Tag: gamekeeper

Morvich Estate gamekeepers’ trial delayed again!

The trial of three gamekeepers from the Morvich Estate, Sutherland, has once again been postponed. This is the 8th adjournment since the case was first brought in November 2012.

The three defendants, Mathew Johnston (21), Jamie Neal (37), and William Docharty (58) are charged with a string of wildlife crimes alleged to have taken place on Morvich Estate on 16 February 2012.

Their trial was due to start on Monday (16th December 2013) but has now been put back until 7th April 2014 – more than two years after the alleged offences occurred.

Thanks to the contributor who sent in a copy of the following article from yesterday’s Press & Journal:

Estate trio on wildlife charges.

Three north estate workers face trial next year accused of committing a string of wildlife offences on a sporting estate in Sutherland.

Mathew Johnston, 21, Jamie Neal, 37, and William Docharty, 58, were not present at Tain Sheriff Court yesterday when their case called.

All three pleaded not guilty through solicitors. The case had been due to go to trial next week but was postponed to next year at the request of the court. The trial is now due to start on April 7 [2014].

All the charges are alleged to have taken place on Morvich Estate, Sutherland, on February 16 last year [2012].

Johnston, of Morvich House, Morvich Estate, Rogart, faces four charges. These include that he set six snares on a fence which would have caused an animal unnecessary suffering as any creature caught would likely have become suspended from the contraption.

Neal, of The Bothy, Morvich Estates, faces the same charge involving seven snares.

Docharty, of 10, Elizabeth Court, Dornoch, faces a similar charge involving two snares set on a log over water which would likely cause any animal trapped to be suspended from the log and drown.

Johnston is further alleged to have been in possession of a dead barnacle goose and to have failed to dispose of three sheep carcases in an appropriate manner.

Neal faces four further charges including two alleging that he failed to provide a suitable environment for nine crows by not providing food and water, a perch and adequate shelter.

For previous blogs about this case please see here.

‘Persecution of sporting estates is bad for birdlife’ says NGO Chairman

A fascinating article has appeared on the Shooting Times website today, written by regular columnist Lindsay Waddell, who also just happens to be the Chairman of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation.

His opening words are these:

“Protection of predators and persecution of sporting estates are bad for birdlife“.

His rationale for this statement appears to be that there are no takers for the lease of what he calls a ‘prestigious moor’ (hmm, wonder what makes it a ‘prestigious’ moor?) and that soon it may be lost to conifer plantation and wind turbines, and all of this is due to the ‘relentless persecution of estate owners and those employed as gamekeepers‘.

What he doesn’t say is how he defines ‘the relentless persecution’ of estate owners and gamekeepers. Is he defining media reports as ‘persecution’? Perhaps he thinks that any publicity about the discovery of a poisoned golden eagle on a sporting estate with a long history of similar incidents is ‘persecution’ of the estate owner? Or maybe he thinks that the publication of video footage showing a gamekeeper bludgeoning buzzards to death with a fence post is ‘persecution’ of the gamekeeper? Or perhaps any commentary about yet another gamekeeper being charged with yet another alleged wildlife crime is ‘persecution’ of the gamekeeping industry?

Ironically, he goes on to suggest that had this level of ‘persecution’ been directed at any other group of workers, they would have had some form of legal redress available! Funny that – we have long argued that had any other group of workers been caught carrying out the type of sustained & widespread criminality that is regularly taking place on some sporting estates, the criminals would have been locked up a long time ago and the ‘business’ forced to close.

What Lindsay fails to grasp, even though it’s really not that hard, is that if the illegal killing of raptors, by many gamekeepers on many sporting estates, would stop, then the game-shooting industry may be viewed a lot more favourably than it is now. Unfortunately, the illegal killing continues, and organisations like the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation don’t help matters when they refuse to expel members who have been convicted of wildlife crimes (e.g. see here).

There’s some other guff at the end of his article about how predators are apparently eating all the prey and the conservation agencies should stop protecting predators blah blah blah….

In the meantime, watch this space for some more reports about dead raptors that have been discovered on sporting estates up and down the country having been poisoned/shot/trapped/bludgeoned…reports that the game-shooting industry would rather you didn’t know about.

Shooting Times article here

Another Scottish gamekeeper accused of alleged wildlife crimes

The trial of a Scottish gamekeeper accused of a series of alleged wildlife and animal welfare crimes has been adjourned until later this month.

49-year old gamekeeper James Marsh, of Middle Ballewan near Blanefield, Stirling is facing trial for offences alleged to have taken place near Duntreath Castle in April 2012.

We understand the charges include the trapping of a Tawny Owl in a Larsen trap and related welfare offences, and various other charges relating to the possession of a Jay and associated welfare offences.

Marsh denies the charges.

His trial at Stirling Sheriff Court was adjourned in mid-November and will next be heard on 19th December.

