Tag: gamekeeper

Criminal case opens against Scottish gamekeeper

According to local sources, a criminal case against a Scottish gamekeeper opened today in the sheriff’s court. He faces six charges under Sections 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Section 1 of the Act is concerned with the protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs.

Section 5 of the Act is concerned with the prohibition of certain methods of killing and taking wild birds.

The case today was continued, without plea, until 2nd October.

This case looks set to be of VERY significant interest. Without going in to detail, there are four aspects in which we’re particularly interested:

1. The nature of the alleged offences.

2. The type of evidence that could be presented by the prosecution.

3. The length of time it has taken for this case to reach court.

4. The relationship of the defendant with a particular organisation.

Watch this space…

The untouchables

Last month we blogged about getting our hands on the Leadhills Estate Game Book and our interest in the lists of killed ‘vermin’ dating over several decades (see here). These ‘vermin’ lists include the usual species that are typically referred to as ‘vermin’ by the game-shooting industry: species such as foxes, stoats, weasels and crows. However, also included on these ‘vermin’ lists are supposedly protected species such as birds of prey, ravens, otters and badgers. We said we’d blog about the lists in more detail when we had more time.

Leadhills game book vermin lists

Since then an independent academic has contacted us to ask whether we’d consider allowing access to the documents so the data could be analysed, in combination with other data sources, to provide a ~50 year dossier of alleged illegal raptor persecution incidents recorded at Leadhills Estate, stretching from the 1970s right up to the present day. These results would be written up as a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. We think that such a paper would hold much more gravitas than a simple analysis of a sub-set of those data written up for this blog so we have agreed to pass the information to the academic. We look forward to seeing the results in due course.

So as not to steal the academic’s thunder we won’t be writing in detail about the contents, but we did want to share one startling statistic.

We looked at the number of killed ‘hawks’ listed in the Leadhills Estate Game Book, just between the years 1980-1987. The vermin lists in the Game Book stretch well beyond these years but we selected this particular period because we wanted to compare the figures with the RSPB’s published figures for all of Scotland during this period (the RSPB data were published in McMillan’s 2011 paper – here).

Here’s what we found:

RSPB: Number of illegally killed raptors recorded for the whole of Scotland between 1980 and 1987 = 91 birds.

Leadhills Estate Game Book: Number of illegally killed raptors recorded on Leadhills Estate between 1980 and 1987 = 383 birds.

The difference between these two figures gives a very clear illustration of a situation that conservationists have been arguing for decades: that is, the ‘official’ recorded figures of illegally-killed raptors that are published each year by the RSPB are just the tip of a bloody great big massive iceberg. Just on this one estate (Leadhills), more than four times as many raptors were recorded illegally killed during this seven-year period than those officially reported throughout the whole of Scotland. That’s just one estate. Think what these figures would look like if we had access to the vermin lists of other estates across Scotland!

Now, there’ll be some in the game-shooting industry who will argue that raking over historical persecution records dating back 30 years is irrelevant. They’ll claim that although persecution was common practice several decades ago, things have now changed for the better and it’s only the odd ‘rogue’ estate that are still at it. This, of course, is absolute nonsense. Anybody who bothers to read through the pages of this blog will know that that is simply not a true statement. Sure, some estates have since got their acts together and are now supporting healthy raptor populations on their land (e.g. see Atholl Estate in McMillan’s 2011 paper above) but these estates seem to be exceptional: there are many, many other estates that are still, even to this day, systematically and illegally persecuting raptors and many of them seem to have a curious immunity to prosecution.

leadhills estateLeadhills Estate has been at the centre of allegations of wildlife crime for a very long time. The list of confirmed reported incidents dating from 2003 to 2011 makes for shocking reading (see here). Of these 41 confirmed incidents, only a couple have resulted in a prosecution and a conviction.

Earlier this year we reported the discovery of a substantial illegal stash of poisoned baits that was reportedly found on the estate (see here). Unsurprisingly, six months later we’re still waiting for Police Scotland to issue a statement.

What was particularly interesting about this incident was the reaction of the Scottish landowners’ organisation, Scottish Land and Estates. They refused to discuss the incident, citing an ‘on-going police investigation’ (how very convenient – this excuse relieves them of having to comment on any alleged persecution incident that never gets resolved – i.e. most of them). They also wrote to the Environment Minister and posted an article on their website complaining about the alleged incident being reported on this blog (see here). They gave an impression of being more outraged by the reporting of the incident than they were of the alleged discovery of a big stash of deadly poisoned baits on a Scottish sporting estate.

