Derbyshire Police’s Rural Crime Team has issued an appeal for information after the discovery of a critically-injured Goshawk, which had to be euthanised due to the extent of its injuries.
The injured Goshawk was found by a member of the public near Stanton Hall, Stanton by Dale, in south east Derbyshire on Saturday 31 January 2026. A veterinary examination and x-ray revealed the bird had been shot with a shotgun and sustained a right wing fracture, a left wing fracture and a suspected left ulna fracture near the elbow.
Given these injuries, it is likely the Goshawk wasn’t capable of long distance flight from the location where it was shot.
Photographs via Derbyshire Police Rural Crime Team:
The Police are asking the public whether they saw anyone with a gun in the area, whether gunshots were heard, and whether anyone saw any suspicious behaviour.
Anyone with information is asked to call the police on 101 and quote incident number 26*68719.
Further to yesterday’s news that David Campbell, 77, the former Head Gamekeeper of Edradynate Estate in Perthshire was convicted of the shotgun murder of his former estate colleague, Brian Low, two years ago, the judge’s sentencing remarks have been published and Police Scotland has issued a statement.
Retired Head Gamekeeper and now convicted murderer David Campbell (photo by Police Scotland)
Lord Scott’s sentencing remarks:
“You have been found guilty of the murder of James Brian Low, known as Brian Low, on a quiet country lane near Aberfeldy on 16 February 2024, just over 2 years ago. You did not encounter Brian Low by chance that day, and you did not just happen to have a shotgun with you. On the evidence, the jury decided that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that, in a carefully premeditated act, you murdered an unarmed and defenceless man by discharging a shotgun at him, causing such severe injuries that he died where he fell. You did this having earlier disabled CCTV cameras in your home in an attempt to conceal your whereabouts that day.
There was no provocation for what you did. You murdered a man who offered no threat to you. You did this having told people over several years how much you hated him or loathed him or blamed him for the change in your fortunes which followed police attention to the estate where you were head gamekeeper for over 30 years. After some time, and things you blamed him for, you left the estate although you felt that you were sacked. The bitterness and grudge you bore towards Brian Low, reflected in some of the things you said about him, did not diminish over time. Indeed, it seems to have become more intense, leading you to plan and carry out the sort of killing that was referred to in a relevant decision of the Appeal Court as “a targeted assassination” or “a pre-planned execution with a victim who was unarmed and unaware of the fate which was about to befall him.
The murder weapon was never found, undoubtedly disposed of by you along with other incriminating items in calm and calculated efforts to conceal your crime and remove any evidence in its immediate aftermath.
It may be that, given serious errors in the early stages of police inquiries, you thought initially that you had got away with murder. If so, you were wrong. From the point of the first effort at autopsy, it became clear that Brian Low’s death was not due to natural causes. From that point on, despite successful efforts to dispose of key evidence and cover some of your tracks, it seems inevitable that suspicion would start to focus on you given, among other things, the views you held about Brian Low which you made no secret of until you came to give evidence.
You lied to the police, attempting to avoid the obvious conclusion from some of what you had done by alleging a police conspiracy to lose what you claimed would have been exculpatory evidence. By the time of the trial, it had occurred even to you that some of those lies were ludicrous and would never be believed, so you adapted your evidence in court to try to counter some of the incriminating facts, veering sharply away from some of your earlier lies and even some of your apparent trial strategy.
When you murdered him, Brian Low was 65 years old. There are 2 moving Victim Impact Statements, prepared by Brian Low’s partner, Pamela Curran and his older brother, Douglas Low.
Pamela Curran describes the significant impact on her life of the loss of her partner. She feels sad every day and misses Brian. It is hard for her to think she will never see him again. You robbed her of the chance to say goodbye. She will not now go out after dark. She is stressed, tearful and cannot concentrate or relax properly. In March last year, she was contemplating trying to see a counsellor for the impact on her mental health. Her closest friend told her, “the spark has gone out of your eyes, you just appear sad. It’s heartbreaking”. Without Brian’s financial contribution, she thought that she would have to find somewhere else to stay and leave the home she loved and in which she formed many happy memories with Brian.
