Following on from yesterday’s blog about the conviction of “vicious” gamekeeper Robert William Hebblewhite (see here), more information has emerged about what happened in court.
We mentioned yesterday how unusual it was for a gamekeeper to be convicted of actually killing the dead raptor(s) found on their land; typically, in case after case, the gamekeeper is convicted for the lesser offence of “possession” (e.g. of poison) and the charge for the actual killing is dropped. This has caused an immense amount of frustration, not only for those investigators who often spend months working on getting a case to court, but also for us, the members of the public, who feel a massive sense of injustice every time it happens.
Well, not so in this case. If you read the article published here, you’ll notice that the judge (in this case District Judge John Stobard) was having none of it.
The prosecutor (Mark Holmes) contended that Hebblewhite’s motive was clear. He was the gamekeeper on this shoot, with responsibilities for pest control. The shoot had been losing birds because buzzards were in the area (his words, not ours!). Pheasant carcasses laced with Carbofuran had been found next to the Carbofuran-poisoned buzzards. A jar of Carbofuran was found in Hebblewhite’s van (see photo). Hebbelewhite’s van had been seen going to the scene on several occasions.
Hebblewhite had pleaded guilty to possession of Carbofuran (the lesser offence) but not for poisoning the buzzards.
The defence argued that the poisoner could have been anyone.
District Judge John Stobard wasn’t fooled. He is reported to have said this:
“The birds died from Carbofuran and here in a van is the very stuff that killed them. The defence says it could have been anyone. Well, could it? I’m not here to discuss the case as a philosophical argument. What is the reality of the matter?
This defendant is here to secure the presence of the shoots that take place by the way of being a gamekeeper. He must look after the pheasants and protect them from other animals.
I think he has done so in an old fashioned and particularly nasty way by lacing the pheasant with Carbofuran in the full knowledge the buzzards would be killed.
It can only point to one conclusion – he did it“.
So finally, here’s a judge who put two and two together and didn’t make five. It’s quite telling though, that this is such an unusual result that we need to highlight it here. What does that say about how our justice system deals with raptor persecution crimes? What does it tell us about our low expectations for these court cases?
In Scotland we’re so used to seeing ridiculous legal obstacles placed in the way of justice that we now expect the poisoner/trapper/killer to get off. “Did you see the defendant place the poison? Did you see the eagle/buzzard/goshawk/red kite actually eat from that very poisoned bait? Was it filmed? Did you have permission to film on that land? Can you forensically match the poison on the bait/inside the dead raptor with the big stash of illegal poison found in the defendant’s house /shed /garage /vehicle /porch /gamebag /jacket pocket? No? Well then he can’t be convicted”.
Well done again to the RSPB Investigations Team, to the CPS, and particularly to District Judge John Stobard for seeing the bleedin’ obvious and acting upon it.
UPDATE: There’s an excellent news piece on this conviction from BBC Look North. Decent coverage and explains that raptor poisoning is a national issue. Great stuff. Available on BBC iPlayer here for limited period (starts at 11.58 – ends at 14.40).

There’s a comical news item on BBC News today about the new generation of gamekeepers.
This isn’t especially new news, as it happened in the summer, but we were reminded of it today after reading something on Mark Avery’s blog – more on that later – and it does seem pertinent to blog about it now.
Some argue that conservation groups shouldn’t be sitting at the table with representatives from an industry that has been responsible for killing off England’s breeding hen harrier population. Others argue that the quota scheme may be the best way forward because at least there’d be some harriers, which is a better proposition than having none. Others have suggested that the quota system would never get off the ground anyway because the grouse moor owners would have to ‘allow’ a certain number of breeding hen harriers on their estates and they’ve shown themselves incapable of tolerating any.
We were expecting a verdict yesterday on the Lochindorb Estate hare snare trial, but Sheriff Abercrombie had other ideas.
Thanks to the contributor who sent us a recent copy of the following article published in the Press & Journal (dated 28 Nov 2012) -:
RSPB Scotland has just published its latest report, The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2011. You probably won’t be surprised or shocked by the content, especially if you’ve read the previous 17 annual reviews. In fact, when you read this 18th review, you might get a strong sense of déjà vu.
Once again the occupations and interests of those convicted for illegal raptor persecution crime have been analysed (data from 2003-2011 inclusive). 87% of them were gamekeepers (7% pigeon racers, 3% pest controllers, 3% farmers).