Now, compare that reaction to their response to the conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell earlier this year. Bell was convicted of four offences including the poisoning of a buzzard on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates. Immediately following his conviction, Scottish Land and Estates issued a statement to say that Glasserton had been booted out of their organisation (see here). So why didn’t SLE issue a similarly strong statement when the poisoned baits had allegedly been found at Leadhills? They could argue that nothing is proven until a conviction has been secured, as in the Glasserton case. But if that is their argument, then why didn’t they distance themselves from Leadhills Estate when a Leadhills Estate gamekeeper (Lewis Whitham) was convicted of laying a poisoned bait in 2010 (see here)? Why is Leadhills Estate, with its long, long, long history of alleged wildlife crime, treated so differently to an estate like Glasserton, which in relative terms barely registers on the persecution radar? Back in June we asked SLE to provide some transparency about their relationship with Leadhills Estate (see here). They still haven’t.

There may be some who will argue that things are about to change at Leadhills Estate with the shooting lease now up for sale; the sales document itself makes for an interesting read – note the reason given for the current tenants’ departure and the fate of the gamekeepers currently employed on Leadhills Estate: Leadhills brochure 2013

Yes, there may well be a change in the tenancy but will that make any difference? There have been numerous shooting tenants at Leadhills Estate over the years and yet, if the available data are to be believed, the background level of alleged persecution has remained constant.

The raptor killers, whoever they are, appear to be untouchable.

Natural England claims release of buzzard licence info ‘not in public interest’

buzzard 3Today, Natural England announced that they’d won a ‘Customer Service Excellence Standard Accreditation’ (see here). The independent assessors apparently spoke with NE staff as well as ‘a range of Natural England’s key customers and stakeholders’ and decided that NE was ‘excellent’ at providing ‘delivery’ and ‘information’ to their customers, amongst other things.

That’s not been our experience.

On 23rd May, an article in the Guardian revealed that Natural England had licensed the secret destruction of buzzard nests and eggs in order to protect a pheasant shoot. The licences in question had been issued to an un-named gamekeeper, whose licence application had been supported by the National Gamekeepers Organisation. We blogged about it here. There was widespread public condemnation, as expected.

On 30th May, we blogged about whether the licence applicant had a previous criminal conviction for wildlife crime (because we had good reason to ask – see here) and we wrote to Natural England to ask them about it (see here). Incidentally, we also asked the National Gamekeepers Organisation whether the gamekeeper they were supporting had a criminal conviction for wildlife crime and if so, had he ever been expelled from their membership, as per their club rules about not tolerating wildlife crime – they still haven’t answered!

On June 3rd, Natural England responded to our request for information (a very quick response, to give them due credit) by issuing a refusal notice. In other words, they refused to either confirm or deny that they held any details about previous convictions because, they claimed, this was ‘personal information’ as defined in the Data Protection Act. We strongly disagreed and wrote a second letter to NE (see here), asking for an internal review of their decision. We argued that the information requested could not be defined as ‘personal information’ because the information would not lead to the identification of the buzzard licence applicant; what we were asking was whether the applicant had a wildlife crime conviction, which could have been answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

On 29th July, Natural England responded to our request for an internal review by issuing a second refusal notice. Once again, they claimed the information we had asked for was ‘personal information’ and they also claimed the release of that information was ‘not in the public interest’. Here is a copy of the generic letter they sent out to quite a number of blog readers: RFI 2020 Int_Review Response_RD

Next stop? The Information Commissioner, to ask for a review of Natural England’s decisions. Watch this space…

On a related subject, Alan Tilmouth has written a(nother) good blog this evening, this time about the GWCT’s position on buzzard licensing – see here.

Environment Minister responds to our questions about his ‘further measures’ to tackle raptor persecution

On July 1st, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse laid out his ‘further measures’ to tackle the on-going problem of raptor persecution (here).

Whilst we welcomed his intentions, we wanted further clarification about these ‘further measures’ as well as some updates on previously-promised measures, so on July 2nd we posed five clear questions to him (see here).

