Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

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…

The Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group (YDMG) is undertaking a major damage limitation exercise this week following the widespread media coverage of the recent conviction of Yorkshire Dales gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to kill a Hen Harrier on the Conistone & Grassington Estate (see here), which is, as far as I can tell, a member of the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group.

Indeed, according to this 2018 article in the Yorkshire Post, the then coordinator of the YDMG lived on the Conistone & Grassington Estate as the wife of the previous Head Gamekeeper (i.e. before Racster Dingwall took on the role as Head Gamekeeper). The current YDMG coordinator is believed to be a former gamekeeper from one of the most notorious estates in the Dales.

Dingwall’s conviction, based on damning video evidence filmed by the RSPB, made the national, regional and local news, which threw the spotlight once again on the criminal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors in the Yorkshire Dales.

Dingwall’s conviction has undone all the good work (propaganda) that the YDMG has pumped out over the years to try and disguise the fact, according to the RSPB, that:

“This area – dominated by grouse moors – is the epicentre for Hen Harrier persecution in the UK. Since 2016, in this area four confirmed persecution incidents involving RSPB and Natural England satellite tagged Hen Harriers have taken place and 13 satellite tagged Hen Harriers have suspiciously disappeared – all suspected to have been persecuted (2016-2025)” (see here).

In a desperate attempt to divert attention from Dingwall’s crimes, the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group is trying to persuade anyone who’ll listen that Hen Harriers aren’t routinely killed on grouse moors in their area. Good luck with that!

To illustrate this claim, the YDMG has posted the following story on social media about a satellite-tagged Hen Harrier called Frank:

Did Hen Harrier Frank live a long and productive life on grouse moors in the Yorkshire Dales? Yes, he did, but he was the exception to the rule. I’ve often wondered why he wasn’t nobbled and have been told, by various sources over the years, that Frank was seen as a ‘pet’ of one of the gamekeepers’ wives and an agreement was made not to shoot him. Whether there’s any substance in that I don’t know, but it’s interesting that I’ve heard the same story from different sources.

I think one of the reasons Frank wasn’t killed was because he was seen by the grouse shooting industry as the ‘poster child’ for Natural England’s Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Trial – indeed, some of Frank’s offspring were indeed brood meddled (unsurprisingly, several of them later then ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances) and so there was a LOT of attention on Frank by those invested in the brood meddling sham who wanted to show that the trial was working. ‘Look, here’s a Hen Harrier (Frank) whose chicks we’ve brood meddled but he’s surviving just fine, he hasn’t been killed, therefore the brood meddling trial is a stunning success, let’s roll it out as standard practice for ever more’. You get the picture.

Anyway, back to the YDMG’s diversionary tactics. What they’re suggesting in their latest propaganda piece, is that gamekeepers were suspected of illegally killing Frank in 2025 when his tag stopped working. They claim that,

“They [raptor monitors and Natural England field staff] raised suspicion and insinuated to local gamekeepers that persecution could be a factor behind the bird going off-line“

and

“Suspicions and accusations began to circulate. Internal communications at Natural England determined the bird as missing/suspicious on a grouse moor“.

Really? Where is the evidence that gamekeepers were accused/suspected of killing Frank? He’s NEVER appeared on any list on this blog, nor on the Natural England Hen Harrier satellite tag spreadsheet, nor in any RSPB press release.

Why didn’t he appear? Well, simply because Natural England had been quite upfront on the HH sat tag spreadsheet and reported, accurately, that Frank’s tag stopped transmitting in May 2025 but in June 2025 he was photographed by NE field staff provisioning young at a nest and the photograph clearly showed his satellite tag had a broken aerial and therefore the tag was no longer transmitting. It was a clear technical malfunction, acknowledged by Natural England, and therefore there weren’t any grounds for suspicion.

The Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group is trying to play the victim card here but without any actual evidence of being ‘victimised’.

The fact that (apparently) Frank was recently found dead near Hull, and tests (apparently) show he had contracted avian influenza (although that wasn’t necessarily the cause of death) is neither here nor there. Although I suspect, if indeed this information is accurate, that Natural England might be looking closely at who was privy to that information and who leaked it to the YDMG!

I’d be interested in a statement from the YDMG about the status of the Conistone & Grassington Estate as a YDMG member. Has the YDMG got any plans to expel the estate? If not, why not?

The bigger question that very few people seem to be asking is, who funds the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group, and all the other regional moorland groups that sprung up in 2015 to promote ‘the good work’ of the grouse shooting industry?

Who is paying for the regional coordinators of these groups, who spend their time putting rubbish out on social media and conducting malicious smear campaigns against individuals and organisations who happen to challenge the claims made by the grouse shooting industry? Who is paying for their websites? Who is paying for their extensive promotional material? Their branded clothing? Their picture boards and associated marketing material they drag around the country shows each year? Their logo-heavy ‘activity packs’ that they hand out to unsuspecting school children?