Douglas Low describes the profound and lasting impact on him and his family of their traumatic loss through murder. He says he is changed forever. Brian Low’s family are understandably devastated. Douglas Low says his heart is broken, with an overwhelming sense of loss and grief “that words cannot express”. Brian was a best friend, a confidante, and almost like a son to him due to their 10 year age gap. He says that, “His kindness, old-fashioned honesty and sense of humour were refreshing and always welcomed”. He still misses their weekly Sunday catch-ups. Brian Low’s family are left with many questions, not least why anyone would want to murder him so callously. What you did robbed Brian Low, Pamela Curran and Brian Low’s family of the life he had planned for retirement.
Douglas Low says, “He touched many lives with his warmth and presence, and those who loved him now live in sorrow, trying to come to terms with the cruel reality of his absence”.
Brian Low was clearly a much loved partner, brother, uncle, friend and colleague. It is obvious that no sentence I can impose will be enough to help Brian Low’s loved ones with their traumatic loss.
David Campbell, you are 77 years old and, at the time of the murder, were 75. You have no previous convictions. This appalling and senseless act of extreme wickedness casts a shadow over what seems to have been a long life spent by you in gainful employment and some benefit to the community.
Understandably, Mr Lenehan was simply unable to find anything to say on your behalf today in view of the jury’s verdict.
The sentence for murder is prescribed by law and is a life sentence. I require, however, to specify a punishment part which is the period you must serve before you can be considered for parole. Having regard to the premeditated nature of this murder, I have decided that the appropriate punishment part is 19 years. That takes into account all relevant factors, including your age. Had it not been for your age, the punishment part would have been greater.
You should understand that this is not a sentence of 19 years imprisonment. It is a life sentence. 19 years represents the minimum time you will have to serve before you can even be considered for parole. Given the date when the sentence will commence, that period of 19 years will keep you in prison to the age of 94 at least. Whether you are released then or ever will be a matter for the Parole Board to determine after that 19 year period has elapsed, based on the risk you are assessed to pose at that time.
The sentence will date from 27 May 2024“.
ENDS
I’ll come back to this part of Lord Scott’s statement in a separate blog:
“You have no previous convictions. This appalling and senseless act of extreme wickedness casts a shadow over what seems to have been a long life spent by you in gainful employment and some benefit to the community”.
Statement by Police Scotland:
David Campbell has been found guilty of murdering Brian Low in Aberfeldy, Perthshire.
Mr Low, 65, was fatally shot while out walking his dog in the Pitilie area in the afternoon of Friday, 16 February, 2024.
Today, Wednesday, 25 February, 2026, 77-year-old Campbell was told he will spend at least 19 years behind bars before being eligible for parole.
Detective Chief Superintendent Lorna Ferguson, Police Scotland’s Head of Local Crime, and the senior investigating officer for the case, said:
“This was a complex and challenging investigation involving a number of specialist officers and staff from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority who worked tirelessly to piece together the events leading up to Mr Low’s murder.
“A team of 31 officers from Police Scotland’s Major Investigation Team, the local policing division and specialist search colleagues were involved in the three-month investigation.
“Detectives examined 2400 hours of CCTV footage, captured around 1000 statements and visited almost 500 properties as part of extensive enquiries to establish what happened and who was responsible for Mr Low’s death.
“Expert witnesses in ballistics, biology, chemistry and cybercrime, also played a crucial role in building evidence in the case against Campbell.
“I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that our initial response to this tragic incident fell short of what Police Scotland and the public rightly expects. We have reflected and we have learned from what happened.
“This learning included a complete review of all policies and procedures around attendance at unexplained deaths as we take steps to try and prevent something like this happening again.
“Our thoughts today are very much with Mr Low’s family and I would welcome the opportunity to apologise to them personally for our initial response to his death.
“They have described Brian as a much-loved partner and grandfather, who will be very much missed by all who knew him. They acknowledge the conviction at court today and have asked their privacy to be respected as they continue to process and grieve.