This week, one of our blog readers received the following response from Wheelhouse’s wildlife crime policy officer:

Question 1:

Please can you clarify whether the Lord Advocate has instructed COPFS to accept covert video footage as admissible evidence in prosecutions for alleged raptor persecution incidents?

Answer:

The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime including tools such as video surveillance equipment where justified and appropriate.

Before instituting any prosecution, the Procurator Fiscal must be satisfied that there is sufficient admissible evidence to justify doing so. Established rules of evidence determine whether a court can take into account certain types of evidence including third party video evidence. If evidence does not comply with these rules, it is inadmissible and the court may not take it into account. In considering any case for prosecution, the Procurator Fiscal will assess, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of any evidence and the manner in which it was obtained, whether the court will allow it to be considered. For example, the court may refuse to take account of evidence that has been obtained improperly, irregularly or unlawfully.

Our assessment:

It’s hard to know if the Lord Advocate’s instruction will make a blind bit of difference. Covert video evidence is routinely accepted as admissible evidence in England. It has, also, been previously accepted in Scotland, albeit rarely. More often than not, COPFS rejects it and we’re never provided with a transparent answer about why it was rejected. We’ve struggled to understand the legal reasoning behind these repeat rejections, especially when, as we understand it, the decision to accept or reject evidence should be made by the court (the Sheriff), not COPFS. We’ll just have to wait and see how covert video surveillance is treated in any future cases….and it’s quite likely we won’t have long to wait.

Question 2:

Please can you clarify the timescale for SNH’s review for introducing potential restrictions on the use of General Licences in areas where they have good reason to believe crimes against wild birds have been committed? In other words, when can we expect the review to be completed? Also, will their review be made publicly available?

Answer:

Officials are currently discussing with Scottish Natural Heritage how they will carry out the work to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place. Timescales for completing the work are still to be concluded, but we would expect any new arrangements to be in place for next year and will ensure that we keep stakeholders in PAW Scotland informed of progress. SNH will be clear to all users of General Licences when and in what circumstances their use will be restricted or prohibited.

Our assessment:

This seems a perfectly reasonable explanation. We look forward to watching the developments.

Question 3:

Please can you advise whether there will be a prosecution under the new vicarious liability legislation following the recent conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell, found guilty of poisoning offences on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates? If you don’t know the answer (which would be surprising, given that you said in March 2013 that you would be “keeping an eye on this particular area [i.e. vicarious liability] with interest”, please can you provide the contact details of someone who can answer the question?

Answer:

It would be inappropriate to comment further on this case as police enquiries have not yet concluded.

Our assessment:

Not very impressed, but as this case is probably the first of its kind to be considered under the new vicarious liability legislation, we don’t have any benchmark to be able to compare the timescales involved. It’s been 8 months since the crimes were committed (December 2012). Is it reasonable to expect Police Scotland to still be conducting enquiries or is this another fob-off to delay telling us that no charges will be brought under VL legislation? If they are still making enquiries, let’s hope they’re making a better job on this case than they did on this one! We’ll keep asking questions about this case every so often so it can’t just be swept quietly under the carpet.

Question 4:

Please can you tell us the status of the Scottish Government’s first annual report (2012) into wildlife crime? As you know, under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, there is now a requirement (under section 26B) that ‘Scottish Ministers must, after the end of each calendar year, lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on offences relating to wildlife’. You mentioned in March 2013 that your policy officials ‘are currently working on’ this report. When can we expect this report to be available?

Answer:

Section 26B of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires Scottish Ministers, after the end of each calendar year, to lay before the Scottish Parliament an annual report on wildlife crime. We will of course comply with that requirement and it is in preparation. Details about the laying of the report, including the timing, will be given to the Parliament in the first instance in accordance with established parliamentary protocol. We will, of course, ensure that the report publication is communicated to stakeholders and Parliament.

Our assessment:

It’s taking a very long time for this report to be published. We’ll keep asking about it.

Question 5:

Please can you tell us when, exactly, will you open the consultation regarding the increase of SSPCA powers to broaden the range of their work investigating wildlife crime? As you know, this consultation was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Act debates, way back in February 2011. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a consultation was in order. Seven months later in September 2011, MSP Elaine Murray lodged a motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered. In November 2011, Elaine Murray MSP formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, then promised that the consultation would happen in the first half of 2012. Nothing happened so in September 2012 we asked you, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. In response to one of our blog readers in October 2012 your policy officer said: “The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”. Nine months later and we’re in July 2013 – almost 2.5 years after Scottish Ministers committed to undertaking the consultation. Where is it?

Answer:

We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year.

Our assessment:

As far as we’re concerned, this consultation, if it does actually appear this year, could be a game-changer. Forget bringing in new legislation to tackle raptor persecution – we don’t need it. The legislation is all there – it just needs to be enforced. The enforcement process begins with a criminal investigation. Do we have complete confidence in Police Scotland to effectively and efficiently undertake these investigations? Based on their past performance, that has to be a resounding NO, with just a handful of exceptions. Do we have confidence in the SSPCA to undertake these investigations? If we judge them on their track record for successful prosecutions under animal welfare legislation, then YES, we do. We also know that certain organisations associated with the game-shooting industry do not support these extended powers for the SSPCA – they argue that criminal investigations should be carried out by the police. Funny that, because they support extended powers for water bailiffs – is that because the water bailiffs are often acting in the interests of landowners and gamekeepers (e.g. when tackling poachers)? Do they not support extended powers for the SSPCA because they know that with an extra 75+ highly-trained officers on the ground then the chances of raptor persecution crimes being uncovered become greater? You’d think, given that the game-shooting industry claims to be all for stamping out raptor crime, that they’d welcome the SSPCA with open arms.  We’ll be watching closely for this consultation to finally emerge and you can expect a great deal of blogging about it when it is published.

December trial for Morvich Estate gamekeepers

A trial date of 16th December 2013 has finally been set for three gamekeepers from the Morvich Estate, Sutherland, who are accused of committing alleged wildlife crimes.

The case against Mathew Ian Johnston, Jamie Robert Neal and William Robert Docharty was first called in November 2012 at Dornoch Sheriff Court. A series of adjournments (7 so far) have followed – see here for background.

Industry leaders respond to buzzard-killing gamekeeper case

The public’s reaction to what gamekeeper Colin Burne did to those trapped buzzards (see here) has been widespread disgust and condemnation. People have been commenting all over the social media networks, with many angered that Burne’s punishment was so pathetic (a 12 month suspended sentence – in other words, keep your nose clean for the next year and we’ll say no more about it).

We thought it’d be interesting to read what the game-shooting industry’s leaders had to say about the case. At the very least, we would expect outright condemnation of Burne’s activities and a warning to others that criminal activites will not be tolerated by the industry. We visited a few websites this morning and this is what we found:

National Gamekeepers Organisation: silence

British Association for Conservation & Shooting (BASC): silence

Countryside Alliance: silence

Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust: silence

Now, compare these responses with that of the National Association of Regional Game Councils in Ireland, who reacted to the illegal shooting of a buzzard in January this year. Here’s what NARGC Director Des Crofton had to say:

“The shooting of birds of prey, who are all protected, can only be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The person who shot this bird is not fit to have a firearm. I would urge the authorities, if the person is identified, that they are prosecuted, have their firearm licence revoked and never allowed have one again. This is inexcusable. If I ever found one of my members was responsible for something like this, he would be out of the association so fast his feet wouldn’t touch the ground“.

We blogged about Des Crofton’s statement at the time (see here), and mentioned that an equally strong leadership approach was required from industry leaders in England and Scotland. Sadly, it seems they’re not up to the job.

It would also be good to see a statement from the estate that leased the land to the Cliburn Shoot syndicate, stating that the lease had been withdrawn.

Burne dumping BZ in bucket

Buzzard-killing video – WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT

Further to our earlier story (here) about gamekeeper Colin Burne, convicted for trapping buzzards and clubbing them to death, the RSPB has now posted the unedited version of their covert video surveillance.

WARNING – GRAPHIC CONTENT. Video can be viewed here.

Burne clubbing buzzard to death

Buzzards trapped & beaten to death with a stick: gamekeeper convicted

A gamekeeper from Cumbria has today been convicted for killing buzzards by trapping them in a crow cage trap and then battering them to death with a wooden stick.

Gamekeeper Colin Burne, 64, of Winters Park, Penrith, was caught on camera bashing the buzzards’ skulls in with a wooden stake after the RSPB Investigations Team installed a covert video at the trap in February this year. The trap was being operated on land managed by a private shooting syndicate in Whinfell Forest, near Penrith, Cumbria. A further search of the area revealed ‘many other’ dead buzzards, to which Burne admitted killing five.

Burne admitted three charges at Carlisle Magistrates Court today. He received a 70-day jail sentence for each charge, suspended for 12 months due to his ill health.

RSPB press release here.

The film footage will be published shortly.

We’ll be looking for a statement from the National Gamekeepers Organisation to confirm that if Burne was one of their members, he has now been expelled for life.

The team involved with this investigation and conviction (RSPB Investigations, Cumbria Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service) deserve huge credit, especially given the short time span between crime and conviction (less than five months). It seems pretty clear from the evidence that this gamekeeper had been routinely killing buzzards for some time. Will his conviction stop him? It’s hard to say – a suspended sentence is hardly a strong deterrent – but perhaps his ill health will put an end to his criminal career. Certainly the Whinfell Forest shoot will be under closer scrutiny from now on, whether Burne is still involved or not.

So, here we have yet another criminal gamekeeper convicted on the basis of covert video surveillance in England. The CPS and the Magistrates Court don’t seem to have had a problem accepting the video footage as admissible evidence. Had Burne been operating just a few miles further north, this case would not have even reached court, thanks to the Crown Office’s outright refusal to accept this type of evidence. We are greatly looking forward to Paul Wheelhouse’s response to our question from the other day – has the Lord Advocate told the Crown Prosecutors in Scotland to start accepting covert surveillance footage as admissible evidence?

UPDATE 9th July 11.30am: Further details about what Colin Burne did have been published in the News and Star newspaper (here), including an edited version of the video footage showing Burne entering the crow cage trap armed with a fence post to club the buzzards to death. This bastard, who was part of the Cliburn Shoot, knew exactly what he was doing. When initially questioned by the police he denied harming the buzzards – it was only after the video footage was shown to him that he admitted his guilt.

Photo: PC Helen Felton and RSPB Investigator Bob Elliot with two of the buzzards that Burne had clubbed to death, found hidden under a brash pile close to the trap.

PC Helen Felton and RSPB with two killed buzzards_a

UPDATE 9th July 2013 8.15pm: The unedited version of the video has now been posted by the RSPB. View it here. WARNING – IT’S GRAPHIC.

Gamekeepers and golden eagles: the facts

The Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association issued a press release this morning about how great gamekeepers are for golden eagle conservation.

They produced the following map in an attempt to suggest that golden eagles are doing well on grouse moors in central and eastern Scotland:

SGA eagle bollocks

They claim that there are at least 55 active golden eagle nests in the keepered grouse areas of East and Central Scotland, based on the results of a ‘survey’ they did, presumably of gamekeepers.

To the uninformed, this map suggests that golden eagles are breeding at a relatively high density on grouse moors in this region. But don’t be fooled! What this map doesn’t show, because of the ridiculous scale at which it has been produced, is the number of vacant golden eagle territories on grouse moors in East and Central Scotland. (It also ignores the grouse moors of Southern Scotland, probably because breeding golden eagles in that area are virtually non-existent, with just a couple of exceptions, but let’s just brush over that shall we?).

There is no disputing that golden eagles do breed successfully on some Scottish grouse moors. That is a fact. There are a number of enlightened land owners who welcome golden eagles on their grouse moors and do an excellent job in providing them with a home and a good supply of food. We’ve blogged about a few of them before and we applaud their efforts. The problem is, there aren’t enough of them. That is also a fact. The best way to demonstrate this is to look at the level of occupancy of golden eagle territories in different parts of Scotland. The following data are from the 2008 Golden Eagle Conservation Framework – a government-funded comprehensive scientific review of golden eagle ecology and conservation in Scotland:

Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy:

Western Isles = 91%

Western Highlands = 89.5%

Argyll West & Islands = 81.5%

Central Highlands = 48%

Cairngorms Massif = 42.4%

North East Glens = 17.6%

That’s pretty stark. Golden eagles in areas of western Scotland (with little if any grouse shooting interests) occupied over 80% of the available territories; golden eagles in the central and eastern Highlands (grouse moor hell) had an occupancy rate of below 50%, and in one region (North East Glens) it was a shocking 17.6%. Why is it that all those available golden eagle territories in the East and Central uplands are vacant? What’s stopping them from breeding there? Hmmm, whatever could it be?

