Tag: shooting

Why the video evidence was ruled inadmissible in the Bleasdale Estate case

We’ve been reporting on the case against Bleasdale Estate gamekeeper James Hartley since September 2017 (see here, here, here, here for previous posts).

The case against Mr Hartley collapsed recently after the judge ruled the RSPB’s video evidence inadmissible.

In a series of blogs we’re examining what happened in this case.

In part one (here), we set out the nine charges against Mr Hartley relating to the alleged shooting of a peregrine and the alleged spring-trapping of a second peregrine on the Bleasdale Estate, Bowland, in April 2016. We outlined the evidence as presented to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service, the defence’s skeleton argument calling for the video evidence to be ruled inadmissible, and other technical issues relating to further evidence which the defence argued should also be ruled inadmissible. We also commented on the quality of the presentations by both the CPS barrister and the defence QC.

In this blog we discuss the legal argument surrounding the admissibility of the RSPB’s video evidence and the judge’s explanation for why she ruled the evidence inadmissible. In later blogs we’ll discuss the other issues raised, including the RSPB’s alleged breach of the Data Protection Act and the alleged breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act during the police search of the nest site and surrounding grouse moor.

Before we get in to the details of the legal arguments for and against the admissibilty of this particular video evidence, it is worth bearing in mind the statement made to the court during the first court hearing in September 2017, by the defendant’s solicitor, Tim Ryan:

“My client did not carry out the alleged offences and is not the person shown in the video footage“.

Unfortunately the strength of this argument and the evidence to support it remains untested in a court of law.

It’s also worth noting the judge’s comments to the court before her ruling on the admissisbility of the video evidence:

“I must remark that reaching a decision in this case has been made all the more difficult by the Crown declining to call live evidence [i.e. RSPB witnesses], despite the court inviting the Crown to consider doing so. The CPS website when addressing cases of this type states:

‘…Where surveillance product is to be relied upon, the question of whether that surveillance was overt or covert and was carried out at the initiation of or with the encouragement of the police in circumstances likely to result in private information being obtained, are questions of fact to be determined in each individual case…’

Even with that guidance, the Crown in this case ask the court to make such findings on the basis of written evidence alone. They have given no explanation as to why they do so. I find that approach most unusual“.

That statement alone probably summarises all you need to know about this particular case. The video evidence was crucial to the prosecution’s case, and yet the prosecution barrister missed opportunity after opportunity to challenge the defence QC’s legal arguments against its use.

On to the legal argument.

We’ve prepared an edited version of the court’s ruling on the admissibility of this particular video evidence, as delivered by District Judge Goodwin on 14 March 2018. We have redacted several names of witnesses and the peregrine nest site name, for obvious reasons.

This document summarises the defence’s argument against the admissibility of the video evidence, the prosecution’s counter-claims (such as they were), and the judge’s consideration of each point.

Download it here: Bleasdale RIPA_RPUK copy

A few thoughts….

The defence accepted that as the RSPB was not a public authority it was therefore not subject to RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) whereby authorisation would be required for covert surveillance on private land. However, Mr Rouse QC (for the defence) painted a picture of the RSPB and police “working hand in glove” and being “inextricably entwined” and that the two RSPB investigators involved in this case were both ex-police officers [not actually true] and thus should have known that RIPA authority should have been sought for the installation of this camera and by not doing so they were “deliberately flouting the rules“.

Mr Yip (for the prosecution) argued that no breach of RIPA had occured because the RSPB is not a public authority, is not listed on the RIPA Schedule, and had been monitoring this nest for a number of years as a matter of routine. He also pointed to many other similar cases that had been reliant on covert video evidence where there hadn’t been an issue with its admissibility or where there had, the court had used its discretion to accept the evidence because the actual trial process, where the evidence is tested, still ensures the defendant receives a fair trial.

Mr Rouse suggested to the court that if the [RIPA] law doesn’t apply to the RSPB then it shouldn’t apply to others, “…for example, Fathers for Justice, who could put bugs and cameras in hospitals, schools, bedrooms“.

