Tag: gamekeeper

On 1st June 2016, we blogged about the Mossdale Estate gamekeeper who had been caught on film setting illegal pole traps on a grouse moor in the Yorkshire Dales National Park (see here).

Later that day we also blogged about North Yorkshire Police’s decision to issue this criminal with a caution rather than refer him to the Crown Prosecution Service to begin a formal prosecution. We argued that, according to the official Police ‘cautions’ guidelines, the decision to caution in this case was apparently flawed. The offences, to which the gamekeeper had already admitted guilt, backed up by excellent video evidence obtained by the RSPB’s Investigations Team, were of such gravity and included all five aggravating factors (and no mitigating factors) as listed in the Police guidelines, that this was a clear case for proceeding to charges and a prosecution (see here).

The Police’s decision to issue a caution, and their justification for that decision, resulted in widespread public anger, particularly on social media.

To her credit, Amanda Oliver, North Yorkshire Police Acting Chief Constable (also the newly-appointed Police National Wildlife Crime lead) responded by tweeting the following:

Around the same time, one of our readers sent an FoI to North Yorkshire Police about this case, asking for details about the procedures that were followed to reach the decision to caution this gamekeeper. The response doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. That blog reader has kindly given us permission to post the Police’s FoI response here: NYP_FOI_June2016_pole trap decision

So, it’s now 30th June 2016 and a month has passed since we were promised a police review of the decision to caution. Where is it? How long does it take to conduct a review of this nature? It can’t take very long, surely? The evidence against the gamekeeper was as good as it gets (unequivocal video footage and a subsequent admission of guilt from the gamekeeper) so the question to be addressed by the review is pretty simple:

Why did the police officer issue a simple caution when the official police guidelines state that a simple caution was inappropriate for these offences?

Let’s ask Acting Chief Constable Amanda Oliver when we might expect to see the results of the review. Emails to: amanda.oliver@northyorkshire.pnn.police.uk 

It’s been two weeks since the news emerged that a gamekeeper on the Mossdale Estate in the Yorkshire Dales National Park had been filmed setting three illegal pole traps on a grouse moor where a female hen harrier had been observed hunting (see here).

It’s been 12 days since the Moorland Association admitted that the owner of Mossdale Estate was a member of the MA (see here) and how disgusted they were that these crimes had taken place, but not quite disgusted enough to kick the owner out of their organisation.

It’s taken them a while (perhaps because they were still recovering from being “very sad” over the National Trust’s decision to terminate the lease of a grouse moor tenant in the Peak District National Park (see here) but now the Moorland Association is in full damage limitation mode.

The following statement has just appeared on their website:

Illegally set traps – final statement

15th June 2016

Statement from Moorland Association Director, Amanda Anderson:

“The MA has formally reviewed the incident on Mossdale Estate where an underkeeper admitted to setting traps illegally. The keeper is no longer employed by the estate. Mossdale has also resigned its membership of the MA”.

END

So, still not quite disgusted enough to expel this member, then?

And what of the gamekeeper, ‘no longer employed by the estate’? Was he allowed to resign or was he sacked? And is/was he a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation? We did ask this question 12 days ago but the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation hasn’t yet responded. Perhaps they too have been ‘very sad’ about recent events and haven’t yet been able to face the world. Let’s ask them again. Emails to: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk 

There’s some other unfinished business also relating to these crimes. We’re still waiting to hear back from Acting Assistant Chief Constable Amanda Oliver of North Yorkshire Police, who 15 days ago promised “a full review” of why this criminal gamekeeper was let off with a police caution instead of being prosecuted (see here). To be fair, she was on holiday when she made this promise so we’re happy to give her a bit more time to publish her findings.

Photo: one of three illegal pole traps found on the Mossdale Estate. (Photo by RSPB Investigations).

This won’t come as any surprise to anyone, but it has now been confirmed that the man given a police caution for setting illegal pole traps on a grouse moor on the Mossdale Estate in the Yorkshire Dales National Park is……wait for it….a gamekeeper from the Mossdale Estate.

How do we know? Because the Moorland Association has said so.

In a rather late public statement (probably issued after coming under considerable pressure to say something), the Moorland Association says the unnamed 23-year old is a ‘junior employee’ of the Mossdale Estate.

By the way, the name of this individual has not been publicised, and nor can it be (hence the pixelated photo from the RSPB in previous articles about this crime) because he is protected by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (see here for a good explanation). This Act’s basic premise is that after a period of x years post-conviction (depending on the type of crime committed – typically five years for someone convicted of a wildlife crime), the conviction can be ignored and need not be divulged (with one or two exceptions). If somebody does then publish information about the individual’s conviction, they may be subject to libel damages, but only if the primary motive for publishing the information was malicious. What’s amazing about this legislation in this particular case is that if an individual receives a police caution, that caution is considered immediately ‘spent’, which means that the individual cannot be publicly named in relation to his crime, even immediately after his admission of guilt! It gives a whole new meaning to the term police protection.

Anyway, back to that statement from the Moorland Association. Here it is:

Disgust at use of illegally set traps on posts

3rd June 2016

Chairman of the Moorland Association, Robert Benson, has today issued the following statement:

We agree with the RSPB and others expressing disgust about the use of illegally set traps on posts. This behaviour could result in indiscriminate capture of wildlife and prolonged suffering. It was rightly outlawed in 1904 and these is no place for it in 21st Century moorland management. There are perfectly good legal and targeted predator control measures available to protect ground nesting birds at this time of year, not least through the licensing system.

The owner of the estate where this gamekeeper worked is a member of the Moorland Association. He has made it clear that neither he nor his head gamekeeper knew anything of this illegal and totally unacceptable activity by a junior employee. The employee who set the traps has been suspended and, as a result of having accepted a police caution for his action, now carries a criminal record and has lost his right to own firearms.

END

The first paragraph is a commendable condemnation of illegal pole-trapping. The problem is, whether it was said with sincerity or not, many of us don’t believe it’s worth the paper it’s written on. It’s clear from this case alone that whatever the Moorland Association thinks, it has little influence over what actually happens on a grouse moor.

What would be more convincing is if the Moorland Association expelled any of its members on whose grouse moor this illegal practice had been detected. Now THAT would be a more credible display of zero tolerance for illegal raptor persecution, wouldn’t it?

But no. Instead we get a feeble explanation that the grouse moor owner and his head gamekeeper knew nothing about the illegal activity taking place on that moor. And that, it seems, is enough justification for the grouse moor owner to remain a member of the club. Does that indicate a Moorland Association policy of zero tolerance to you? It doesn’t to us.

And what action has the grouse moor owner taken against his criminal employee who has already admitted ‘illegal and totally unacceptable’ behaviour? He’s just suspended him. He hasn’t fired him, he’s JUST SUSPENDED HIM.

That tells you everything you need to know about the grouse-shooting industry.

Please sign the petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE

We’re interested in finding out whether this criminal gamekeeper is / was a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation. Let’s ask them. Emails to: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk