any written submissions made to the court by both the prosecution and defence; (c) I didn’t hear, and nor have I seen, the Sheriff’s detailed explanation for his decision-making; and (d) I’m not a lawyer.
Nevertheless, the information that is available about the case raises some obvious, and in my view, serious, questions about the course of justice.
My main concern centres on the Sheriff’s ruling that the prosecution had not been able to establish, in court, the identities of the two armed men. That failure to identify them seems to be based entirely on the poor quality of the footage shown in court, even though multiple witnesses, including Police Officers, had given testimony (in sworn witness statements and in person before the court) that they had been able to identify them from the raw footage viewed at the police station.
If the video evidence in court was of such obvious poor quality, why wasn’t the trial adjourned until such time that better quality footage, which was known to exist, could be shown in court? I don’t know if a request for an adjournment was made and the Sheriff refused it, or whether it just simply wasn’t raised. It seems an absurdity to me that a trial can stand or fall on a technical failure that could have been so easily resolved.
Related to this, I don’t understand why the Sheriff was willing to accept the testimony of Mr Johnstone and Mr McGilvary that although their trail camera footage wasn’t properly time/date stamped, the footage related to the time period they’d said it related to, but then he wasn’t willing to accept the testimonies of serving Police Officers who’d stated that they’d been able to identify the suspects from footage they’d viewed at the police station. That makes no sense to me.
Another question I have relates to the apparent lack of corroboration about the alleged lack of security in the gun room. I thought that all Police Officers wore body-worn cameras these days, and that that footage is considered acceptable as ‘real evidence’ in court. Was body-worn camera footage available in this case and if so, why wasn’t it accepted? If no body-worn footage was worn, then it sounds like a fundamental cock-up was made by the Police Officers executing the search warrant, making easy pickings for the defence KCs.
From what I understand, I think the Crown Office can appeal ‘no case to answer’ decisions if it chooses to, but has to lodge an appeal within a relatively short time scale following the judgement. It’ll be interesting to see whether that happens in this case.
What we’re left with is the knowledge that two Red Kites were illegally killed in the Glenbuchat area of Strathdon during February 2025, one confirmed shot and the other one more than likely to have been shot. This area in the north-east part of the Cairngorms National Park has long been recognised as a raptor persecution hotspot but once again, the raptor killers, whoever they are, are getting away with it.
NB: For anyone considering leaving a comment on this particular blog, please remember that all charges were dropped against the two defendants. Any libellous comments, either direct or inferred, won’t be published. Comments about the legal process are welcome.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Why was the owner of North Glenbuchat Estate, the employer of the suspects, not held to account for their actions?
upernivik – The Sheriff ruled that the suspects had no case to answer, which means that, in the eyes of the law, their employer, whether that was an estate owner or a sporting agent or someone else, also has nothing to ‘account’ for.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. How can eye-witness accounts be dismissed, whether the film footage is properly marked or not, as being of no evidential value when the witnesses know the individuals concerned?
The problem with all of these cases is that the judges / magistrates / sheriffs never have to explain their reasoning! It is like referees in football: they make obviously bad decisions but never have to explain themselves – only this is far more serious.
Well this is very disappointing. No doubt very frustrating too for all involved, especially given the strange logic of the Sheriff. I hope there is an appeal to look at those decisions. Either way, the two KC’s have already earned their corn. However – with or without convictions – the case remains very interesting from a number of angles. Most of which I had best steer clear of. It deserves to be shared and well publicised.
I have another case in England a few years ago in my mind with this same outcome that (while no doubt being a painful experience for those involved when it was dropped) has probably had a bigger slow-burner effect for just that reason. In the long run over the years it shocked a lot of “neutrals” who weren’t aware that this shit was even going on & and were aghast at the failing course of justice. It woke up the prosecution authorities (a bit), rattled a few consciences and (thinking of myself) tested a few misplaced loyalties – in part convinced me to come off my uncomfortable bit of semi-apologist fence I was balanced on. This case might well have a bit of that effect on other people, who knows – perhaps even someone on the apologist side might have a pang of conscience? I hope.
Another positive – the meaty bit of this case getting to court was generated from a trail-cam. Whether it was an expensive or a cheap one, and whether there was a lot of them up and running, I don’t know. But it just shows what cameras can do, and demonstrates why they are not wanted out there on land that is managed for shooting interests (whatever may be happening regards wildlife crime, and whatever the fake concern people come out with) and exactly why the Police NWCU should start a serious campaign with cameras. Right now – get them in place ahead of the fun & games that occur when the nights draw in / raptors focus on roosts in narrow areas. It would be great if one of the next few cases – that are inevitably in the pipeline, was not a member of the public / RSPB Investigations detective effort, but was actually purely a Police operation from start to finish. That would be another milestone / advance on the front line. Here’s hoping again…
This all sounds very familiar. Surely the Fiscal and their advisors should have seen this coming?
Or are we back dealing with Sheriffs with shooting sympathies?
Either way xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx, more raptor blood will spill next week and every week after.
Iain
It seems to me that the accused have been identified by multiple witnesses from the original video and that should be enough to satisfy the court. There have been plenty of instances where someone has been brought before the courts on the evidence of witnesses without supporting video recordings (think viewing live CCTV). While the best evidence should always be presented in court original videos aren’t normally produced in evidence.
yet another example of the UK court system being unable/unwilling to properly prosecute such blatant and serious wildlife crime
The average game keeper would not have the means to pay for a top KC . Far less two. Whoever paid for them should also be held to account and should be named.
I have to thank Ruth for this work… a sane voice in what reads like a shambles and a disgrace:-(