Tag: hen harrier

If ever there was an example demonstrating the high level of persecution faced by Hen Harriers on UK grouse moors, the lack of consequences for the offenders, and the lack of justice for the victims, the short life of a Hen Harrier called ‘Susie’ illustrates it all.

Susie hatched in Cumbria in 2020 and was satellite-tagged by Natural England on 21 July 2020. She first bred in Bowland in 2021, and the following year she moved up to a grouse moor near Whernside in the Yorkshire Dales National Park where she produced four chicks.

The Whernside nest was being monitored (nest camera) by Natural England as part of the ludicrous Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Trial. On 20 June 2022, NE researchers noticed that Susie’s satellite tag was unexpectedly and abruptly shown tracking approximately 35km away from her nest. An adult female should be attentive and close to her nest during this period. Her sudden exit from the nest area was worrying.

The following day, Natural England field staff visited the nest and made the grim discovery of three dead Hen Harrier chicks.

Reviewing the nest camera footage, they saw that after dark, at 9.54pm on 15 June 2022, the camera showed the nest site appeared normal with Susie settled in the nest with her chicks. However, at 9.59pm a sudden irregular ‘whiteout’ of the camera occurred, blinding the camera.

The camera used was movement-activated, and it was not triggered again until the following morning when footage captured apparently dead chicks in the nest and Susie attempting to feed them.

She could be seen removing her dead chicks from the nest. Three of these were found just outside the nest, and it is not known where she deposited the fourth.

Post-mortem examinations of the three chicks were subsequently conducted and showed that each suffered with multiple fractured bones including the humerus in one chick, both femurs in the second chick, and in the third chick, the humerus and a crushed skull. The fractures were complete and showed a considerable trauma had taken place for each chick.

It’s quite clear that ‘someone’ had visited the nest, disabled the camera, and stamped the chicks to death.

Six months later (!), in December 2022, North Yorkshire Police laid out the evidence and issued an appeal for information (see here).

Representatives from the grouse shooting industry responded by trying to manipulate the narrative of this brutal and sadistic crime (see here) and of course, nobody came forward with any information that could identify the person / people responsible.

The following year, in 2023, the story featured in a three-episode podcast by The Guardian, called ‘Killing the Skydancer’ (here, here and here). Meanwhile, Susie bred successfully (unknown location) and fledged five chicks. It was to be her last breeding season.

In April 2024, Natural England published its latest update on the fate of its satellite-tagged Hen Harriers. It did so quietly, without any publicity whatsoever. Susie’s entry on that spreadsheet read,

‘Last known transmission 12 February 2024, Northumberland. Found dead. Site confidential. Recovered, awaiting post mortem’.

Nothing more was heard about Susie’s fate until a year later, in another spreadsheet update in April 2025. Susie’s entry now read:

‘Ongoing police investigation, final transmission location temporarily withheld at police request‘. 

Again, there was no publicity about Susie, or about any of the other Natural England-tagged Hen Harriers that had either ‘vanished’ or had been found dead in suspicious circumstances.

Over one and a half year’s after Susie was found dead, the details have finally emerged, and once again Natural England has slipped them out quietly, without fanfare or commentary, in its October 2025 spreadsheet update. Susie’s entry now reads:

‘Found dead 12 February 2024, Northumberland, Grid reference NY759585. Confirmed dead, had been victim of shooting. When found dead remains would not allow determination of whether the bird died as a result of being shot. Bird died between 25 November 2023 and 12 February 2024‘.

Susie’s corpse was found on a grouse moor in the North Pennines National Landscape (a so-called protected landscape, formerly known as the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, AONB), and the grid reference places her on what I believe to be the Whitfield Estate:

Susie had been shot at some point, but where, and when, is not known.

There is no suggestion that she was shot and killed on the Whitfield Estate – she could have been shot many months earlier and survived for a while before succumbing to her injuries. Without seeing the post mortem and x-ray results (which have not been published), it’s impossible to know whether her gunshot injuries caused any broken bones that could have impeded her ability to fly any distance.

That Susie was the victim of at least two separate persecution incidents (that we know about) during her three-and-a-half-year life, illustrates the severity of threat this species still faces in the UK. This should come as no surprise to anybody who has been following this blog for any length of time, nor to those who may have read the RSPB’s damning 2025 report, Hen Harriers in the Firing Line.

These appalling crimes continue because hardly anyone is ever brought to justice. There is rarely any consequence for the offenders, which gives them the green light to carry on.

