Blog

Wildlife broadcaster Chris Packham is taking libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of its journalists after material was published online last year accusing Chris of faking his own death threat letter. Chris’s lawyers have described the allegation as ‘defamatory and unfounded’.

This is a separate libel action to the one Chris is already pursuing against the editor and authors of a number of articles published by Country Squire Magazine between 2020 and 2021 – details of that case can be found here. The case will be heard in the Royal Courts of Justice in May 2023.

As some of you will be aware, for many years Chris has been the victim of a relentless, malicious hate campaign by those who oppose his views and his campaign work on wildlife conservation and animal welfare issues. This has included vile personal abuse of him (and his family and colleagues) on social media (e.g. here), having dead animals strung up outside his house (see here and here), dead animals dumped on his drive (see here), death threats and excrement sent through the post (here), and having to deal with repeated calls to be sacked by the BBC (e.g. here). In 2021, a terrifying arson attack at his home caused considerable damage to his property (see here). Thankfully nobody was hurt.

It has to stop and those who write and publish defamatory material have to understand there are consequences to their actions.

This morning I’ve launched a crowd funder to help cover the cost of Chris’s libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd. So far, Chris has covered his own costs in the Country Squire Magazine case but defamation proceedings are expensive and there is no guarantee that costs and damages will be fully recovered. I consider it a massive injustice that someone who has dedicated as much to wildlife conservation and animal welfare issues as Chris Packham has, should be left out of pocket simply because he’s wanted to protect his reputation against defamatory and unfounded allegations.

More details about the case can be found on the crowd funder page HERE.

If you’re able to make a donation in support of Chris’s libel action, that would be fantastic, thank you. If you’re not able to donate, you can still contribute by sharing the crowd funder amongst your own networks.

Please note: making defamatory or even derogatory remarks about the defendants in these libel actions is unhelpful and actually counter-productive as they could undermine Chris’s cases. Comments on this blog will be closely moderated (more so than usual!). Far better to show your support for Chris by participating with the crowd funder.

Thank you, everyone.

UPDATE 27th March 2023: Fieldsports Channel Ltd displays images of Chris Packham’s head on ‘trophy’ wall at national gun show (here)

Here are some more parliamentary questions relating to the Westminster Government’s failure to effectively tackle raptor persecution, this time submitted by Ruth Jones MP (Labour, Shadow Minister at DEFRA).

The following four questions were lodged on 1st March 2023:

There’s a fair bit of overlap with these four questions but I’m not going to criticise Ruth Jones for tabling them in this format. On the contrary, I’m delighted to see a Shadow Minister making an effort on this subject and applying pressure on DEFRA.

Is it significant that there’s been a recent flurry of parliamentary questions about raptor persecution? I like to think so.

Ruth Jones’s written questions were answered on 9th March 2023 by Trudy Harrison, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in DEFRA, as follows:

This response is predictably lame and amounts to nothing more than paper-shuffling by DEFRA. In fact, I reckon DEFRA has a folder where stock phrases are kept and hauled out each and every time there’s a question about why the Westminster Government is failing so badly when it comes to tackling raptor persecution.

Many of the sentences in Trudy Harrison’s response are pretty much carbon-copies of those given by Environment Minister Rebecca Pow in September 2021 (here), those given by DEFRA Minister Richard Benyon in February 2022 (here), those given by Rebecca Pow in February 2022 (here), those given by Richard Benyon in April 2022 (here), and those given by Trudy Harrison earlier this month (here).

Once more, for the record:

Harrison/DEFRA says: “This government takes wildlife crime seriously“.

Does it? The evidence suggests not.

Harrison/DEFRA says: “We have significant sanctions for crimes against birds of prey in place which include an unlimited fine and/or a six-month custodial sentence“.

Indeed, these sanctions are in place but there has only ever been one custodial sentence handed down to a raptor-killer – and that was in Scotland in 2015 when gamekeeper George Mutch was given a four-month custodial sentence for crimes he committed in 2012 (here). There haven’t been any others since then, and a custodial sentence has never been handed down in England, Wales or Northern Ireland for raptor persecution crime.

Harrison/DEFRA says: “Raptor persecution is a national wildlife crime priority“.

On paper, yes. In reality, no. Raptor persecution was identified as a national wildlife crime priority in 2009. That’s 14 years ago, and hundreds of birds of prey have been illegally killed in the UK since then.

Harrison/DEFRA says: “Defra continues to be fully involved with the police-led national Bird of Prey Crime Priority Delivery Group“.