In our opinion, Mr Rouse stretched this point beyond its limit. To compare the action of the RSPB placing a covert camera aimed at the nest of a protected Schedule 1 peregrine (to which only those in possession of a Sched 1 disturbance licence are permitted to visit) in the middle of a grouse moor far away from any homes and dwellings, with the placing of bugs/cameras in hospitals, schools and bedrooms, is simply ludicrous. Of course you would expect to capture ‘private’ information about people if you bugged hospitals, schools and bedrooms. You would NOT expect to capture private information about anybody if you pointed a camera at a Sched 1 nest site in the middle of a remote moor because nobody should have been there unless they held a disturbance licence.

Mr Yip should have been all over this and highlighted the obvious difference in circumstances, but he didn’t, other than to say the camera was not placed near a dwelling. Indeed he couldn’t take the argument apart, because as he told the court, he had not watched the video footage and nor did he have a copy available when the judge asked to see it (presumably she asked to see it to help determine the position of the camera and the view being recorded).

Mr Rouse argued that the RSPB’s placement of the camera did fall under the definition of ‘directed surveillance’ as defined by RIPA because even if it hadn’t captured ‘private’ information, the camera was CAPABLE of capturing private information (audio and visual) because the grouse moor was open access and the “public is entitled to privacy when out and about“. Again, had Mr Yip seen the video footage (it was nowhere near a private dwelling) and understood the restriction on visiting the nest sites of Schedule 1 species, he could have put this argument to bed.

The defence argued that the RSPB should have sought RIPA authority via the police for the placement of the camera, and pointed to a previous case, reported in Legal Eagle 2006, where this had been done. The judge asked Mr Yip what his view was on that case. Mr Yip said he didn’t know the details of that case but the circumstances would have been case specific. Had Mr Yip been familiar with that case, he would have known that it was a police-led investigation whereby the police had requested the assistance of the RSPB, not the other way around, that the landowner’s consent had been granted for the placement of a camera (it was a quarry owner) and therefore RIPA authority was easily obtained. [RIPA authority is not available for what are considered ‘low level’ offences such as wildlife crime, UNLESS the landowner’s permission is granted for the placement of a camera]. The judge asked Mr Yip why the RSPB had not sought the landowner’s consent for the Bleasdale camera and when he couldn’t answer she invited him to consider calling a ‘live’ witness [from the RSPB] to explain. Mr Yip did not accept the invitation, for reasons unknown, thus depriving the RSPB of an opportunity to explain.

Mr Rouse QC also drew the court’s attention to an open letter written last year by the Crown Office (Scotland) detailing its reasons why several prosecutions, all reliant on RSPB covert video footage, had recently been dropped [the alleged shooting of a hen harrier on Cabrach Estate & the alleged setting of a pole trap on Brewlands Estate]. Mr Rouse argued that this letter proved the RSPB had been told not to use covert cameras in Scotland “but the RSPB has decided to go on in England and take their chances“, referring to the current Bleasdale case. However, the Crown Office letter was written in May 2017, over a year AFTER the camera was placed on the Bleasdale Estate, so it was disingenuous of Mr Rouse to suggest the RSPB had ignored advice “and decided to go on in England and take their chances” at Bleasdale. Mr Yip missed this point entirely.

There’s no denying that the interpretation and application of RIPA is complex, is dependent upon the particular circumstances of a case, and we do not pretend to be experts on its use. Far from it. However, what is clear, not just from the Bleasdale case but also several others where covert footage was central to the prosecution, is an inconsistency of approach. Some courts allow it without question, others do not, and recently in Scotland the decision hasn’t even been made by the court because the Crown Office has ruled it inadmissible instead of allowing a Sheriff to consider the specific circumstances of each case.

So where does this leave us, apart from with an ever-increasing sense of injustice and an ever-decreasing confidence in the criminal justice system?

The RSPB and other groups who rely upon using covert video evidence could continue as they have been, and run the risk of cases collapsing on technicalities. That’s not really satisfactory though. Investigators need to be clear about the restrictions in advance, to allow them to take every measure to avoid this outcome and to safeguard the privacy of innocent individuals.

Alternatively, as has been suggested a few times now, the RSPB could simply forget about reporting suspected incidents to the police for a potential prosecution and instead could just place the footage in the public domain for the public to make up its own mind. This would save years of endless delay waiting for a case to reach court and, as we’ve seen in recent failed cases, video footage is a very powerful tool and stirs up public debate far more than a conviction does – the failed Cabrach case is a good example of this, as people are still talking about the injustice of that case collapsing a year on, whereas if there’d been a conviction the case would have been in the news for a few days and then forgotten. This alternative option is not really satisfactory either though. There would undoubtedly be legal issues about privacy and human rights (although it’s not difficult to pixellate a face to avoid identity) and it wouldn’t result in fair justice for either the alleged perpetrators (who wouldn’t have the opportunity of defending themselves in court) nor justice for the victims of these crimes.