There has been a change in tactics by the raptor killers in recent years, as we saw in the RSPB’s covert footage in Oct 2024 where three individuals were caught plotting, and then apparently shooting, a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor in Grassington in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. They specifically targeted the Hen Harrier that was not carrying a ‘box’ (a satellite tag) because they thought that by doing so their crime would be undetected. A gamekeeper is standing trial in January 2026 for his alleged involvement – he denies it – it will be up to the court to decide whether he was involved or not.

That case is a very uncommon prosecution, reliant on evidence provided by the RSPB’s excellent Investigations Team.

There won’t be a prosecution for the shooting of Hen Harrier Susie because there’s no evidence (that I’m aware of) that links an identified individual to that crime. Just as there was no prosecution of the person(s) responsible for stamping her chicks to death in their nest in 2022.

We all get it – finding sufficient evidence to prosecute those responsible for committing crimes in remote landscapes is incredibly difficult, but the investigating authorities could, and should, be doing much more to publicise these offences to raise awareness and help the general public spot suspicious activity.

The police’s appeal for information about the chick-stamping crime in the Yorkshire Dales National Park came six months after the event – that’s pathetic.

I haven’t seen ANY police appeal or press release about the shooting of Susie or the discovery of her corpse in Northumberland in February 2024. Not a single word.

Where is the publicity from the National Wildlife Crime Unit-led Hen Harrier Taskforce? The specialist group set up explicitly to tackle the ongoing illegal killing of Hen Harriers. Not a single word.

Where is the publicity from the police-led Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), one of whose functions is apparently ‘awareness raising‘ and ‘raising the profile [of illegal raptor persecution] via media exposure‘? Not a single word.

Natural England has remained tight-lipped, as it always does, claiming that it requires the go-ahead from the police to issue any media. Why? Sure, in the early stages of a police investigation keeping quiet is often necessary to avoid alerting the perpetrator who may take the opportunity to remove/hide evidence before the police turn up. But 18+ months of silence, about a crime that relates to a publicly-funded project, and then to quietly slip out the information buried deep inside a spreadsheet?

Honestly, this needn’t be so bloody difficult.

Earlier this month a judge ruled that covert video surveillance obtained by the RSPB is admissible evidence in the prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, who has been charged in relation to the alleged shooting of a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor (Coniston & Grassington Estate) in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024.

Mr Dingwall pleaded not guilty to two charges at an earlier court hearing at Skipton Magistrates’ Court in May 2025. Those two charges are:

1. Possession of an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
2. Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.

The pre-trial hearing at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was specifically to hear legal argument about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video evidence, on which this prosecution is based.

I wrote briefly about the judge’s decision to accept the RSPB’s video evidence at the hearing on 9 September and said I would elaborate further when I had the time.

The following commentary seeks to provide more information about the judge’s decision and is based entirely on the notes I made during that hearing.

This pre-trial hearing was held before District Judge Adrian Lower. The involvement of a District Judge (professionally and legally qualified) is perhaps the reason why this case moved from Skipton Magistrates’ Court to York Magistrates’ Court.

District Judges don’t tend to sit in the smaller, or rural courts, but where a case is legally complex then there is often a request to move the case to another court to be heard before a District Judge rather than the lay magistrates (also known as Justices of the Peace) in a smaller court, who are volunteers and not legally trained/qualified to the extent of a District Judge.

Mr Dingwall and his solicitor did not attend the pre-trial hearing at York on 9 September 2025 – District Judge (DJ) Lower acknowledged that Mr Dingwall had been excused (the reason for his absence wasn’t given in open court).

The sole representative in court for Mr Dingwall was his barrister, Mr Justin Rouse KC. Long-term blog readers may recognise this name – Mr Rouse KC represented a gamekeeper from the Bleasdale Estate in Bowland, Lancashire in 2017-2018 who had been charged with nine offences relating to the alleged killing of two Peregrines on this grouse-shooting estate in 2016 in appalling circumstances. The prosecution had relied heavily on covert surveillance provided by the RSPB but the case collapsed when the presiding District Judge accepted Mr Rouse’s defence argument that the evidence should be ruled inadmissible (not necessarily on the strength of Mr Rouse’s arguments but more likely on the weakness of the prosecution lawyer, who was hopelessly underprepared for court- see here for detailed commentary on that case).

Appearing for the prosecution (CPS – Crown Prosecution Service) at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was Mr Jody Beaumont.