“Violent crimes are extremely rare in the Aberfeldy area, and I know this incident caused shock and fear within the local community. I want to thank all those living locally for their patience and support throughout our investigation, which saw extensive police activity for a long period of time in what is a quiet tourist town. Your information was vital in helping to trace the person responsible“.
ENDS
UPDATE 27 Feb 2026: Some commentary on the murder conviction of ex-Head Gamekeeper David Campbell (here)
After a 13-day trial at the High Court in Glasgow, David Campbell, 77, the former Head Gamekeeper on Edradynate Estate in Perthshire, has been found guilty of murdering his former colleague, Brian Low, 65, by shooting him with a shotgun as Mr Low walked his dog on a remote footpath near Aberfeldy on 16 February 2024.
Brian Low (on the left) was murdered by former gamekeeper David Campbell
Campbell has been jailed for life and must serve a minimum term of 19 years before he is eligible for release. He will almost certainly die in prison.
Campbell had originally faced eight charges, including murder, breaches of the peace and attempting to defeat the ends of justice. However, all but the murder charge were dropped on the last day of his trial.
This is breaking news. I’ll be writing more about David Campbell and the long history of raptor persecution incidents recorded at Edradynate Estate, some of which resulted in prosecution, some of which didn’t, but none of which ever resulted in a conviction.
I know that many people in the area were terrified of Campbell and his apparent invincibility. Their fear was justified. I dare say that many of them will be breathing a sigh of relief after today’s verdict.
UPDATE 26 Feb 2026: Sentencing remarks & statement from Police Scotland after conviction of gamekeeper David Campbell for shotgun murder of ex-colleague (here)
UPDATE 27 Feb 2026: Some commentary on the murder conviction of ex-Head Gamekeeper David Campbell (here)
A new petition has been launched calling on the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mary Creagh MP) to bring in legal reform to help stop the illegal persecution of birds of prey.
The petition has been created by Friends of the Dales, a registered charity working to protect and enhance the Yorkshire Dales, as part of its Eyes on the Skies campaign. Regular blog readers will know that the Yorkshire Dales is a national hotspot for raptor persecution, particularly on many of the privately-owned grouse moors inside this National Park.
Photo by Ruth Tingay
The petition is focused on a letter from Friends of the Dales to Mary Creagh MP, asking her to prioritise what are described as three essential reforms:
1. Sentencing guidelines and the strengthening of penalties for offenders. The persistence of raptor persecution demonstrates that current sanctions do not act as a credible deterrent. Introducing sentencing guidelines with meaningful fines and ensuring the appropriate use of custodial sentences would send a clear message that the criminal killing of birds of prey is being treated as a serious crime.
2. Establish a National Wildlife Crime Database. Wildlife crime is not currently a notifiable offence. As a result, serious incidents of wildlife crime are recorded with the same priority as minor offences. Making wildlife crime notifiable would allow the creation of a national database, enabling police forces, land managers, and conservation bodies to identify trends, focus resources and coordinate action across regions.
3. Regulate and license the gamebird-shooting industry. Analysis by the RSPB shows that most confirmed incidents of raptor persecution, and the majority of related convictions, are linked to land managed for gamebird shooting. In the Yorkshire Dales, where this is a dominant land use, robust regulation and a licensing system are necessary to ensure accountability and prevent further offences.
You can read the full letter and sign the petition HERE.
Following yesterday’s news that NatureScot has imposed a(nother) three-year General Licence restriction on Raeshaw Estate in south Scotland (here), based on evidence provided by Police Scotland about the disappearance of satellite-tagged Golden Eagle ‘Merrick’, who police believe was ‘shot and killed’ (here), Raeshaw Estate has announced its intention to appeal NatureScot’s decision.
Camera trap photo of golden eagle Merrick, from South Scotland Golden Eagle Project
The following statement, attributed to a spokesperson for Raeshaw Estate, was reported in several newspapers yesterday:
‘The decision by NatureScot to restrict the estate’s general licence is wholly unjustified. We will challenge it vigorously through an appeal.
We share the frustration felt by many about Merrick’s disappearance but there is no evidence the estate or any of its employees were in any way responsible.
The estate has zero tolerance for raptor persecution and remains fully committed to respecting wildlife, nature and the environment.