Gosh, I wonder who it might be? Surely not someone with a vested interest in grouse shooting and is a member of the British aristocracy?

Following yesterday’s conviction and sentencing of Head Gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, 35, for 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, here is my commentary of the morning’s proceedings at York Magistrates’ Court.

These are comments based on notes I made during the hearing. They should not be considered a formal court record, but rather my interpretation of what happened. They are provided here to help blog readers understand how the sentence was determined.

This was supposed to be a two-day trial, after Dingwall pleaded not guilty to two charges at an earlier hearing at Skipton Magistrates’ Court in May 2025 (see here). Those two charges were:

1. Possession of an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
2. Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.

At a pre-trial hearing at York Magistrates’ Court in September 2025 in front of District Judge Adrian Lower, Dingwall’s barrister, the very experienced Justin Rouse KC, attempted to have the case thrown out on a technicality, arguing that the RSPB’s covert footage should not be admissible. Mr Rouse KC had been successful with this line of argument in another case against another grouse moor gamekeeper in 2017/2018 (the Bleasdale Estate case – see here).

However, in the current case Mr Rouse KC was unsuccessful and District Judge Lower ruled the Grassington footage lawful and thus admissible (here), and a two-day trial was set for 29-30 January 2026.

It became clear a few days ago that Dingwall was probably now going to change his plea to ‘guilty’ when the case was formerly listed in court documents as a ‘sentencing’ hearing. The same document listed three JPs as the presiding magistrates. However, District Judge Lower turned up in the court yesterday and sat as a single judge for this hearing.

Mr Rouse KC was not present this time, and Dingwall was represented by Tim Ryan of Warners Solicitors in Kent. Mr Ryan is another highly experienced lawyer, having represented gamekeepers in court for many years and he also provides briefing notes for the National Gamekeepers Organisation. He knows what he’s doing.

For the prosecution was Jody Beaumont (Crown Prosecution Service – CPS), as per the pre-trial hearing in September 2025.

The hearing kicked off with Dingwall being asked to provide his date of birth and address, and then his plea to the two charges (‘guilty’).

The CPS then provided District Judge Lower with a background summary of the case. He told the court that between March and September 2024, the RSPB were working on intelligence that potential offences were being committed on the Conistone & Grassington Estate. They identified a location and installed a covert camera, set to record between 1st – 19th October 2024.

When the camera was later retrieved, the footage and audio showed the offences were recorded on 2nd October 2024. The footage showed Dingwall [and two others], dressed in camouflage carrying a semi-automatic weapon and binoculars.

The footage was passed to Channel 4 News and North Yorkshire Police in late October 2024. North Yorkshire Police interviewed Dingwall five months later (!) on 18th March 2025. [We also know that his two fellow suspects were interviewed but apparently both refused to say a word, presumably because they were concerned that voice analysis might match them with the voices recorded on the footage].

Mr Beaumont then gave some background on Dingwall. The court heard he had a prior conviction for violence in 2018 (the precise offence was not revealed) but that he had no other convictions or cautions. [For those wondering how a man with a conviction for violence was deemed suitable to hold a shotgun certificate is a question for North Yorkshire Police].

Mr Beaumont then went on to discuss sentencing guidelines, saying there weren’t any for these specific offences and suggested that the judge might use more generalised sentencing guidelines within the constraints of a magistrates’ court jurisdiction. He did not provide an impact statement or even a background summary of Hen Harrier conservation/persecution.

Mr Beaumont assessed Dingwall’s culpability as ‘high’, especially as there was an element of planning and the involvement of others was an aggravating factor, but then went on to assess the level of harm as ‘medium’ because ‘no Hen Harrier was injured or harmed as a result of Dingwall’s offending’. [Eh?? I’ll come back to this point].

District Judge Lower then said a few words in response to the prosecution’s comments. This is where things started to get really strange. He said he was putting Dingwall’s previous conviction for violence “out of my mind” because it was “dissimilar” to the current offending and “wasn’t relevant”.

He then said he had read four character references for Dingwall, provided by a Mr Gray, Mr Hewlitt, Mr “Bikey” and Mrs Sixsmith. My ears pricked up at Mr “Bikey”. I wondered whether this was Nicholas Baikie, a well known sporting agent with links to many grouse moors across the UK including the infamous Millden Estate in the Angus Glens, currently serving a three-year General Licence restriction imposed by NatureScot after multiple wildlife crime offences against birds were uncovered there.

DJ Lower said it was clear from the character references that Dingwall’s latest offending was “completely out of character“.