Interestingly, as an aside, we’ve yet to see the covert video footage captured at Bleasdale Estate. We’ve heard about its apparent gruesome content, as described to the court, but surprisingly the RSPB has not yet put the footage in the public domain, as it has with other cases. Perhaps the defence is looking at ways of preventing its publication? Time will tell.

Another alternative is to change the law. As mentioned above, RIPA authority, without the landowner’s permission, is only available for what is classed as ‘serious crime’ (defined by the custodial sentence available for that offence). The types of crimes we’re seeing against raptors don’t fall within this definition. However, this might change in Scotland once the Scottish Government implements an increase of penalties for wildlife crime, following its acceptance two years ago of recommendations made in the Poustie Review. Would that mean that RIPA authority could then be sought by the police to investigate suspected raptor persecution crimes? We’re not entirely sure but hopefully some clever lawyers will be looking at that.

Whatever, something needs to change, and fast. It’s quite clear that the current rules permit landowners and their employees to commit whatever crimes they want against raptors, safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be held to account. NB: this is not a direct reference to the Bleasdale case, but is a general observation of raptor persecution crimes taking place on privately-owned land.

The next blog on the Bleasdale case will consider the legal arguments put forward against the admissibility of some of the other evidence collected, involving alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act and alleged breaches of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act in relation to the search of the nest site and surrounding grouse moor.

UPDATE 16 April 2018: Why other evidence was also ruled inadmissible in the Bleasdale Estate case (here)

UPDATE 16 April 2018: Grouse-shooting industry’s reaction to the failed Bleasdale Estate prosecution (here)

UPDATE 8 August 2018: Bleasdale video footage finally released (here)

UPDATE 10 August 2018: Moorland Association’s response to peregrine persecution on Bleasdale grouse moor (here)

Witness observes buzzard shot dead in Norfolk

From today’s Eastern Daily Press (11/4/18):

BUZZARD SHOT NEAR DOWNHAM MARKET

A buzzard has been shot dead in the West Norfolk fens.

A gardener believes he saw a man shoot the protected bird of prey at Boughton, near Downham Market this lunchtime.

It came down near the home of retired insurance broker Paul Coulten, 77, who is now preserving the carcass until it can be examined by police wildlife crime officers.

“My gardener was out walking the dogs on my land when he heard some gunfire,” said Mr Coulten. “The next thing he saw a buzzard come down in the woods and saw a man on a quad bike in the distance.”

Police confirmed the incident had been reported to them and officers had arranged to visit Mr Coulten.

[Photo of the shot buzzard, by Susan Simper]

“I hope someone gets nabbed for it,” he said. “We’re getting fed up with it around here, there are no foxes because they all get shot to death, so I’m hopeful the police will progress it.”

Buzzards are one of our commonest birds of prey. They are frequently seen soaring on their large, broad wings, when warm rising air creates convection currents over woods and farmland.

The species is protected by the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Anyone convicted of killing one could face an unlimited fine and up to six months’ imprisonment.

Despite this, the RSPB says birds of prey are still persecuted. In 2016 – the latest year for which figures are available – some 40 were shot, including 14 buzzards, 11 red kites, seven peregrines and two hen harriers. Some 22 birds, including 13 buzzards, were also poisoned.

The RSPB, which fears the figures are the tip of the iceberg, says there were no prosecutions during that entire year.

Norfolk is one of the worst areas for bird crime. A total of 262 incidents were recorded between 2011 and 2016 across England and Wales, with 146 of these caused by shooting and 66 by poisoning.

Norfolk recorded the second highest number of incidents at 17 after North Yorkshire at 39.

Its senior investigations officer Mark Thomas said of the latest killing: “Raptor persecution, the illegal killing of birds of prey, is really common, it’s widespread across the UK. What should happen now is it should be X-Rayed, there would have to be an investigation, it’s very likely they’ll find out who’s responsible.”