The SGA press release also talks about the ‘stability’ of the golden eagle population over the last 20 years, presumably to make you think that golden eagles are doing ok so what’s all the fuss about? What they fail to say is that that ‘stability’ of approx 430 pairs masks some very big differences in regional abundance. For example, there has been a substantial increase of golden eagles in the Western Isles over the last ~20 years, largely thanks to a reduction in illegal persecution in that region. In contrast, there has been a significant decrease in the number of golden eagles in the central, eastern and southern uplands (hence all those vacant territories), thanks largely to illegal persecution on driven grouse moors. That is a fact, backed up by a suite of scientific peer-reviewed studies. That’s why the population appears to be ‘stable’ – because all the losses in the east are being counterbalanced by the gains in the west.

What the SGA also fail to mention is that the ‘stable’ population of ~430 pairs is nowhere near what the population could be. It’s been estimated that there is enough habitat for at least 700 golden eagle territories in Scotland – the population of ~430 pairs is being suppressed at an unnaturally low level and failing to expand into some areas of its former range. Why? Illegal persecution. Read the Conservation Framework (below) if you want to examine the details. The facts are all there.

Here is a map from the Framework report, showing the conservation status of golden eagles in 2003. Green areas = region in favourable conservation status; Amber areas = region in unfavourable conservation status but failed in only 1 test (i.e. a marginal failure); Red areas = region in unfavourable conservation status, with failure in more than one test. It’s pretty bloody obvious in which areas golden eagles are in trouble – yep, that’s right, areas managed for driven grouse shooting. Another fact.

GE conservation status 2003

There was another element to the SGA’s press statement this morning. They claimed they had recently expelled four (unidentified) members from the SGA club for wildlife offences. If they have done this then it is very welcome news and we applaud them for booting out those criminals. It has been something we’ve been asking them to do for a very long time and hopefully this will be the start of a growing trend.

BBC News article here

Scotsman article here

RSPB response here

Golden Eagle Conservation Framework here

UPDATE 24 January 2014: See here for details of the VACANT golden eagle sites on upland grouse moors.

Environment Minister announces ‘further measures’ to tackle raptor persecution

The Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has today announced what he calls ‘further measures’ to tackle the on-going problem of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland. Here is his statement in full:

“Since I took on responsibility for this portfolio, I have been clear that one of my priorities is to bear down on the illegal persecution of raptors that continues to blight the Scottish countryside and tarnish Scotland’s reputation.  These outdated, barbaric and criminal practices put at risk the conservation status of some of our most magnificent wildlife.  They also harm our reputation as a country which values its environment and wildlife and undermine the growing tourism sector that is built on that reputation.

We have achieved much since 2007. We have a robust legal framework that protects birds of prey and their nests, including the new vicarious liability provisions.  We have dedicated resources in Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).  We are leading the way in the UK in the development of wildlife crime forensics work, and we continue to work at building a broad-based alliance through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW Scotland).  

In 2012 we saw a very welcome reduction in poisoning cases.  However a number of recent reports, some of which are in the public domain and some of which are still subject to police enquiries, suggest that there is still a problem with the use of poison as well as cases involving illegal trapping and shooting.  I have decided therefore that the time is right to bring forward some further measures which I hope will deter those involved in illegal activities. 

Wildlife crime, and raptor persecution in particular, often takes place in remote locations or in the dark of night.  By its very surreptitious nature, the likelihood of being seen by a member of the public who can report the matter to the authorities is small.

I have spoken with the Lord Advocate, who maintains a close personal interest in all wildlife crime.  We are both keen to maximise the opportunity for offences to be detected and offenders to be tracked down.

The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime.

This work will take place within the National Wildlife Crime Co-Ordinating Forum – a group attended by police Wildlife Crime Liaison Officers from across Scotland and the police’s full-time Scottish Wildlife Crime Co-Ordinator, as well as senior police officers, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, Scottish Government officials and the specialist prosecutors from the Wildlife and Environment Crime Unit within COPFS.

Secondly, in my capacity as Chair of PAW Scotland, I intend to establish a group to carry out a review and report to me on how wildlife crime is treated within the criminal justice system, including examining whether the penalties available for wildlife crime properly reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to vulnerable wildlife and fragile habitats and ecosystems.  