Merrick’s last established position was not on land owned or managed by our estate. The location was in a nearby wood where other parties have access and are permitted to shoot.
No employee of the estate was charged as a result of a lengthy police investigation which concluded nearly 20 months ago.
NatureScot has conceded there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with this case. We also provided expert veterinary testimony to NatureScot stating there was insufficient evidence to ascertain the bird had been killed by criminal means and that DNA analysis was inconclusive.
In reaching its decision NatureScot confirmed the estate was not suspected of any other contraventions of land management regulations.
This decision is even more disappointing given that NatureScot has acknowledged the estate is a supporter of the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project.
So much so, the estate recorded the presence of eagles on many occasions foraging and enjoying the safety and serenity of Raeshaw – something we dearly welcome.
We also provided NatureScot with video evidence of these frequent visits‘.
ENDS
My commentary:
A lot of this reads like PR-bluster -damage-limitation-mumbo-jumbo to me.
It’s difficult to comment in detail about the specifics of the evidence collected by Police Scotland and provided to NatureScot, as much of it isn’t in the public domain, although presumably has been provided to the representatives of Raeshaw Estate, which probably includes the estate’s management agency, which I believe is JM Osborne (and the estate is also listed on the William Powell Sporting website), both companies are owned by ‘grouse guru’ Mark Osborne.
However, there are several aspects of the statement that can be discussed.
For example:
‘Merrick’s last established position was not on land owned or managed by our estate. The location was in a nearby wood where other parties have access and are permitted to shoot’.
It’s true that Merrick’s last established position (sleeping in a tree) was ‘not on land owned or managed’ by Raeshaw Estate, but it was close by. And it is known that some gamekeepers will trespass onto neighbouring land to commit an offence (e.g. see here). Now that doesn’t mean that somebody from Raeshaw did do that, that’s not what I’m saying, but given the proximity to the estate boundary, it’s not inconceivable that this scenario could have happened.
Screen grab from Who Owns Scotland website, annotated by RPUK, showing the proximity of Merrick’s last known location and the Raeshaw Estate (shaded in blue)
‘No employee of the estate was charged as a result of a lengthy police investigation which concluded nearly 20 months ago‘.
So what? A General Licence restriction isn’t reliant on somebody being charged. Indeed, GL restrictions were introduced by the Scottish Government in 2014 for the many situations where police evidence confirmed that raptor persecution had taken place but where there was insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution against a named individual. There’s no requirement for NatureScot to link an alleged offence to a specific individual; indeed, NatureScot always issues GL restrictions with an accompanying statement that says, ‘Please note that this restriction does not imply responsibility for the commission of crimes on any individuals’.
‘NatureScot has conceded there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with this case’.
So what? Yes, NatureScot did take far too long to reach this decision, but there isn’t a time limit for NatureScot to make a decision on GL restrictions so this statement is irrelevant.
‘We also provided expert veterinary testimony to NatureScot stating there was insufficient evidence to ascertain the bird had been killed by criminal means and that DNA analysis was inconclusive’.
Er, I’m not sure how an ‘expert veterinary testimony’ could conclude anything about whether the eagle was ‘killed by criminal means’, or not, given that there wasn’t a body to examine! And from what I’ve heard, DNA analysis of the blood found at the scene came back as a match with Merrick’s DNA profile, so quite how that makes the analysis ‘inconclusive’ I don’t know! There was likely a 1 in several million chance/probability that the blood wasn’t Merrick’s.
‘In reaching its decision NatureScot confirmed the estate was not suspected of any other contraventions of land management regulations’.
Again, so what? It doesn’t need multiple ‘contraventions’ for a GL restriction to be imposed. This statement is irrelevant.
‘…the estate recorded the presence of eagles on many occasions foraging and enjoying the safety and serenity of Raeshaw – something we dearly welcome.We also provided NatureScot with video evidence of these frequent visits‘.
