Cheshire Constabulary are appealing for information after a series of wildlife crimes, including the shooting of a barn owl, swan and heron, and the suspected poisoning of a red kite.
The crimes took place at Risley Moss Nature Reserve in Warrington, Cheshire, “in recent weeks”.
No further details available.
Article in the Warrington Guardian here.
Criminal proceedings continued yesterday against Mr Ninian Robert Hathorn Johnston-Stewart in the first known vicarious liability prosecution under the WANE Act 2011.
Mr Johnston-Stewart, the landowner of Glasserton & Physgill Estates, is charged with being vicariously liable for the criminal actions of Glasserton gamekeeper Peter Bell, who was convicted in 2013 of laying poisoned bait which killed a buzzard (Carbofuran), and for possession of three banned pesticides (Carbofuran, Strychnine and Alphacloralose) (see here).
Yesterday’s intermediate diet was continued, with another intermediate diet scheduled for 23rd December 2014.
RSPB Scotland has announced its new venue for the 2015 Scottish Birdfair – Levenhall Links, east of Edinburgh.
Thank god they’ve finally ditched Hopetoun House, the controversial venue that hosted the Birdfair for the last three years.
The controversy centred on Hopetoun’s relationship with the Leadhills (Hopetoun) Estate in South Lanarkshire – a driven grouse moor with a shocking record:
2003 April: hen harrier shot [prosecution failed – inadmissible evidence]
2003 April: hen harrier eggs destroyed [prosecution failed – inadmissible evidence]
2004 May: buzzard shot [no prosecution]
2004 May: short-eared owl shot [gamekeeper convicted]
2004 June: buzzard poisoned (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2004 June: 4 x poisoned rabbit baits (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2004 June: crow poisoned (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2004 July: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2004 July: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2005 February: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2005 April: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2005 June: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2005 June: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 February: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 March: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 March: poisoned pigeon bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 April: dead buzzard (persecution method unknown) [no prosecution]
2006 May: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 May: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 May: poisoned egg baits (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 June: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 June: poisoned raven (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 June: 6 x poisoned rabbit baits (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 June: poisoned egg bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 September: 5 x poisoned buzzards (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 September: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2006 September: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2007 March: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2007 April: poisoned red kite (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2007 May: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2008 October: poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) [listed as ‘Nr Leadhills’] [no prosecution]
2008 October: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [listed as ‘Nr Leadhills’] [no prosecution]
2008 November: 3 x poisoned ravens (Carbofuran) [listed as ‘Nr Leadhills’] [no prosecution]
2009 March: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2009 March: poisoned raven (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2009 April: poisoned rabbit bait (Carbofuran) [gamekeeper convicted]
2009 April: poisoned magpie (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2009 April: poisoned raven (Carbofuran) [no prosecution]
2010 October: short-eared owl shot [no prosecution]
2011 March: illegally-set clam trap [no prosecution]
2011 December: buzzard shot [no prosecution]
2012 October: golden eagle shot (just over boundary with Buccleuch Estate) [no prosecution]
2013 May: shot otter found on estate [no prosecution]
2013 June: significant cache of pre-prepared poisoned baits found on estate [no prosecution]
2013 August: red kite found shot and critically-injured in Leadhills village [no prosecution]
2014 February: poisoned peregrine (Carbofuran) [‘Nr Leadhills] [no prosecution]
Why RSPB Scotland ever thought that holding their prestigious event at Hopetoun House was a good idea remains a mystery – we blogged about it extensively and the RSPB’s decision to stay there caused many visitors, exhibitors and speakers to boycott the event (see here for an overview).
So we’re delighted, as probably are many others, to hear that the 2015 Scottish Birdfair will be at a new venue – Levenhall Links – a place with no known links to driven grouse shooting or any type of wildlife crime. Well done, RSPB Scotland.