Thirdly, I will be asking Scottish Natural Heritage in their capacity as the authority for licensing decisions under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place.  These General Licences allow the holders to carry out actions that would otherwise be unlawful if undertaken, without any reference to SNH.  We regard the use of General Licences as a privilege that should not be extended in circumstances where there is evidence that their use may be facilitating illegal activities. 

In putting together these measures I have sought to focus only on those individuals and businesses where there are very good reasons to believe they are involved in illegal practices.  I am very keen to avoid anything that places an unfair burden on the majority of shooting businesses that are law-abiding and responsible members of the rural community.  I should also say that I think it is important that wildlife crime is treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means information about cases should be handled in the same way as in other types of crime and that the police and prosecutors are allowed the time and space to carry out whatever investigations they believe to be necessary according to their own professional judgement. We should not descend into allowing trial by leak and accusation. There is a responsibility on us all to avoid that. 

In conclusion I wish to reiterate that eradicating raptor persecution in Scotland remains a high priority for the Scottish Government.  It is not however the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government.  Law enforcement clearly has a key role to play and I am confident that we are ratcheting up the pressure on those committing acts of illegal persecution. However,  everyone involved in the Scottish countryside, and in particular those involved with shooting, should make abundantly clear their disapproval to the minority whose actions are tarnishing the reputation of Scotland’s country sports”.

So, this is the much anticipated ‘action’ against illegal raptor persecution that’s been promised since last autumn when Paul Wheelhouse was appointed. Whilst we welcome his willingness to engage with the issue (in stark comparison to his English counterpart who won’t even admit there’s a problem), we see these latest measures as tiny baby steps in the right direction, and not the decisive hefty stamp that could have been delivered.

The first four paragraphs of his statement are just introductory comments with the usual rhetoric, such as, “We have achieved much since 2007”. Actually, we haven’t. Raptors are still being illegally killed on land managed for game-shooting and more often than not the criminal(s) involved are not being prosecuted. In the few instances where they are prosecuted, there is evidence of extensive plea-bargaining resulting in convictions only for the minor offences, not for the major crimes.

“In 2012 we saw a very welcome reduction in poisoning cases”. No, we didn’t. What we saw was a reduction in the number of reported poisoning cases; that’s a very important distinction. Members of the game-shooting industry (and government, it seems) have made much of this claim, using it as an example of how the industry is cleaning up its act. They won’t be able to make the claim for much longer – we understand that there have been several poisoning incidents already in 2013 and we’re only half-way through the year. Naturally, once again the public haven’t (yet) been informed about these poisonings even though they took place several months ago. We’ll come back to this issue.

The first ‘new’ measure that Wheelhouse is introducing is this:“The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime”.

This is interesting, particularly because it immediately follows this paragraph:

“Wildlife crime, and raptor persecution in particular, often takes place in remote locations or in the dark of night.  By its very surreptitious nature, the likelihood of being seen by a member of the public who can report the matter to the authorities is small”.

Does this mean that prosecutors in Scotland are being told by the Lord Advocate that they should now accept covert video surveillance as admissible evidence? If this is the case then it would be a very welcome step indeed. Covert film footage is routinely accepted as admissible evidence in England, but in Scotland it continues to be blocked by the Crown Office prosecutors. Why? We don’t know – we’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation. If our assumption is correct (and of course it may not be) and covert footage is to be accepted, then Wheelhouse deserves a good deal of credit for this single measure. We’ll be watching this potential development with great interest.

His second measure is to establish (yet another) group within the framework of PAW Scotland, “to carry out a review and report to me on how wildlife crime is treated within the criminal justice system, including examining whether the penalties available for wildlife crime properly reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to vulnerable wildlife and fragile habitats and ecosystems”.  We’re not so impressed with this plan; it seems to be reinventing the wheel. A similar review was carried out in 2008 (Natural Justice 2008) following the poisoning of the last remaining breeding female golden eagle in the Scottish Borders in 2007. That review made many recommendations to improve the efficiency of detecting and prosecuting wildlife crime in Scotland, some of which have since been implemented but many have not. It would perhaps have been a good opportunity for Wheelhouse to critically evaluate the implementation of those recommendations made five years ago, rather than start off the process again from scratch, which just leads to further delays in addressing the actual problem.