Providing videos of eagles flying over an estate doesn’t prove anything other than that eagles are sometimes present. But we already knew that because Merrick’s satellite tag data showed she’d been there. It doesn’t mean that she couldn’t have been killed that night when roosting in a tree a few metres from the estate boundary. In the same way that the Conistone & Grassington Estate could have shown videos of Hen Harriers ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate, or the Hovingham Estate could have shown videos of Buzzards ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate, or the Moy Estate could have shown videos of Sparrowhawks ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate, or Fengate Farm could have shown videos of Buzzards and Goshawks ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate….I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea.
‘The estate has zero tolerance for raptor persecution and remains fully committed to respecting wildlife, nature and the environment’.
Marvellous.
Nevertheless, although it is true that nobody has ever been prosecuted for raptor persecution incidents on Raeshaw Estate, and I have no doubt that JM Osborne, as an experienced sporting agency, has a written policy, maybe even a contractual obligation, for the need for its employees to comply with the law, it is still a fact that there have been a substantial number of confirmed/suspected raptor persecution incidents recorded in the area (see list created in 2017, here), dating back over a 25-year period.
As part of NatureScot’s decision-making process for General Licence Restrictions (the Framework), one of the criteria assessed is, ‘Any history of previous, similar instances’. Given that Raeshaw Estate has already served one previous General Licence restriction (2015-2018, see here), then it seems reasonable to me that NatureScot is entitled to consider those earlier incidents when deciding whether to impose another GL restriction on this estate, regardless of whatever claims an estate makes about loving wildlife. It doesn’t mean that NatureScot is stating that someone/an individual connected to Raeshaw Estate is responsible for shooting/killing Merrick – it simply means that NatureScot has lost confidence in the use of light-touch regulation (the General Licences) on the estate.
Of course, Raeshaw Estate is fully entitled to appeal NatureScot’s latest decision. That, too, is enshrined in NatureScot’s GL Restriction Framework. Other estates with General Licence Restrictions imposed have appealed those decisions over the years but as far as I’m aware, none of the appeals have been upheld. For example:
Leadhills Estate loses appeal (this is hilarious – here)
Leadhills Estate loses another appeal (this time against an extension to its GL restriction) (here)
If Raeshaw Estate is going to appeal, it will have to do so in writing to Naturescot within 14 days. According to the GL Restriction Framework, ‘An appeal shall have the effect of suspending the restriction from the date the appeal is received by the Head of Licensing until the date of the Decision on Appeal…‘. NatureScot advises that it will seek to make a decision on an appeal within four weeks of receipt.
UPDATE 7 April 2026: Raeshaw Estate loses appeal against 3-yr General Licence restriction in relation to Golden Eagle Merrick being ‘shot & killed’ (here)
Camera trap photo of golden eagle Merrick, from South Scotland Golden Eagle Project
Here is Naturescot’s statement:
10 February 2026
NatureScot has restricted the use of general licences at Raeshaw Estate and Watherston Wood in the Scottish Borders.
The decision was made based on evidence provided by Police Scotland of wildlife crime against birds.
This evidence included the sudden disappearance of a satellite-tagged golden eagle named Merrick in October 2023 as well as golden eagle blood, feathers and shotgun cartridge wadding recovered from the same location.
Chris Dailly, NatureScot’s Head of Licensing, said: “We have decided, in discussion with Police Scotland, to suspend the use of general licences on this land for three years until January 2029. The police have recorded Merrick’s disappearance as a crime and have provided robust evidence to NatureScot to support this.
“We are committed to using all the tools we have available to tackle wildlife crime. This measure will help to protect wild birds in the area, while still allowing necessary land management activities to take place.
“We believe this is a proportionate response to protect wild birds and prevent further wildlife crime. We will continue to work closely with Police Scotland and consider information they provide on cases which may warrant restricting general licences.”
Individual licences may still be applied for, but these will be subject to strict record-keeping and reporting requirements and will be closely monitored to ensure licence conditions are met.
General licences allow landowners or land managers to carry out control of common species of wild birds, such as crows and magpies, to protect crops or livestock, without the need to apply for an individual licence.
In addition to this restriction, there are currently two other restrictions in place in Scotland: on Millden Estate in Angus and Lochindorb Estate in Highland.