ENDS

UPDATE 12 April 2018: EDP now reporting the buzzard was not shot (here)

Case against Bleasdale Estate gamekeeper collapses as RSPB video evidence ruled inadmissible

We’ve been reporting on the case against Bleasdale Estate gamekeeper James Hartley since September 2017 (see here, here, here, here for previous posts).

Mr Hartley faced 9 charges as follows:

  1. Disturbing the nesting site of a Schedule 1 wild bird (13/04/2016)
  2. Killing a Schedule 1 wild bird (13/04/2016)
  3. Killing a Schedule 1 wild bird (14/04/2016)
  4. Setting trap / gin / snare etc. to cause injury to a wild bird (between 13-14/04/2016)
  5. Taking a Schedule 1 wild bird (14/04/2016)
  6. Possessing a live / dead Schedule 1 wild bird or its parts (14/04/2016)
  7. Possessing an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 (13/04/2016)
  8. Possessing an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 (between 12/04/2016 – 27/04/2016)
  9. Causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal – Animal Welfare Act 2006 (between 14/04/2016 – 15/04/2016)

The case collapsed last week after District Judge Goodwin ruled the RSPB video evidence inadmissible at a hearing at Preston Magistrates Court on 28 March 2018.

Reporting restrictions imposed early on in the case prevented us from blogging in detail until the case had concluded. We’re now able to report what happened.

This blog is the first in a series about this case. In this one, we set out the Crown’s case against Mr Hartley, and the defence’s skeleton argument against the admissibility of the video evidence.

Here are the details of the case as presented to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service (barrister: Mr Yip):

On the 11th April 2016 RSPB Investigations Officer [name redacted], in the presence of RSPB Investigations Officer [name redacted], installed a covert video camera pointed towards a peregrine falcon nest site within the boundary of Bleasdale Game Estate in the Forest of Bowland.

The red star denotes the location of the Bleasdale Estate:

The Bleasdale Estate is owned by Jeremy Duckworth. Mr Duckworth describes the upper moorland as managed for grouse shooting and he employs one gamekeeper for this area, that being the defendant James Hartley.

It is the Crown’s case that the covert camera captured footage which revealed incidents on the 13 and 14 April 2016 where the nest site and birds were interfered with.

The Crown say that a number of clips show that on 13th April 2016 at 19.53hrs an incubating peregrine leaves the nest scrape. This is immediately followed by what appears to be four shotgun discharges. A few minutes later at 19.57hrs a person wearing a camouflage suit and in possession of a hammer attends the nest site for a number of minutes before leaving.

The following morning, 14th April 2016 at 10.29hrs, a peregrine, believed to be the male parent, lands on the edge of the nest ledge and walks in to the nest scrape area. The bird becomes trapped all day in what the Crown say is a spring trap. At 20.25hrs the peregrine is still present. At 23.12hrs a person with a torch visits the site. It is the Crown’s case that the inference is this person had removed the peregrine and the trap as the bird was no longer present the following day.

On 21st April 2016 a number of officers from Lancashire Constabulary and the RSPB attended the nest site area and recovered four eggs and some feathers.

On 26th April 2016 a search warrant was executed and a search was conducted at the defendant’s home address and outbuildings. A green bag containing a number of items was seized from an outbuilding. Forensic DNA analysis from Dr Lucy Webster provides extremely strong support to the proposition that two of the items within this exhibit, an orange handled knife and a wooden handled hammer have been in contact with peregrine falcon.

Between 17.37hrs and 19.11hrs on 24th May 2016 the defendant was interviewed under caution when he declined to answer any questions put to him.

Between 13.16hrs and 13.50hrs on 2nd November 2016 the defendant was interviewed under caution for the second time when he declined to answer any questions put to him.

END

Here is the skeleton argument presented to the court by the defence (barrister: Mr Justin Rouse QC):

The defence seek to exclude the video footage obtained by [RSPB Investigator, name redacted] and the items recovered in the search on the 21 April 2016 under s78 Police & Criminal Evidence Act [PACE] 1984.

S78 PACE provides as follows:

‘…..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’.

The defence submit that the RSPB have sought to circumvent the provisions of RIPA 2000 [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000] together with s93 of the Police Act 1997; that they have breached Code B of PACE 1984; that RSPB Investigator [name redacted] was not a data handler for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998; that the RSPB chose not to voluntarily adopt the Surveillance Camera Code and/or that the police were bound by that code and that the RSPB were trespassing on the land unlawfully, having failed to seek the permission of the landowner.