The hearing opened with DJ Lower stating that he’d read the submissions from both sides (about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video surveillance) and that he didn’t intend to hear a repetition of those submissions in court. He asked whether Mr Rouse KC and Mr Beaumont had anything new to add and both replied that they didn’t.

No doubt DJ Lower wanted to save valuable court time, but his decision not to have the legal arguments presented in open court makes it very difficult to provide an informed commentary on what happened next, because I don’t have the benefit of knowing the exact details of each side’s position.

Nevertheless, a general sense of the defence’s argument could be gleaned from some of the remarks made later by DJ Lower and it became apparent that there were two main issues to be discussed – the admissibility of the video evidence and an issue about disclosure.

The interpretation that follows is based on my understanding of what was said and should be viewed with appropriate caution given the circumstances just described.

It was clear that Mr Rouse KC for the defence had made an application to the court to exclude the RSPB’s video evidence (and thus have the case dismissed), under Section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Section 78:

‘…..In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court, that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it’.

DJ Lower said that Mr Rouse’s view was that the RSPB should be viewed as a public authority in the way it gathered evidence (i.e. regulated by various legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 & Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which controls the manner of covert surveillance operations) – this is a very similar argument to the one Mr Rouse used in the Bleasdale case and, if accepted by the court in this latest case, would result in the RSPB’s evidence being ruled inadmissible because the RSPB hadn’t operated by the provisions required of a public authority in undertaking covert surveillance on private land (i.e. needing authorisation).

DJ Lower said he could not agree with the submission that the RSPB was a ‘public authority’. He said that the RSPB is arguably a substantial business, “a charity like no other“, but that although the RSPB was involved in the investigation, the material had been handed to North Yorkshire Police. He continued, “There is bound to be close coordination between the RSPB and North Yorkshire Police but that doesn’t mean that the RSPB becomes a public authority and is regulated as such by various legislation“.

DJ Lower agreed that there needs to be consideration about whether the RSPB should be considered a public authority but that this was not a decision a judge could make – it should be for Parliament to consider.

He said that the crux of the S.78 application was – regardless of whether the RSPB is or isn’t a public authority – would submission of the evidence have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings? He said this was a discretionary judgement for the court to make and in his judgement, “there would be no adverse affect“.

He continued: “The RSPB evidence has been subject to review by the CPS and it is their decision to prosecute or not. I cannot see how admitting the evidence gathered from the RSPB would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings. I am not prepared to dismiss the case“.

DJ Lower then referred to an alleged abuse of process, claimed by the defence (the details of this are unknown). DJ Lower asked Mr Rouse whether he had anything more to say on that allegation and Mr Rouse accepted that it had been addressed by the judge.

The legal argument then moved on to the disclosure issues (the details of which are unknown, which made the discussion confusing).

There seemed to be an argument about the defence not yet having had access to between 70-80 hours worth of RSPB video footage. Mr Beaumont (CPS) told the court that there was an ongoing discussion about how to manage the files and send them to the defence, but given that ‘senior management’ were involved, “this should be sorted out very soon“.

The defence was interested in a series of photographs taken by the RSPB between 16 September – 19 October 2024 consisting of “vehicles, houses, males, dogs and moorland“. Mr Rouse thought they may be capable of undermining the defence.

Mr Rouse said that because the RSPB investigators say they were acting on intelligence, the defence had asked for that intelligence material that led the RSPB to installing the surveillance equipment.

Mr Rouse continued, saying the defence’s principal concern about the disclosure of footage was the extent of “data breaches for the defendant and others recorded when they should not have been recorded” because “the RSPB were trespassing and the capture of data was unlawful“.

Mr Rouse also raised concerns about the police’s Section 19 (WCA) search of the moor. He asked how the police knew where to search, was the RSPB involved in that search, and if so, the identities of any RSPB staff involved should be disclosed. DJ Lower and Mr Beaumont agreed.

DJ Lower dismissed Mr Rouse’s concerns over privacy because any images captured by the RSPB could be “pixellated to protect the identity of members of the public“.

He suggested the discussion about disclosure should be continued between the defence and the prosecution, and that disclosure of all relevant evidence should take place within 28 days, and at the latest by 4pm on 7th October 2025.

DJ Lower set a two-day trial date (29th-30th January 2026, pending witness availability) at York Magistrates’ Court and said the case would be reserved for him.

He granted Mr Dingwall unconditional bail and asked his representative to ensure Mr Dingwall understood the consequences of non-attendance at court on 29 January 2026.

NB: Because criminal legal proceedings are live, the comment facility has been switched off.