There was an interesting case heard at Banff Sheriff Court yesterday where Scottish gamekeeper Terry Lindsay, 40, was facing a charge relating to the use of a trap that was alleged to have been illegally-set on Fyvie Estate in Aberdeenshire.
The trap at the centre of the trial was a clam trap (also known as a Larsen Mate trap) that had been baited with a pheasant carcass and placed next to a pheasant release pen on 26th August 2020. The use of these traps, baited with meat, is lawful (although highly contentious – see this blog from 10 years ago!) as long as certain General Licence conditions are met.
Here’s a photo of the trap. For readers unfamiliar with how they work, the spilt perch above the bait is designed to collapse when a bird lands on it, which causes the two metal sides of the trap to close (like a clam), capturing the bird inside the trap where it will remain until the trap operator comes along to either release the bird (if it’s a non-target species, such as a raptor) or club it to death if it’s a legitimate target species (e.g. crow).
A write-up of the case was published yesterday in the Press & Journal (behind a paywall) but unfortunately the article includes a number of inaccuracies. For the purpose of clarification, I’ve reproduced the P&J article (below), followed by my understanding of the case.
Here’s the article published by the P&J yesterday:
A gamekeeper has been cleared of illegally trapping a protected bird after it emerged police officers lied during the course of the investigation.
The case against Terry Lindsay collapsed when Sheriff Robert McDonald heard evidence that officers misled two people about why they were on the Fyvie Estate.
Police had received a tip-off that a sparrowhawk was “beside” a trap but lied to estate staff about why they were there – instead saying it was to look for a missing person.
Sheriff McDonald said that “outright lie” made the police officers’ evidence inadmissible and acquitted Mr Lindsay, 40, less than an hour after the trial started at Banff Sheriff Court.
“It seems to me that the critical point is the lying,” Sheriff McDonald said.
“I think the evidence of the search is inadmissible. It’s fatal that police have told an outright lie to two members of the public who, as I pointed out, had some authority as to who comes onto the land.
“That compounds it. I find the evidence inadmissible.”
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “We are aware of the outcome in court and the full circumstances leading to yesterday’s trial are being reviewed.”
The verdict was met with “disappointment” by the RSPB, the bird welfare charity which initially came across the trap and reported its whereabouts to police.
Pc Alison Davis told the trial she and her sergeant, Gary Johnston, spent about an hour scouring the estate on August 26 2020 after an RSPB informant made them aware there was a “trap with a bird beside it”.
She told procurator fiscal Gerard Droogan they were approached by a gamekeeper and the laird, Sir George Forbes-Leith, and told both that they were searching for a missing person.
“There was no truth in that as far as I am aware,” Pc Davis said, before adding: “He [Sgt Johnston] said to me afterwards that he was concerned that any evidence would be lost, or words to that effect.”
Mr Lindsay’s defence agent Paul Anderson asked Pc Davis why neither conversation was included in her statement.
She replied: “I didn’t consider them to be witnesses. I didn’t think of that as relevant to the inquiry. That’s why it’s not in my statement. It was certainly not intentionally left out.”
Mr Anderson asked: “Two lies were told in the space of one hour to two separate members of the public?”
“Yes,” replied the officer.
During her evidence, Pc Davis also explained how they eventually found the trap with a sparrowhawk inside around 20 metres from a pheasant breeding operation on the estate.
The bird was alive, she took photos of it and they released it, before placing the trap in the back of the van, she said.
Mr Anderson said this decision to lie, alongside a decision to search the land “without reasonable cause to suspect someone was committing an offence”, made any police evidence “unreliable and uncredible”.
“There were lies told to two members of the public within one hour about why police were on the land,” he told Sheriff McDonald.
“It’s inexcusable. The evidence is so tainted it cannot be considered by the court.”
He added the lies became “fatal to the search” and invited the sheriff to offer an acquittal.
Sheriff McDonald agreed and Mr Lindsay, of North Haddo, Fyvie, was acquitted of the charge under the Wildlife and Countryside Scotland Act 1981.
Speaking after the case, the RSPB said more needed to be done to regulate the use of traps.
Ian Thomson, RSPB Scotland’s head of investigations, told The Press and Journal: “While we are disappointed that this case was dismissed after the court considered witness evidence from the police, we remain concerned that traps authorised by the General Licences issued annually by NatureScot continue to be poorly regulated, with no compliance monitoring, and are widely misused and abused.
“We hope that provisions introduced by the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill, currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament, bring better training, accountability and tighter regulation of such devices that are in widespread use on gamebird shooting estates in particular.”
A Fyvie Estate spokesman said: “As per other legally set Larsen traps, a sparrowhawk was caught and upon Mr Lindsay checking the trap, he found the police in attendance. The sparrowhawk was released unharmed by police officers.
“All traps are licensed and tagged, and a meat bait return form is completed as per Nature Scot guidelines showing the release of non-target species caught. The beauty of this type of trap is that they are checked several times a day and birds can be released unharmed.”
ENDS
My understanding is that the main inaccuracy in this article is that the RSPB did not report a sparrowhawk being “beside” a trap to Police Scotland. Rather, the RSPB reported what appeared to be an illegally-set trap. It was suspected to be illegally-set because the trap didn’t appear to have a trap registration number attached to it (this is one of the conditions of the General Licence) so quite rightly, the RSPB reported it to Police Scotland for investigation.
By the time Police Scotland attended the scene, a raptor had been caught in the trap. It’s been reported that this was a sparrowhawk but the photographs suggest it was a goshawk. The species ID isn’t a significant issue though – it’s not unlawful to trap a raptor inside a clam trap, whatever species it is; it only becomes unlawful if the raptor isn’t released, unharmed, as soon as it’s discovered by the trap operator during the daily trap check. In this case, the police officers released the unharmed hawk, so no problem there.
Those are the two main inaccuracies in the article, as far as I’m aware.
What happened in court, according to the article, I’ll have to take at face value.
It seems the fact that the two Police Scotland officers lied to the estate owner and to the gamekeeper about their reason for being on the estate is not disputed. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t examine why the police officers lied about it. If they had reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, they had full authority to enter the estate and conduct an initial land search, without a warrant. There was no reason for them to lie about the purpose of their visit – they had the authority to be there, under Section 19 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, which states:
‘If a constable suspects with reasonable cause that any person is committing, or has committed, an offence under this Part, he may, for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1), enter any land other than a dwelling or lockfast premises‘.
So why lie about their reason for visiting the estate? Why did they pretend they were looking for a missing person?
The only explanation I can think of (and this is pure speculation because I haven’t spoken to the two officers about it), is that they weren’t specialist Wildlife Crime Officers and so didn’t understand the extent of their powers to access the land and search for evidence.
If that is the case, it still doesn’t justify them lying to the landowner and the gamekeeper, but it perhaps provides an explanation of sorts.
Whatever their reasoning was, however, their actions are an embarrassment to Police Scotland and I hope that the ‘review of the full circumstances’, as stated in the P&J article, leads to lessons being learned.
For clarity, and for the benefit of anyone who might comment on this case, please note that gamekeeper Mr Lindsay was acquitted and any evidence about the alleged illegally-set trap was not put before the court because the Police Officers’ evidence was deemed inadmissible.
Raptor Persecution UK 