END

The full details of the defence’s legal argument will be published in a second blog, along with the judge’s commentary on each of the components of the defence’s argument. For those of us interested in such details it was a fascinating and well-presented argument. And therein lies the crux of this case. In our opinion, the court’s ruling on the video evidence was inevitable, not necessarily because of the strength of the defence’s legal argument, but because of the weakness in the prosecution’s counter-argument against it.

For those of us who sat in the public gallery to observe the legal argument hearing on 14 March 2018, it became apparent, very quickly, that the outcome of this case (and thus, supposed ‘justice’) would be determined by the amount of money available to pay for legal representation.

The representative for the defence was the highly-regarded Mr Justin Rouse QC. We have no idea who paid for his time and expertise (e.g. the defendant? His family? His employer? A representative membership body, e.g. National Gamekeepers Org or BASC?) but whoever it was will no doubt consider it money well spent. It was very clear that Mr Rouse (or his junior) had probably spent a long time in preparation for this case: his presentation was meticulous and thoroughly organised, with every aspect labelled and referenced in a bundle of documents that he’d provided to the judge. On every single point he raised, he was able to tell the judge on which page she should be looking. He was calm, measured and in complete control. A bit of a masterclass.

In contrast, the representative for the prosecution was Mr Yip, who turned up completely unprepared. He arrived without his bundle of evidential documents, muttering something about having left them behind, so he was unable to look up the detail of points raised by the judge. At one point Mr Rouse passed over his own copy of the evidential documents to Mr Yip, to try and help him out. The judge asked Mr Yip several questions about the video evidence and asked to see it (she was particularly interested in the angle of the covert camera and how wide a view it was able to record – a crucial element in deciding whether this was ‘directional’ surveillance, as detailed in RIPA 2000). Astonishingly, Mr Yip told the court he hadn’t seen the video evidence and he didn’t have a copy with him. He was able to produce a couple of still photos from the video but when the judge asked him to point out the position of the nest in the photos, he was unable to do so.

It has been reported on social media that the RSPB “failed to support” this case by “declining” to attend court on 14 March 2018 to answer questions raised by the judge during the legal argument hearing. What utter nonsense. The statement is categorically untrue and is a false claim being made by a group with a long-held and well-documented grudge against the RSPB, presumably with the intention of portraying the RSPB in a bad light. What actually happened was Mr Yip declined to call the RSPB as a witness during that hearing, even after being prompted by the judge, and nor did he ask for an adjournment to allow for him to call an RSPB witness at a later hearing. His reason for this decision is not known (to us) and it proved to be catastrophic for the prosecution’s case.

We think it is fair comment to describe Mr Yip as being ill-prepared for the hearing. However, there may be many reasons for that, beyond his control. It isn’t unusual for the financially-squeezed and under-resourced CPS to drop cases on lawyers at the last minute so for all we know Mr Yip might not have ‘seen’ this case until the night before the hearing. If that is what had happened, it would partly explain the gulf in quality between Mr Rouse’s and Mr Yip’s presentations. That being said, if Mr Yip had not had adequate time to prepare, he could probably have called for an adjournment.

His poor performance did not go unnoticed by the judge and in her ruling delivered to the court on 28 March her criticism was evident. More on this subject in the second blog.

Putting aside for a moment the legal arguments and the standard of presentation, the bottom line is that yet another case of alleged raptor persecution, caught on covert camera, has failed on a technicality (or in this case, several technicalities).

Although the identity of the alleged perpetrator in the Bleasdale case has not been tried and tested in court, there’s no getting away from the fact that the CPS believed the video footage to show that two peregrines appear to have been illegally killed at a nest site on the Bleasdale Estate in 2016. The unidentified perpetrator of this alleged crime will not face justice. Given the catalogue of failed cases under similar circumstances (i.e. covert video footage ruled inadmissible on a technicality), the perpetrators of these crimes have been given yet more impetus to continue, as the chances of successful prosecution these days are almost nil.