Case against gamekeeper George Mutch: part 4

Criminal proceedings against Scottish gamekeeper George Mutch continued today at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. His case was continued without plea for the 4th time.

His 5th court hearing will be on 16th December.

Mutch, of Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire is understood to be facing six charges of alleged wildlife crime under Sections 1 & 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act. These sections relate to the protection of wild birds and prohibited methods of killing and taking wild birds.

For previous posts about this case see here, here and here.

So long, Sheriff Drummond

One of the most influential figures in the world of Scottish wildlife crime enforcement, and particularly in relation to raptor persecution, has finally retired. There are some who will be delighted with this news, others not so much.

Sheriff Kevin Drummond QC left office this week after 13 years in the Sheriff courts of the Scottish Borders. In addition, he’d played a significant role on various PAW Scotland committees, including Chair of the Legislation, Regulation and Guidance Sub Group (see here), and was a member of the high-level PAW Scotland Executive Group (see here). He was also heavily involved in the provision of ‘mock trials’ as part of a training programme for police wildlife crime officers and procurators fiscal to help prepare them for dealing with wildlife crime trials. Prior to being appointed Sheriff, he had worked as a leading defence QC whose clients included gamekeepers accused of wildlife crimes. His own reported hobbies include shooting and fishing (see here).

An article in the Selkirk Advertiser reporting his retirement (see here) describes the Sheriff as ‘well-respected’, ‘fair and consistent’ and ‘kind and approachable’. We’d agree with ‘consistent’ at least. In a number of cases over which Sheriff Drummond presided around 2006-2007 there was opportunity to sentence the convicted gamekeepers in his court to jail time – a provision that had at the time been recently introduced in an attempt to crack down on raptor persecution. Disappointingly, Sheriff Drummond decided that community service orders were adequate punishments for these convicted poisoners, including one case that had been described by one RSPB investigator as ‘the worst he had seen in 20 years’. This reluctance to send convicted poisoners to jail is still very much in evidence in Sheriff courts right across Scotland – there still hasn’t been a single one.

Sheriff Drummond held strong views against the introduction of vicarious liability – his visibly agitated performance in front of the WANE bill committee in 2010 was quite a display – and he also strongly opposed the concept of increasing the investigatory powers of SSPCA inspectors to allow them to take on raptor persecution cases (e.g. see here).

There were calls for the Sheriff’s dismissal from the PAW Scotland group following another of his outbursts at the Police Wildlife Crime Conference in 2010 when a wildlife investigator asked whether there should be tougher sentences for wildlife criminals. Sheriff Drummond’s reported response, “Get a life“, was met with ‘shock and bewilderment’ by conference delegates but was later defended by then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham (see here).

Many years earlier RSPB Investigator Dave Dick also found himself on the receiving end of one of the Sheriff’s seemingly characteristic tantrums. Here’s an excerpt from Dave’s 2012 book, Wildlife Crime: The Making of an Investigations Officer:

“Thursday 20 June 1991. Jedburgh Sheriff Court and Jimmy [a gamekeeper] has got himself a QC – or more correctly, Jimmy’s boss, a wealthy Austrian banker, has got Jimmy a QC. Kevin Drummond, QC, who walks into the Fiscal’s office just before the trial is due to start, where I am having a last-minute conference as was the normal, efficient practice by 1991. Kevin announces that he is going to win this case because Section 19 of the 1981 Act does not permit a constable to enter land and search for evidence. The Fiscal may have been used to this robust, even arrogant approach but I wasn’t and in my naivety, combined with experience of Section 19 in court, I blurted out, “Do you really think that’s what Parliament thought, when they drew this up?” The resulting angry out-burst (‘You may be very good at what you do out there, Mr Dick, but in here, I’m in charge!’) was my first sight of an apparent lack of control which I have since witnessed many times“.

It is without question that Sheriff Drummond has had considerable influence on the approach taken to tackling wildlife crime in Scotland, at both a strategic governmental level as well as on the front-line level in court. That influence has been welcomed by some, while exasperating others.

Today is his 70th birthday and we wish him a long and enjoyable retirement – here’s hoping he doesn’t ‘do a Dysart‘ – we’re all hoping for the start of a new era.

Case against gamekeeper George Mutch: part 3

Criminal proceedings against Scottish gamekeeper George Mutch continued today at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. His case was continued without plea for the 3rd time.

The case against Mutch, of Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire was first called for a pleading diet on 11th September 2013. On that date the case was continued without plea until 2nd October 2013 (see here). On 2nd October, the case was again continued without plea until 30th October 2013 (see here). At today’s hearing, the case was once more continued without plea until 27th November 2013.

We understand that Mutch has been charged with up to six alleged offences under Sections 1 and 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act; these sections relate to the protection of wild birds and prohibited methods of killing and taking wild birds.