The third and final new measure is what we would call a fig-leaf approach to tackling illegal raptor persecution. Wheelhouse says: “I will be asking Scottish Natural Heritage in their capacity as the authority for licensing decisions under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place.  These General Licences allow the holders to carry out actions that would otherwise be unlawful if undertaken, without any reference to SNH.  We regard the use of General Licences as a privilege that should not be extended in circumstances where there is evidence that their use may be facilitating illegal activities”. 

At a superficial level, a restriction on the use of the General Licence sounds like a positive action. But let’s just think about the practicalities. First of all, Wheelhouse suggests that the General Licence may be restricted where SNH have “good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place”. That sounds like SNH would require a lower burden of proof to show that crimes against wild birds have taken place than say, for example, a criminal conviction. In real terms, how would that work? What would constitute ‘good reason’? The discovery of a poisoned or shot bird on a particular piece of land? In legal terms that’s not enough evidence for a conviction because the estate in question could legitimately argue (no matter how implausible) that the dead bird had been planted by someone with a grudge against them, or that the bird had been poisoned/shot elsewhere and just happened to fly on to their estate where it finally succumbed to its injuries. We can be certain that if SNH tried to use such evidence as giving them ‘good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place’ they would face a strong legal challenge by the estate’s lawyers. So then we’re back to the current situation whereby a conviction in a court of law is the only acceptable proof that the crime was committed by someone associated with the estate where the dead bird was found and those convictions are, as we all know, almost as rare as rocking horse shit.

But even if SNH could use a lower burden of proof as reason to believe a crime had been committed, there would still be difficulties. The use of General Licences is barely monitored or enforced due to the high volume of people operating under their terms. By their very nature, a General Licence is not actually issued to an individual – you don’t have to apply to use one and there isn’t even a competency test that you must first pass – it’s an open ‘licence’ that anyone can use to carry out what would otherwise be unlawful activities, such as the killing of so-called ‘pest species’ such as crows. We occasionally see a prosecution for an offence relating to a General Licence, e.g. when the operator of a crow cage trap has failed to meet the licence’s terms and conditions, but these prosecutions are rare and incidental. No statutory authority is regularly monitoring the use of General Licences (e.g. SNH don’t do it, the police don’t do it)  – we don’t even know how many people are operating under the General Licences because the operators are not required to submit annual returns. So, if SNH did ‘restrict the use’ of a General Licence on a particular piece of land, who would be enforcing that restriction? How would we know whether a restriction was in place? Would the location and name of the estate be published? For how long would the restriction be in place? What would be the penalty if an estate was found to be flouting the restriction?

All in all, this proposed new measure has glaring loopholes that in practical terms would be very difficult to close. It’s hugely disappointing that the Minister has taken this route instead of another option that is already available to him in the provisions of the Wildlife & Countryside Act – that is, the ability to enforce a (temporary) ‘closed season’ on the hunting of a particular game bird species in a particular area (or in this case, a specific estate). For example, in exceptional circumstances a Minister can impose a temporary moratorium on shooting specific species during periods of prolonged severe weather. The authority to impose such restrictions is already there in the legislation – it wouldn’t require the lengthy drafting of new legislation – if he wanted to enforce a temporary ban on, say, driven grouse shooting on a particular moor, he could do so. This measure would fit with his approach of only targeting the criminals, not the ‘law-abiding majority’ (his words, not ours) so why isn’t he pursuing it? Just another missed opportunity.

One final point about the Minister’s statement – the bit in his penultimate paragraph where he says this:

“I should also say that I think it is important that wildlife crime is treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means information about cases should be handled in the same way as in other types of crime and that the police and prosecutors are allowed the time and space to carry out whatever investigations they believe to be necessary according to their own professional judgement. We should not descend into allowing trial by leak and accusation. There is a responsibility on us all to avoid that”. 

We whole-heartedly agree that wildlife crime should be treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means that these crimes should be properly publicised in the media, just as other crimes are, and especially when they involve the discovery of potentially-fatal poisons that put the general public at significant risk. We hold very strong opinions on this and are adamant that it is not in the public interest for the police to keep these crimes hidden from view for months on end. Until we see an end to this ridiculous culture of silence we’ll continue to blog about these crimes with a measured, accurate and responsible approach.

We’ll be blogging later this week with some specific questions for Paul Wheelhouse….

Scottish Land & Estate’s response to the announcement here.

RSPB Scotland’s response here.

Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association response here.

BASC Scotland’s response here.