RSPB press release here
Scottish Birdfair website here
Last night’s BBC 2 (Scotland) Landward programme was all about driven grouse shooting. The programme had been billed as follows:
‘Grouse shooting brings millions of pounds into the Scottish rural economy, yet it is controversial. Dougie Vipond and Sarah Mack go on a shoot to see the sport first-hand, while Euan McIlwriath investigates the impact of grouse moors on the environment’.
On that basis, we expected a well-balanced programme exploring the detail of those ‘controversies’ with input from both ‘sides’. What we got was a BBC whitewash with a quite astonishing level of presentational bias. Not what we expected from a team who are all-too-familiar with raptor persecution, especially after their programme a couple of years ago which produced the classic Alex Hogg quote lie: “Professional gamekeepers do not poison raptors“.
You only have to look at the line-up of interviewees on last night’s programme to see that something was amiss:
Robert Jamieson, owner of gunmakers James Crockhart & Son, Blairgowrie.
Andrew Farquharson, owner of Finzean Estate, Aberdeenshire.
Allan ‘Hedge’ Shand, head gamekeeper of Finzean Estate.
Charlie Thorburn, gungog trainer from Mordor Gundogs.
Robert Rattray, sporting letting agent from CKD Galbraith.
Robbie Kernahan from SNH’s licensing department.
Tim (Kim) Baynes, Moorland Group Director, Scottish Land & Estates.
How many of these individuals would you expect to provide a fully comprehensive commentary on the dirty realities of driven grouse shooting? It’s almost as if the programme had been written and directed by the SGA!
We heard about the history of driven grouse shooting, how it’s the ‘Sport of Kings’, how much a decent gun would cost, how it’s a key part of the Scottish rural economy, how good it is for supporting rural jobs and how it’s still considered a ‘prestigious field sport’. You’d expect as much from people with a vested interest in maintaining this filthy industry. But what about the other side of the story?
We did hear about habitat management on the Finzean Estate (from the estate owner and his head gamekeeper) and we were told that this is an award-winning estate because it won this year’s Golden Plover Award for Moorland Managagement. What wasn’t said was that this award was given by two industry organisations – The Heather Trust and GWCT – two organisations who clearly don’t have a vested interest in promoting driven grouse shooting. Ahem.
But we didn’t hear anything about the environmental implications of driven grouse moor management, such as the effects of intensive heather burning, building tracks across the moorland, putting in car parks on the moors, installing grouse butts on the moors, the increased risk of flooding resulting from grouse moor management, the wholesale (legal) indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of native creatures that could conceivably eat an egg or a grouse, including foxes, stoats, weasels, crows etc, nor the unregulated massacring of mountain hares for no good reason whatsoever (see here here and here). Why not?
And what about raptor persecution? Well, poisoning did get a brief mention, although there was no indication about the scale of illegal killing associated with driven grouse moors in Scotland (and northern England). Why not?
The head gamekeeper was asked what predators he had on the hill at Finzean, presumably in an attempt to show that this estate was predator-friendly. He mentioned foxes and hoodies, but ‘forgot’ to mention that they’re not tolerated and are routinely killed year-round, as they are on all driven grouse moors. He also mentioned a few raptor species, including merlin, ‘eagles’ and peregrine. Now that was interesting. Finzean does indeed have some raptor species, including a pair of red kites and golden eagles. But there’s having eagles and then there’s having eagles. The Finzean eagles aren’t doing very well. Their breeding attempts are routinely unsuccessful and there is a suspiciously regular turn-over of breeding birds at this site. Why is that? Golden eagles tend to be relatively sedentary once they’ve settled in a breeding territory, and only rarely do they move or change partner. The odd turn-over event is to be expected – if one of the pair dies (natural mortality) or if a nearby ‘superior’ breeding site becomes available – but these events are relatively rare and certainly couldn’t be described as a ‘regular’ behaviour, and yet territorial eagles are turning over with regularity at Finzean. Hmm.