No doubt the grouse-shooting industry will jump on this result as an excuse to vilify the RSPB and its approach to investigating raptor persecution crimes. But when the RSPB publishes the video footage of this latest incident, the public will be in a position to judge for itself whether or not the RSPB’s actions were discreditable. Whether the grouse shooting industry likes it or not, public opinion, not court convictions, will ultimately be the deciding factor in addressing the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey.

UPDATE 13 April 2018: Why the video evidence was ruled inadmissible in the Bleasdale Estate case (here)

UPDATE 16 April 2018: Why other evidence was also ruled inadmissible in the Bleasdale Estate case (here)

UPDATE 16 April 2018: Grouse-shooting industry’s reaction to the failed Bleasdale Estate case (here)

UPDATE 8 August 2018: Peregrine persecution on a grouse moor: Bleasdale video footage finally released (here)

Buzzard shot in the head, south Yorkshire

From Yorkshire Post (7/4/18):

‘WILDLIFE CRIME WILL NOT BE TOLERATED’, SAY SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE AFTER BUZZARD IS FATALLY SHOT IN THE HEAD

‘Wildlife crime will not be tolerated in our county’ – that’s the message from South Yorkshire Police after they found a buzzard that had been fatally shot in the head.

The force confirmed yesterday that the buzzard was found dead in the lower part of Hound Hill Lane, Barnsley, with trauma to its head attributed to either a pellet or shot projectile.

Police Constable Mark Winter, Penistone Community Constable and Wildlife Crime Officer said: “Buzzards, being part of the bird of prey family are protected in law and it is quite obviously an offence to shoot, injure or trap one.

This incident has occurred over the last few days and this is an appeal for information to assist with this investigation. Wildlife crime will not be tolerated in our county, please enjoy the countryside safely, responsibly and leave it as you found it”.

ENDS

[Photo by South Yorkshire Police]

Case against grouse moor gamekeeper Timothy Cowin: part 2

Legal proceedings continued at Preston Magistrates Court yesterday in the case against gamekeeper Timothy David Cowin, 44, who is alleged to have shot two protected short-eared owls in April 2017 at Whernside, Cumbria in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. It is further alleged he was in possession of items (a shotgun and an electronic calling device) capable of being used to kill wild birds (see here for first blog about this case).

At a case management hearing yesterday Mr Cowin was invited to enter a plea but was stopped by his defence lawyer, Michael Kenyon. There followed an extraordinarily fractious series of submissions by the defence and the CPS prosecutor, Ms Parker.

The defence argued that not all the paperwork had been received from the CPS, despite many requests, and that some of the paperwork that had been received was “defective in its wording” and some witness statements were incorrectly dated. The defence submitted that the case should be dismissed on these technicalities.

The prosecution argued that some papers hadn’t been served because of the uncertainty of the address that had been provided (Mr Kenyon’s home address as opposed to a legal company’s business address) and that some communication from the defence had not been answered promptly due to the prosecutor being on annual leave. The issue of missing paperwork and incorrectly dated statements had been raised with the police and the CPS was awaiting a response.

District Judge Goodwin, looking quite exasperated by this farcical and ill-tempered display, suggested the lawyers improve their communications with each other. She directed the CPS to review the evidence by 29 March 2018. Once reviewed and revised as appropriate, the defence was directed to submit skeleton arguments and provide documents in support. The CPS was directed to serve a skeleton argument in response and provide documents in support, to be lodged with the court by 26 April 2018.

Mr Cowin was released on unconditional bail and was told he must attend the next court hearing, scheduled for 11 May 2018.

UPDATE: 14 May 2018: Case against grouse moor gamekeeper Timothy Cowin part 3 (here)

Buzzard found shot dead in Suffolk

From East Anglian Daily Times (26 Feb 2018)

INVESTIGATION AFTER AT LEAST ONE BUZZARD FOUND DEAD IN SUFFOLK WOODLAND

Police are investigating the shooting of at least one Common buzzard – a legally protected bird of prey – that was found dead in a Suffolk wood.

Two buzzard corpses were reported to Suffolk Constabulary’s wildlife crime team in an incident described by naturalists as “appalling and abhorrent.” The bodies were found in woodland known as Little Carr, “on the edge of a shooting estate” on the banks of the River Dove, near Hoxne, the team’s Sgt Brian Calver said yesterday.

The discovery was reported by “a person with shooting rights”, but when a police officer visited the site only one corpse could be found. It was believed that the birds died in January, he said.