ENDS
Here are the maps provided by NatureScot showing the restriction areas on Raeshaw Estate and Watherston Wood, and an accompanying statement of clarification:
In line with NatureScot’s published General Licence restrictions: Framework for Implementing Restrictions we hereby give notice that a restriction has been applied to the land outlined in red overleaf. This restriction prohibits the use of General Licences 01, 02 and 03 on that land from 10th February 2026 up to and including 9th February 2029.
Please note that this restriction does not imply responsibility for the commission of crimes on any individuals.
My commentary:
There’s a lot to say about this latest General Licence restriction. Some of it will have to wait for another blog because I’m short on time at the moment, but some of it I’ll say now.
General Licence restrictions, which have been available to NatureScot since 2014, are based on the civil burden of proof and are issued when NatureScot receives information from Police Scotland about wildlife crimes but where there is insufficient evidence to identify an individual offender for prosecution. (GL restrictions can also be imposed on estates where gamekeepers have been convicted of wildlife crimes).
General Licence restrictions do not prevent an estate from game-shooting, nor do they prevent an estate from carrying out [lawful] predator control – this can still be undertaken if the estate applies for an ‘individual licence’ which may restrict the amount of predator control, the estate may be subject to compliance spot checks, and the licence holder must provide NatureScot with licence returns (i.e. indicate how many birds were killed, where, and when etc).
General Licence restrictions are not perfect as an effective sanction – they are nowhere near, as I’ve written about many times before (e.g. see here and links within). They do, however, work as a ‘reputational driver’, although in some cases reputation is apparently not an issue of concern.
Whilst today’s decision is very welcome news, it’s taken NatureScot far too long to reach it. Regular blog readers will know that NatureScot has been considering this decision since April 2024 (see here) when it first received information from Police Scotland about the shooting/killing of Merrick. That’s almost two years of procrastination (e.g. see here, here). It’s nowhere near good enough.
This is the second General Licence restriction imposed on Raeshaw Estate.
Raeshaw Estate boundary derived from Andy Wightman’s Who Owns Scotlandwebsite
Raeshaw Estate was one of the first estates to receive a General Licence restriction in 2015, based on clear police evidence that wildlife crimes had been committed although there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any individual (see here). Representatives of Raeshaw Estate applied for a judicial review of NatureScot’s decision but the Court of Session upheld NatureScot’s procedures and ruled them lawful (here).
Whilst under that first General Licence restriction, Raeshaw Estate applied for, and was granted, a number of ‘individual licences’ so the gamekeepers could continue to kill certain species as part of the estate’s grouse moor management plan (quite a lot of birds were lawfully killed – see here).
However, in 2017 the individual licence was revoked by NatureScot due to non-compliance issues and more suspected wildlife crime offences (see here). Not that the revocation made any difference whatsoever, as the estate could simply apply for another individual licence!
Inexplicably to many of us, NatureScot did not extend the length of the original General Licence restriction, which it has the authority to do, in light of the non-compliance issues on the estate’s individual licence (see here).
And now here we are again, with a second General Licence restriction imposed, this time in relation to the illegal shooting and killing of Golden Eagle ‘Merrick’ in October 2023.
As a colleague pointed out to me today, General Licence restrictions have been useful in as much as they have provided a framework for imposing a licence restriction based on the civil burden of proof, and this has clearly influenced the new system of grouse moor licensing in Scotland, introduced as a new sanction under the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act 2024, whereby licences to shoot Red Grouse can be revoked, based on the civil burden of proof, if evidence of wildlife crime is provided to NatureScot by Police Scotland.
In this latest case relating to Raeshaw Estate, I doubt very much whether a grouse shooting licence will be revoked because Merrick was shot in October 2023, before the introduction of grouse shoot licences, and a licence revocation can’t be applied retrospectively. I’m not even sure whether Raeshaw Estate has a grouse shooting licence; there isn’t a public register to consult. If it doesn’t currently have a grouse shooting licence, but applies for one during this three-year General Licence restriction, it’d be interesting to see what happens.