And what about hen harriers? Why didn’t the presenter ask about those? We would have liked to have heard the head keeper’s comments on that. Finzean did used to have breeding hen harriers, but they’re not there any more and haven’t been for some time. Why not?
There was a short piece on the new restriction on General Licences that SNH may choose to use if they believe, on the balance of probabilities, that illegal raptor persecution has taken place. However, there was no mention of the ‘get-out clause‘ that would allow an estate to simply by-pass the imposed restriction and get an individual licence instead.
All in all then, a pretty god-awful, poorly-researched programme that failed to highlight the on-going environmental concerns associated with driven grouse shooting, and instead tried to portray it as something it really isn’t. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
As it’s the awards season, we might have to consider starting our own – the Lip-sticked Pig Awards for Grouse Moor Management. This programme would be a contender for best documentary of the year.
If you missed the programme, you can watch it in BBC iPlayer for the next 29 days here
As the Ross-shire Massacre fiasco rolls into its eighth month, one MSP is making a stand.
Dave Thompson MSP (SNP: Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) has called on Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to undertake a review in to the police handling of this investigation. Well done, that man!
The police investigation into one of the most high profile mass raptor poisoning crimes in decades has blundered along for far too long and is fully deserving of public scrutiny, as is the accompanying police media strategy. Rather than providing clear and timely information, their strategy has been to release a series of untimely, misleading and willfully ambiguous statements that have done anything but inform. Indeed, these statements have simply led to more and more outlandish speculation and a growing sense of frustration and anger. Given how keen Police Scotland are on “public accountability” (e.g. see here), they’ll no doubt welcome a review of their handling of this case.
Dave Thompson MSP is a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee, who recently heard evidence from two senior Police Scotland representatives about the Ross-shire Massacre (see here). It seems he was as unimpressed with their answers as we were.
He said: “It would be useful if a full review of the investigation process was carried out. It would go a long way to allaying any fears the general public may have but also, in the interests of transparency, such a review would take away any lingering confusion about how these great birds of prey met their demise.
“This is why I have written to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to request that a review of the investigation process takes place and why I will be making sure the Lord Advocate is copied into any correspondence on the matter“.
Dave Thompson MSP formally opening the Tollie Red Kite feeding station in 2012, assisted by Alex Matheson (Brahan Estate) and George Campbell (RSPB Regional Director). [RSPB Scotland photo]
There has long been dissatisfaction with the penalties handed out to those convicted of wildlife crime. Yesterday’s sentencing of convicted mass raptor poisoner Allen Lambert of Stody Estate merely served to highlight the issue, again. But what we perceive to be unacceptably lenient penalties is certainly nothing new, and especially those sentences given to people (usually gamekeepers) associated with the game-shooting industry.
There’s a huge lack of public confidence in the way the judiciary deals with these criminals, with many people often talking about corruption, vested interests, biased judges/sheriffs etc. We’ve all come to expect unduly lenient measures – you only have to look at the comments on social media even before Lambert’s sentence was announced – people were predicting a metaphorical ‘slap on the wrist’, and in essence, that’s indeed what he got, even though the judge had stated that Lambert’s crimes “had crossed the custody threshold“.
Quite often (although apparently not in Lambert’s case), the accused’s employer (typically a wealthy landowner) will even fork out for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to put forward the accused’s defence. A QC is considered to be an exceptional lawyer of outstanding ability – it’s hardly a level playing field to pit a QC against an ‘average’ public prosecutor, leading to even more public concern about the perceived ‘fairness’ of these trials and any subsequent punishment.
Sentencing for wildlife crimes has been hit or miss in both Scotland and England. For most wildlife crime offences (although not all), the maximum sentence available for each offence is a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence. So for example, if someone had been convicted of poisoning two buzzards, they could potentially be hit with a £10,000 fine and a 12 month custodial sentence. As far as we’re aware, the maximum sentence has never been given. Instead, a large dollop of judicial discretion has been applied, resulting in weak and inconsistent penalties and a growing level of frustration amongst the general public who wish to see justice being done.