Then it was the turn of Tim Ryan to provide a statement of mitigation for Dingwall. Mr Ryan told the court that his client “regrets enormously” his actions, which have led to a “lost job, livelihood and reputation“. Mr Ryan claimed that Dingwall was realising that he had “no prospect of working as a gamekeeper again” and that he had “let himself down and his family“. [I don’t believe that – there are a number of examples over the years of convicted gamekeepers who have been subsequently employed on the same or on other estates – indeed some of them have even turned up at promotional events for grouse shooting held in Parliament and at least one serves on the committee of a national industry organisation].

In terms of sentencing suggestions, Mr Ryan argued that Dingwall’s guilty plea needed to be taken into account.

DJ Lower interjected at this point and said that Dingwall’s guilty plea on the opening day of the trial had been noted, and that because Dingwall had indicated his change of plea to the court prior to the trial, it had “spared the court time and spared the witnesses“, so he intended to give a “25% discount” to whatever sentence was handed down.

Mr Ryan then proposed that a Community Order would be an “appropriate starting point” for the judge to consider given the “devastating consequences on Dingwall and his family” but that a fine would be preferential because the overall effect [of a Community Order] would be “worse for his family“.

We then got to District Judge Lower’s sentencing remarks.

He repeated his comments that the court had “not had to be troubled with a trial” and that “witnesses were not called“.

He then repeated the offences to which Dingwall had pleaded guilty and launched into the most bizarre commentary about the protection of Hen Harriers. He said he understood that there was “controversy” about Hen Harrier management in terms of alleged predation on grouse. He said, “Some take the view that Hen Harriers are, to say the least, a pest, and that they have to be shot to prevent them predating Red Grouse, and this brings in to issue the management of grouse farms and those responsible for the management of farms because it’s a business, and if there aren’t any Red Grouse for others to shoot as part of a day out then there is no business“.

He continued, “Other people take the view that Hen Harriers are a protected species, and indeed they are, and should not be shot and be allowed to predate Red Grouse. I make no comment about these views”. [Eh? How on earth is this relevant?].

“What I am dealing with is on 2nd October 2024 you chose to take with you a shotgun, binoculars, audio equipment, and dress up in camouflage, in order to at least observe a Hen Harrier at a piece of land and you were in communication with others who were interested in the movements of Hen Harriers at that land, with a view to killing a Hen Harrier if it was showing any indication of preying on Red Grouse. [Er…the Harriers being targeted by Dingwall and his accomplices were coming in to an evening roost, not hunting for Red Grouse].

“That’s an offence and you should have known it was an offence and you knew full well what your responsibilities as a gamekeeper were….you may not have known all the ins and outs but you would have known something of how to respond to a Hen Harrier.

“I’ve read your character references – your behaviour is really out of character. A change in your occupation, your income – it seems rather [inaudible] for me to say, but not wrong to say, you’ll never work as a gamekeeper again as a consequence of your behaviour and this is more of a punishment than any I can impose this morning“.

There was then a brief commentary about sentencing guidelines which I didn’t catch in full so won’t try to repeat that here.

DJ Lower then spoke about culpability and agreed with the CPS’s assessment that Dingwall’s culpability was “high“, with a degree of planning with others, and that the harm caused was “medium” because, wait for it, “no Hen Harrier was shot or killed due to your behaviour“.

At this point I looked across to the packed media benches and caught the eyes of several journalists who clearly were as bemused as I was with this statement.

We’d all seen the RSPB’s footage, as shown on Channel 4 News. How anyone could watch that and believe that a Hen Harrier hadn’t been shot and killed would be beyond the comprehension of many. I’m reminded of the idiom, ‘When you hear hooves, look for horses, not zebras’.

I’ve tried to understand the rationale for DJ Lower’s statement, and struggled initially, but the following explanation is the best I came up with on my journey home from court:

Those of us who watched the footage and believed that Dingwall had shot and killed the untagged Hen Harrier based that belief on a civil burden of proof, i.e. on the balance of probability, given everything else we’d seen and heard on the RSPB’s footage, we considered it more likely than not that a Hen Harrier was shot and killed.

However, the RSPB’s footage does not meet the evidential threshold to ‘prove’, to a criminal standard of proof, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, that a Hen Harrier was shot and killed, nor by whom, which is presumably why Dingwall was not charged with that offence.

We might not like it, and probably don’t agree with his statement, but Judge Lower had a duty to consider the criminal standard of proof in his deliberations, and not the civil burden of proof. In my opinion, though, he could/should have done a better job of explaining his statement.

If nothing else, this case provides a very good example of the high evidential threshold required to convict anyone of raptor persecution, and demonstrates why so many cases fail to result in a prosecution. Not because an offence hasn’t been committed, but because it’s really really difficult to ‘prove’ who did it.