More commentary to come soon…
UPDATE 11 February 2026: Raeshaw Estate claims General Licence restriction “wholly unjustified” and intends to appeal (here)
UPDATE 7 April 2026: Raeshaw Estate loses appeal against 3-yr General Licence restriction in relation to Golden Eagle Merrick being ‘shot & killed’ (here)
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.
Screen grab from the RSPB covert footage via Channel 4 News
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…
On Tuesday, 20 January, 2026, police were made aware a gamekeeper from an estate in Stanhope had discovered an injured golden eagle on Thursday, 15 January, 2026.
The bird was wearing a satellite tracking device and was identified as Hamlet, a four-year-old golden eagle that had been relocated from the Outer Hebrides to the Scottish Borders in 2023.
Hamlet was examined by a vet, who confirmed shotgun pellet injuries to his wing. He received treatment and made a full recovery. Hamlet has since been returned to the wild.
X-ray showing shotgun damage to the eagle’s right wing. Photo by SSPCA via Police Scotland
Officers investigating the crime have reviewed Hamlet’s tracking data and following consultation with raptor and veterinary experts, it’s believed Hamlet was shot during the first week of January 2026 in an area between Stanhope and Glenbreck, off the A701 Broughton to Moffat Road.
Detective Sergeant David Lynn, National Wildlife Crime Coordinator, said: “It is extremely disappointing that we are investigating another golden eagle persecution crime. Very few people would have the means, opportunity and motive to commit this crime and I would urge anyone with any information to contact us so we can identify whoever is responsible for shooting Hamlet.”
Police Scotland, with the support of the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit, is conducting a thorough enquiry in the local area to identify the culprit. Anyone with information is asked to call Police Scotland via 101, quoting incident number 1221 of 3 February, 2026. Alternatively, you can pass on your information anonymously to Crimestoppers using 800 555 111.
ENDS
‘Hamlet’ is the sixth victim of eagle persecution in the Scottish Borders in recent years:
Golden Eagle ‘Fred’ disappeared in an area managed for gamebird shooting in the Pentland Hills in January 2018 (his satellite tag transmitted from the North Sea a few days later – here).
Golden Eagle ‘Merrick’ was shot whilst she was sleeping in a tree next to a grouse moor in the Moorfoot Hills in October 2023 (we’re STILL waiting for NatureScot to make a decision about whether a General Licence restriction will be imposed as a consequence – see here).
Golden Eagles ‘Tarras’ and ‘Wren’ disappeared in an area managed for gamebird shooting near Langholm in August 2025 (see here).
A White-tailed Eagle ‘disappeared’ in the Moorfoot Hills area in November 2025 (here).
All six of these eagles were satellite-tagged. Nobody has been prosecuted in relation to any of these incidents.
A couple of weeks ago, the High Court threw out the Moorland Association’s legal challenge against Defra’s new burning regulations, which further restrict the areas of peatland that can be burned (see earlier blog here).
Inner courtyard at Royal Courts of Justice, London (photo by Ruth Tingay)
I said in that blog that I’d discuss the case further once documents had been obtained from the court. I’m still waiting for those documents, but in the meantime, for those interested in the specifics of the case, here is a very technical legal summary of the case, published on 28 January 2026 by Westlaw, which is an online research service used by legal professionals (many thanks to the blog reader who provided the link).
Case Digest
R. (on the application of The Moorland Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2026] 1 WLUK 481
Summary
(EXTEMPORE) Owners and managers of peatlands unsuccessfully challenged regulations extending the scope of a licencing regime for burning heather and grass on peatland. Firefighters’ concerns regarding the risk of wildfire had been adequately considered and the regulations pursued legitimate aims in terms of climate change and biodiversity.
Abstract
The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The claimant organisation represented the owners and managers of peatlands. The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 had introduced a licensing regime for burning on peatlands, replacing a previous voluntary system.
In March 2025, the defendant secretaryof state commenced a consultation on amending the 2021 Regulations to extend that regime to cover shallower peatlands and increase the area protected, and published a Natural England Evidence Review (NEER 155) on the effects of managed burning on upland peatland biodiversity, carbon balance and water quality, that set out a review of 102 studies. The consultation lasted six weeks.