For example, in 2011, a gamekeeper in South Lanarkshire was convicted of poisoning four buzzards with the banned pesticide Alphachloralose. His sentence? An admonishment (basically a telling off). The maximum penalty available to the Sheriff was a £20,000 fine and/or a two-year custodial sentence. What was even more astonishing about this case was that the gamekeeper had been convicted of another wildlife crime three years earlier (illegal use of a crow cage trap in which he’d caught a buzzard), on the same land, for which he’d received a £300 fine. So the poisoning of four buzzards with a banned pesticide was his second conviction and yet he was given the most lenient penalty available.
A few months later, and just down the road in South Lanarkshire, a second gamekeeper was convicted of possessing the banned pesticide Carbofuran, which had been found in his vehicle. No charges were brought for the discovery of a dead buzzard and a pheasant bait (both tested positive for Carbofuran) found on land where this gamekeeper worked. His sentence? A £635 fine for possession (maximum sentence available was a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence).
Things may be about to change in Scotland. Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has, to his credit, instructed a review of wildlife crime penalties. The group’s remit is:
“To examine and report on how wildlife crime in Scotland is dealt with by the criminal courts, with particular reference to the range of penalties available and whether these are sufficient for the purposes of deterrence and whether they are commensurate with the damage to ecosystems that may be caused by wildlife crime”.
Now, while we don’t for one minute think that a potential increase in penalties will be the great panacea to stopping wildlife crime (for that to happen there also needs to be a significant change in investigation and enforcement procedures…..it’s pointless having a severe penalty in place if the criminal knows the chances of being caught are virtually nil…but more on that in due course), it is nevertheless an encouraging step, assuming of course that the review committee recommends an increase in penalties. They may not – see here for our previous comments on the membership of this review committee, which inexplicably includes the owner of a game-shooting estate.
This is where you come in. There is an opportunity for you to share your views with the review committee by answering a simple questionnaire that includes some carefully-thought out questions. The deadline for responding is two weeks today (21st November 2014) and the questionnaire can be filled in on-line and emailed to the committee. Please click here to download.
This is an excellent opportunity to have your say and perhaps have some influence on future wildlife crime sentencing options. Although the review is only applicable to sentencing options in Scotland, you do not have to live in Scotland to participate – it’s open to anyone from anywhere. And who knows, if improvements are made in the Scottish system then it provides more leverage for calls to do a similar review of wildlife crime penalties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The review committee is due to report its findings (and recommendations) early in the New Year.
Gamekeeper Allen Lambert, convicted of mass raptor poisoning at Stody Estate, Norfolk, has been given a 10 week suspended sentence for poisoning 11 raptors (suspended for one year), a six week suspended sentence for possession of firearms and dead buzzards (suspended for one year) and has been ordered to pay £930 prosecution costs and an £80 victim surcharge.
This sentence will infuriate many. Lambert’s crimes contributed to one of the worst incidents of mass raptor poisoning in the UK. Although it’s not the worst incident, it’s right up there near the top of the list and is certainly the worst mass poisoning of raptors uncovered in England.
District Judge Peter Veits said Lambert’s crimes ‘had crossed the custody threshold’ but that his sentence would be suspended. Why? Sentencing is supposed to serve two purposes. It’s supposed to be a deterrent, not only to the convicted criminal, but also to others who may be contemplating committing the same crime. It’s also supposed to provide a punishment to the perpetrator for having acted criminally.
Does a suspended jail sentence meet any of these aims? No, it certainly does not.
What a wasted opportunity for the judiciary to send out a clear message to those who continue to commit abhorrent wildlife crimes. It’s so rare to actually get a conviction for poisoning; usually it’s the much lesser charge of ‘possession’ of banned poisons [in Scotland] or ‘storage’ of illegal poisons [in England] but here’s a gamekeeper who has been found guilty of actually poisoning 11 protected raptors. Sure, the judge’s sentencing options are constrained within statutory boundaries but the sentence in this case is nowhere near as strong as it could have been. Some of Lambert’s crimes are offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act. Under this legislation, the maximum sentence, calculated for EACH offence is a £5,000 fine and a six month custodial sentence. That’s just for poisoning 11 birds – in Lambert’s case there are numerous other offences to consider, including firearms offences which usually carry a custodial sentence.