I do think though that the footage will have opened the eyes of many members of the public about what goes on on grouse moors when gamekeepers think nobody is watching, and that awareness is crucial if we want more members of the public to start applying pressure on our political representatives to get a grip and support effective enforcement to deal with this ongoing criminality.

Anyway, back to the court room.

DJ Lower repeated his earlier comment that he was “disregarding” Dingwall’s previous conviction (for violence) because it was “dissimilar” to the current offences and “not related to killing wild birds“.

He then went through his sentencing options, musing that he had considered a custodial term “to make an example of you” and to show that “the court takes theses offences seriously” but he disregarded a custodial option because he didn’t think Dingwall would spend much time in prison.

He said he’d also considered a Community Order and what that might look like but he didn’t think it was appropriate, nor that Dingwall needed the support of the probation service.

Instead he settled on a fine, £400 for each of the two offences, plus a surcharge of £320 and prosecution costs of £400, making a total of £1,520, to be payable within 28 days. Dingwall was asked about his means to pay and he indicated that he could make the payment within the timescale.

Does this fine reflect the seriousness of Dingwall’s offending? I’d say absolutely not. I’d say it was an insult to everyone who worked so hard to bring the case to court and it’s certainly no deterrent whatsoever to anyone else thinking of killing a Hen Harrier (and there are a lot of those criminals about). The fine is just a minor inconvenience for Dingwall and once again the estate owner and/or the sporting agent goes unpunished. This really has to change.

The hearing ended with an extraordinary direction from DJ Lower. He noted how packed the court was (press, police, RSPB and general observers) and said that he didn’t think Dingwall should have to ‘meet’ any of the people who had attended the hearing so he instructed a court clerk to allow Dingwall and his solicitor to leave the court room before anyone else.

My interpretation of that direction was that Dingwall was being allowed to leave the court building by a separate entrance without having to face the wall of journalists outside. However, this message didn’t quite get through to the clerks, who ‘held’ Dingwall and Mr Ryan in a separate holding room until everyone had left the court building, and then Dingwall and Mr Ryan were escorted out to the front door of the court building, where the cameras and journalists were waiting for him.

There’s another good piece from Alex Thomson (Channel 4 News) of Dingwall’s case, here.

UPDATE 30 Jan 2026: Satellite-tagged Hen Harrier that gamekeeper Racster Dingwall chose not to shoot (to avoid unwanted attention), found poisoned three months later near another Yorkshire grouse moor (here)

Further to today’s news that gamekeeper Racster Dingwall has pleaded guilty to conspiring to kill a Hen Harrier on the Conistone & Grassington Estate in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, North Yorkshire Police has issued the following statement:

MAN SENTENCED FOR BIRD OF PREY PERSECUTION OFFENCES ON GRASSINGTON MOOR

A man has been sentenced for trying to kill a legally-protected bird, following an investigation by North Yorkshire Police. 

The case against Racster Dingwall for encouraging or assisting bird of prey persecution, using the Serious Crime Act 2007, is believed to be the first of its kind in the country.

In October 2024, a covert camera placed by the RSPB captured footage of three men on Grassington Moor, using radios and speaking in code to discuss shooting towards and killing wild birds, including hen harriers.  

The recording was passed to North Yorkshire Police, and an investigation was launched by the force’s Rural Taskforce. 

The footage was processed by technicians at the Regional Scientific Support Services, and an expert from the National Wildlife Crime Unit was called in to interpret it.

This analysis showed that one of the men – later identified as gamekeeper Racster Dingwall – was in possession of a semi-automatic shotgun for the sole purpose of killing a hen harrier.

Dingwall, 35, from Ellingstring, was interviewed by Rural Taskforce officers, and subsequently charged with encouraging or assisting the killing of a Schedule 1 wild bird (contrary to Sections 45 and 58 of the Serious Crime Act 2007); and possessing a shotgun for the purpose of killing a Schedule 1 wild bird (contrary to Section 18 (2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).

All wild birds are protected by law, and ‘Schedule 1’ birds, including hen harriers, have additional protection.

It is thought to be the first time a charge of encouraging or assisting an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007 has been used in relation to bird of prey persecution. 

Dingwall pleaded guilty to both offences today (Thursday 29 January 2026) at York Magistrates’ Court where he was ordered to pay a total of £1,520 in fines, victim surcharge and prosecution costs.

After the sentencing hearing, Inspector Mark Earnshaw, of North Yorkshire Police, said: “The cruel and illegal persecution of hen harriers and other birds of prey is totally unacceptable.

“This outcome at court follows a thorough police investigation, and incontrovertible evidence. It should send a strong message to anyone else engaged in this criminality: they will be investigated, identified, and put before the courts to face the consequences of their actions.”

ENDS

UPDATE 30 January 2026: Some commentary on the conviction and sentencing of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall (here)