Watching this one with great interest….

 

More on that vicarious liability prosecution

wane1Regular blog readers will know that we’ve been chasing information about the first potential prosecution under the new vicarious liability legislation for some time.

The case in point relates to the conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell, who was guilty of poisoning offences on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates in December 2012 (see here).

In July 2013 we asked the Environment Minister for an update on the VL prosecution (see here). He replied in August and said it would be inappropriate to comment as police enquiries had not yet concluded (see here). Fair enough.

By early October we expected the police enquiries to have been completed, ten months after the original offence was committed, so we asked the Environment Minister for an update (see here).

One of our blog readers wrote the following comment a couple of days ago:

“I duly sent an e-mail to Mr Wheelhouse about the update on whether or not there would be a prosecution under the vicarious liability following Mr Bells conviction. I’m apparently not allowed to post the reply anywhere but was told Mr Wheelhouse is unable to enter into discussion about such matters and I was pointed in the direction of The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for any information I might want“.

Interesting. So the first excuse given was that ‘police enquiries had not yet concluded’, and that has now changed to ‘Wheelhouse is unable to enter into discussion’ (and apparently members of the public are not permitted to publish the Minister’s replies to their queries).

Anyone getting the impression that these answers are designed to subdue any further reporting on this case?

Wheelhouse has apparently suggested contacting the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for the information. Let’s do that, taking note of the word ‘service’ – they are supposedly serving us, the general public.

The thing is, we’re not too sure who within COPFS to contact for this information. Rumour has it that the head of the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit (WECU) at COPFS, Craig Harris, has since moved on. Rumour also has it that a new head of unit has been installed although it’s not clear who that person is, although six-figure-Dysart’s name has been mentioned. Hmm.

We could ask the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, who is the ministerial head of COPFS, although we’ve been unable to find a direct email address for him.

Let’s try our luck with the COPFS’s general email address and ask the following questions:

Dear COPFS,

Please can you tell us the name of the new head of the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit at COPFS? And please could you tell us whether there will be a prosecution under the vicarious liability legislation relating to the poisoning offences carried out at the Glasserton and Physgill Estates in December 2012? Thanks.

Emails to: enquirypoint@copfs.gsi.gov.uk

UPDATE: The email address to use is apparently this: _WildlifeSpecialists@copfs.gsi.gov.uk  Please note the underscore at the beginning of the address. Thanks to the contributors who have provided this new address.

Benyon given the boot

Some good news! Richard Benyon MP, the DEFRA minister, has been booted out in today’s Government reshuffle. He now returns to the back benches, presumably with more time to pursue his ‘sporting’ interests on his grouse moor in Scotland and his pheasant shoot estate in Berkshire.

Benyon had been in post at DEFRA for just over three years, with special responsibility for biodiversity and the natural environment, amongst other things (see here).

He is best known to us for being in office when a buzzard ‘management’ trial was sanctioned in 2012 (see here) which DEFRA almost got away with until public opinion forced a speedy government u-turn (see here).

Benyon also refused to criminalise the possession of the banned poison Carbofuran in England (see here) and didn’t see the need to introduce vicarious liability in England, but instead applauded gamekeepers “for the wonderful work they do in providing excellent biodiversity across our countryside” (see here).

Good riddance.

Vicarious liability prosecution?

wane1On July 1st this year, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse set out his proposed ‘further measures’ to tackle the continuing problem of illegal raptor persecution (see here).

In response to his announcement, on July 2nd we asked him (see here) for clarification on some of these ‘further measures’ and also for updates on some previously promised measures, including prosecutions under the new vicarious liability legislation.

On August 4th we blogged about the Minister’s responses to our questions (see here).

One of the questions we’d asked him was this:

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?

The Minister’s response was this:

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

At the time we said we weren’t too impressed with this response, seeing as though 8 months had already elapsed since the original crimes were committed (in December 2012). However, as this was the first time a potential prosecution had been considered under the new legislation, we didn’t have a benchmark for how long these cases might take. We also said we would ask, periodically, for updates on this case so that it couldn’t be quietly swept under the carpet.

It’s now October, ten months after the original crimes were committed, and there’s still no official word. We thought it was time to ask the Minister for another update.

Dear Paul Wheelhouse,

Please could you provide an update on 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?

Thanks.

Emails to: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Case against gamekeeper George Mutch: part 2

Criminal proceedings against Scottish gamekeeper George Mutch continued today at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

Mutch, from Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire, is understood to have been charged with six alleged offences under Sections 1 and 5 of the Wildlife & 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.

This case opened last month (see here) for a pleading diet, but was continued without plea until today’s hearing. The case was adjourned again today, still without plea, until 30th October.

As we wrote last time, this case is of particular interest on several levels and is expected to attract a great deal of interest. Watch this space…