A suspended custodial sentence and a less than £1000 ‘fine’ (prosecution costs) for what Lambert did is absurdly lenient. According to the RSPB, since 2001, four gamekeepers have received suspended custodial sentences for persecution offences. During the same period, 12 egg collectors have actually been jailed. The inconsistency in wildlife crime sentencing is remarkable.
In Scotland there is currently a wildlife crime penalty review underway, at the behest of Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse. There is an opportunity for you to participate, by filling in a questionnaire which seeks views on whether penalties for wildlife crime offences in Scotland are sufficient deterrent. The closing date is 21 November. Full details here.
So, Lambert’s pretty much got off scot free, but what of his (now former) employers, the Stody Estate? According to the BBC, ‘there is no evidence the estate owner, Charles MacNicol, knew about the poisonings. He wouldn’t tell BBC News whether he knew, or whether he condemned the killings’. Lambert was not sacked by Stody Estate, but instead was allowed to take early retirement, according to ITV news.
What we do know is the Stody Estate has received millions in agricultural subsidies over the years (see here), and as a result of blog readers’ efforts, the Rural Payments Agency is understood to be investigating to see whether financial penalties can be applied for cross-compliance offences (see here).
UPDATE 8/11/14: Here are the judge’s comments on Lambert’s sentencing: DJ Peter Veits sentencing 6 Nov 2014
Media coverage of Lambert’s sentencing
RSPB press release here
BBC news here
BBC news video here
RSPB Investigations blog here
Daily Mail here
ITV news here
Norfolk Eastern Daily Press here
Telegraph here
Guardian here
Independent here
Norfolk Constabulary press statement here
Allen Lambert, the mass poisoning gamekeeper from Stody Estate, Norfolk, will be sentenced today following his convictions last month.
What sort of sentence does a convicted mass poisoner deserve? He was found guilty of poisoning 10 buzzards and 1 sparrowhawk. He was found guilty of the illegal storage and use of some of the most dangerous pesticides in the world. He was found guilty of having equipment capable of being used to prepare poisoned baits. He was found guilty of having nine dead buzzards in his possession.
Let’s hope the magistrate views this case with the seriousness it deserves.
Criminal proceedings continued today against Ninian Robert Hathorn Johnston Stewart in the first known vicarious liability prosecution under the WANE Act 2011.
Mr Johnston Stewart, the landowner of Glasserton & Physgill Estates, is charged with being vicariously liable for the criminal actions of Glasserton gamekeeper Peter Bell, who was convicted in 2013 of laying poisoned bait which killed a buzzard (Carbofuran) and possession of three banned pesticides (Carbofuran, Strychnine and Alphacloralose) (see here).
Today’s hearing was continued for an intermediate diet on 8th December 2014.
A week ago, Police Scotland issued a ludicrous press statement concerning the illegal poisoning of 22 raptors in Ross-shire. They said that they could CONFIRM that the birds “were most likely not targeted deliberately but instead were the victims of pest control measures“.
We’ve blogged quite a bit on that press statement already (see here, here, here, here). Our main issue with it is that the police appear to have ruled out intent (i.e. inferring the birds were accidental victims) before they’ve even identified a suspect. How could they possibly know what the intent was without first having a confession from the poisoner? We also take issue with them citing ’16’ victims instead of 22 victims. It may well be that they only have confirmed poisoning results from 16 of the 22, but to completely ignore the other six birds merely diminishes the scale of this crime.