Fire services and the National Fire Chiefs Council gave detailed responses raising concerns that the changes could lead to a risk of larger and more intense wildfires, resulting in increased risks to firefighters and the public. The defendant met with the fire chiefs and produced a consultation response which set out the defendant’s view that it was important to proceed with the proposals on the basis that the restoration of peatland to its naturally wet state would increase long-term wildfire resilience by reducing the fuel load in a sustainable manner.
The 2025 Regulations came into force in September 2025. Regulation 4(4)(c) of the 2021 Regulations had provided that the defendant could grant a licence where it was expedient or necessary to reduce the “risk” of wildfire: the 2025 Regulations changed the word “risk” to “impact”.
The claimant sought to challenge the 2025 Regulations, contending that they curtailed the ability to use controlled burning to mitigate the risk of wildfire, which was a long-standing land management practice, that the alternatives of cutting and wetting were not feasible, and that the risks raised by the firefighters had not properly been considered.
Held
Applicationrefused.
Test for permission – The threshold of arguability for permission to apply was a relatively low one, Ramdass v Minister of Finance [2025] UKPC 4, [2025] 1 WLUK 349 applied.
Flawed consultation – It was not arguable that the consultation had failed to provide or consult on key evidential facts. NEER 155 [Ed: see here for earlier blog discussion on this Natural England report] had been published and it had been open to consultees to argue that it was wrong. There had been no obligation to consult on NEER 155 separately; that document had just formed part of the evidence base, R. (on the application of Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin), [2019] 1 W.L.R. 1649, [2018] 8 WLUK 16 considered. It was not arguable that the change in wording from “risk” to “impact” of wildfire was significant or prejudicial; if a licence lowered the risk of wildfire, then it necessarily lowered the impact.
Procedural irrationality – It was not arguable that the defendant had not made conscientious inquiries regarding wildfire risks where she had met with fire chiefs and given a considered response. While there had been divergent views about the fire risks and the advantages and disadvantages of a broader licencing regime, the views of the firefighters had been considered, Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] A.C. 1014, [1976] 10 WLUK 91 followed.
Substantive irrationality – It was not arguable that the increase in the scope of the 2021 Regulations was Wednesbury irrational. That argument faced a high hurdle as the decision concerned a scientific and policy debate about relative benefits in a technical area. The defendant had had a rational justification for the regulations that had been set out in the consultation response and based on evidence.
ECHR Protocol 1 art.1 – There was no possibility of incompatibility with ECHR Protocol 1 art.1. The 2025 Regulations pursued legitimate aims in terms of climate change and biodiversity. The defendant had adequately considered the balance of risks. The regulations did not ban burning, but introduced a licensing regime; on the face of it that had been a fair and proportionate response. The implementation of the regime had been incremental.
ENDS
Having seen its application for judicial review refused by the High Court on every single ground, the Moorland Association (lobby group for grouse moor owners in England) has now announced it intends to appeal the court’s decision.
A different judge will now review the arguments of both the claimant (Moorland Association) and the defendant (Defra Secretary of State) and judge whether Mrs Justice Lieven’s refusal decision was reasonable based on the facts.
There’s no telling how long it will take for the appeal to be decided. It’s kind of pot luck on the availability of a judge and the time it takes that particular judge to write up a decision. It could be a matter of weeks, more likely several months, but could extend for over a year as we’ve seen with other environmental cases.
If permission is refused again, the legal challenge will fail. If permission is granted on appeal, then the legal challenge will proceed to a full substantive hearing at some point, but again, this is likely to be months into the future.
Raptor rehabilitation expert Jean Thorpe posted on social media yesterday about an injured Buzzard that was found grounded near Wigginton, York.
The Buzzard was taken to Battle Flatts Veterinary Clinic where an x-ray revealed a shotgun pellet lodged in her leg and associated feather damage.
The Buzzard is currently undergoing rehabilitation with Jean.
The Buzzard was found on 26 January 2026. If you have any information about this, or any other raptor persecution incidents in North Yorkshire, please contact the police and the RSPB Investigations Team.
Raptor Persecution UK 