This so-called Priority Delivery Group has been in place since 2011 and has delivered absolutely nothing of meaningful effect since then, largely due to the fact it is dominated by pro-shooting organisations who have a stranglehold on any progress that could have /should have been made. In my view, it’s a partnership sham, designed to look as though efforts are being made to effectively tackle illegal raptor persecution in England and Wales (see here).

Harrison/DEFRA says: “Natural England continues to work closely with wildlife crime officers“.

Yes, and in recent years NE has been involved with a number of multi-agency raids. Good. However, NE also ‘partners’ with the grouse-shooting industry, facilitating DEFRA’s ludicrous hen harrier brood meddling scheme, designed to placate the very industry responsible for this species’ persecution and subsequent catastrophic decline.

Harrison/DEFRA says: “[Vicarious liability] has been introduced in Scotland but it is unclear whether it has had a significant deterrent effect. We will continue to monitor the situation in Scotland to consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to assist in tackling wildlife crime in England“.

Vicarious liability has been in place in Scotland for 11 years. The recent UN report on UK wildlife crime made a recommendation that vicarious liability be introduced without delay in England and Wales. What does DEFRA have to lose by introducing it south of the Border?

There have been a number of written Parliamentary questions in recent weeks relating to wildlife crime, and particularly to addressing raptor persecution.

Here’s the first one, submitted by Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party):

The report to which Caroline is referring is the UN Office of Drugs and Crime’s Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytical Toolkit Report: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2021), which is basically a comprehensive review of the prevalence of wildlife crime in the UK and an assessment of judicial responses. The report provides a series of recommendations that the UK and devolved Governments could implement to better address the issues.

The summary recommendation for addressing raptor persecution is as follows:

‘To bolster the legislative framework required to properly address raptor persecution, the WCA and licensing regime across the entire UK should be synthesised and aligned. As it currently stands, the discrepancy in sentencing, vicarious liability, disqualification powers, and more (for example, operationalisation of the pesticide provisions in the WCA), presents a confusing picture to law enforcement and the public. Though raptor persecution has been set as a priority for the UK, the differences in the statutory and licensing regimes present many obstacles to ensuring raptors receive the same level of protection across the entire UK‘.

You can download the report here:

Caroline’s written question was answered last Friday by Trudy Harrison, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in DEFRA, as follows:

As we’ve come to expect from DEFRA, this is little more than airy waffle.

Harrison says: “Where any protected raptors are killed illegally the full force of the law should apply to any proven perpetrators of the crime“.

Yes, it should, but it routinely isn’t.

Harrison says: “We already have significant sanctions for this type of wildlife crime in place which includes an unlimited fine and/or a six-month custodial sentence“.

Indeed, these sanctions are in place but there has only ever been one custodial sentence handed down to a raptor-killer – and that was in Scotland in 2015 when gamekeeper George Mutch was given a four-month custodial sentence for crimes he committed in 2012 (here). There haven’t been any others since then, and a custodial sentence has never been handed down in England, Wales or Northern Ireland for raptor persecution crime.

Harrison says: “To address concerns about the illegal killing of birds of prey, senior government and enforcement officers have identified raptor persecution as a national wildlife crime priority“.

Raptor persecution was identified as a national wildlife crime priority in 2009. That’s 14 years ago, and hundreds of birds of prey have been illegally killed in the UK since then.

Harrison says: “Defra continues to be fully involved with the police-led national Bird of Prey Crime Priority Delivery Group which brings together police, government and stakeholders“.  

This so-called Priority Delivery Group has been in place since 2011 and has delivered absolutely nothing of meaningful effect since then, largely due to the fact it is dominated by pro-shooting organisations who have a stranglehold on any progress that could have /should have been made. In my view, it’s a partnership sham, designed to look as though efforts are being made to effectively tackle illegal raptor persecution in England and Wales (see here).

Harrison says: “The extra funding we now provide to the NWCU is also to be allocated towards wildlife crime priorities including crimes against our birds of prey“.

The additional funding for the NWCU is really the only meaningful effort that DEFRA has made in over a decade, but it’s for the seven national wildlife crime priorities, not just for raptor persecution. The NWCU has played a valuable role in raptor persecution investigations in recent years, often partnering with others on multi-agency raids, and whilst that has been a significant and welcome move, the bottom line is that the NWCU can’t force any police authority to investigate raptor persecution, as we saw so clearly with the botched investigation by Dorset Police into the poisoned white-tailed eagle. NWCU officers were just as frustrated as the rest of us but they can only offer advice and training to Police forces; they can’t compel them to run a decent investigation, no matter how much they would want to.