We are not alone in this view. An article in the North Star quotes the RSPB’s Brian Etheridge (he’s the guy who has worked with the Black Isle red kite population for 19 years and was heavily involved in the discovery of the poisoned birds) as folllows:
“It’s a very stupid statement. That’s almost justifying the killing. It’s like saying that a drunk driver who kills somebody didn’t go out with the intention of killing anyone. He was just drunk and it was an accidental death“.
Last week, we invited blog readers to contact two of the partner agencies involved in this investigation (RSPB Scotland & SSPCA) to formally ask whether they agreed with the content of the Police Scotland statement. The SSPCA is yet to respond, but Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations at RSPB Scotland has issued the following statement:
“The use of poisoned bait, deliberately placed in the open countryside, is an indiscriminate and criminal act, whatever the intention of the perpetrator, and is aggravated in this case by the fact that an illegal chemical was used.
Whether these birds were killed deliberately or otherwise is irrelevant. Someone placed a fast-acting and very toxic poison out in the open, in an area well-known as being frequented by protected birds of prey, including a significant part of the north of Scotland red kite population. The resulting deaths were an entirely predictable result. It is very fortunate that the members of the local community who discovered poisoned birds did not become victims themselves.
The placing of poisoned bait, just a few miles from the popular Tollie red kite feeding station, was not only a reckless attack on local wildlife but also on the local tourist economy.
 I hope this provides clarification of our position”.
END.
Now, while Mr Thomson’s statement doesn’t really answer directly the question he was asked (and to be fair, we’d have been surprised if he had, given that the RSPB has to work in partnership with the police), it is nevertheless very revealing. He specifically mentions poisoned bait – something Police Scotland has so far failed to do, but more importantly, if you read between the lines, it’s pretty obvious that RSPB Scotland isn’t too happy about the Police Scotland statement: “Whether these birds were killed deliberately or otherwise is irrelevant” and “The resulting deaths were entirely predictable“. Indeed.
The Police Scotland statement came in for further scrutiny at the Scottish Government’s Rural Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday. The session was all about wildlife crime and two senior police officers, as well as a rep from COPFS, gave evidence to what turned out to be an impressively well-informed Committee. We’ll be blogging more on what was said at that hearing in due course, but suffice to say it was extremely illuminating. The official transcript apparently won’t be available until Monday, but in the meantime we thoroughly recommend you watch the video of the hearing (available here).
So, what was said about the Police Scotland press statement during that hearing? Quite a lot! The discussion on this specific item lasted for 18 minutes (see video 01.20-01.30 and then 01.34-01.42) and those well-informed Committee members clearly expressed their concern about the Police Scotland statement.
The police officers (ACC Malcom Graham, pictured left, and DCS Robbie Allan) tried to defend their position – notably, they didn’t apologise for any of the confusion their statement had caused – but their defence wasn’t very impressive. They did state, clearly, that they hadn’t intended to infer the poisonings were accidental, and they did confirm a criminal investigation was on-going. That was good, but they couldn’t justify why they thought the birds “were most likely not targeted deliberately” and quite surprisingly, they claimed that their partner agencies had been in support of the press release! Here’s part of what Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham had to say:
 “We put out information into the public domain that we thought was going to clarify what we thought our best assessment was, lay behind the intent of the acts that we’re investigating, and from everything that we have done, in combination with a number of other agencies who are active in this field AND WHO SUPPORTED THE PRESS RELEASE THAT WE PUT OUT [Emphasis by RPS], we wanted to say that it didn’t appear that the activity had sought to deliberately target the birds that had been killed“.
We find it very hard to believe, given the formal press statement issued by RSPB Scotland, that they were in any way supportive of the Police Scotland statement. So who were these “other agencies who are active in this field” who “supported the press release“? We’re very interested in this and perhaps Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham would like to be given the opportunity to explain, given how keen on public accountability Police Scotland claim to be. Perhaps he wouldn’t like to explain, but we’ll never know unless we ask. Emails to: ACC.CrimeMCPP@scotland.pnn.police.uk
Raptor Persecution UK 