“At first it was thought the bird that was found may have died as a result of poisoning but analysis of X-rays has proven that the bird was shot. We are in the process of looking into this and we will be as absolutely thorough in our investigations, as we are with all wildlife crime – and we will be trying to secure a prosecution,” said Sgt Calver.

He urged members of the public who discovered any bird of prey corpse in the countryside to report their find and its exact location to police. Any corpse should not be handled, because of the risk of poison being involved, but photographic evidence would be helpful, he added.

[Buzzard photo by RPUK]

Gi Grieco, chairman of the 400-strong Suffolk Ornithologists’ Group, said the latest persecution case was “appalling and abhorrent.”

“The illegal persecution of birds of prey on the grouse moors of upland Britain is a well-documented, ongoing and major conservation issue but cases such as this latest one in Suffolk – which is certainly not the first of its kind – shows that this illegal activity is also a problem in lowland Britain,” said Mr Grieco.

“This is a disgraceful incident and we hope that the police investigation results in a prosecution that ends with the appropriate penalty imposed on the perpetrator.”

The site of the incident is in Waveney Bird Club’s catchment area and club founder Steve Piotrowski, the author of The Birds of Suffolk, said: “This is yet another upsetting case of raptor persecution. It’s a shame that countryside thugs are tarnishing the name of the shooting estates that do stick to the law and do some good things for conservation.

“The criminals think they can get away with it. The police do seem to struggle with prosecutions and they need all the help a vigilant public can give them.

“Common buzzards were rare in Suffolk up to the 1980s because of heavy persecution that took place previously but now they are recovering, hopefully, to the level they should be at. For them to still be persecuted is not just upsetting, it’s illegal.”

Lewis Thornley,the British Association for Shooting and Conservation’s director for central England, said: “While it’s important to remember that an investigation is ongoing, BASC utterly condemns crimes against protected raptors and would urge anyone with information to assist the police.

“Anyone shooting a protected species damages shooting’s reputation and puts at risk the freedoms currently enjoyed by those who shoot legally and sustainably. Such actions have no place among the law-abiding shooting community.”

Anyone with information relating to the buzzard deaths is asked to contact Suffolk police on 101 and ask for Pc Lee Andrews-Pearce, quoting the crime reference 37/8990/18

ENDS

Sparrowhawk shot dead nr Knaresborough, North Yorkshire

Press release from North Yorkshire Police:

APPEAL FOR INFORMATION AFTER SPARROWHAWK FOUND SHOT NEAR KNARESBOROUGH

Police are appealing for information after a sparrowhawk was found shot near Knaresborough.

The dead female sparrowhawk was found by a member of the public north of the village of Nidd, between Knaresborough and Ripley, with a fresh, bloodied injury, on Sunday 25 February.

The results from a subsequent x-ray showed that the bird had a smashed and broken wing. The x-ray also revealed a piece of shot lodged in the bird’s body. A police investigation is now underway.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take wild birds. Nevertheless birds of prey (raptors) are still shot, poisoned and trapped, and North Yorkshire has more confirmed incidents of raptor persecution than any other county in England. As part of a bid to tackle this, in February North Yorkshire Police teamed up with the RSPB, RSPCA, and North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales National Parks to launch ‘Operation Owl’. The joint initiative saw staff distribute flyers and posters to local businesses and talk to members of the public about raptor crime, to raise awareness of the issue.

Sergeant Kevin Kelly, of North Yorkshire Police’s Rural Taskforce, said: “Our wonderful countryside is host to many specially-protected birds of prey. It is absolutely unacceptable that people think they can ignore the law and subject these birds to poisonings, shootings, nest destruction and the illegal use of spring traps without consequence. We will be doing everything in our power to catch these offenders, supported by our colleagues in the RSPB and the volunteers in the national parks.”

Guy Shorrock, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer, added: “Two years ago a red kite was found shot in this same area, so there is clearly a problem here. We believe there will be someone out there who has information about what is going on in this area. We urge you to come forward and call us, in complete confidence, on our Raptor Crime Hotline.”

Anyone with any information about this incident is asked to call North Yorkshire Police on 101, choose option 1 and be ready to quote reference 12180034821.

Alternatively email bill.hickson@northyorkshire.pnn.police.uk. If you wish to remain anonymous, call the RSPB’s confidential Raptor Crime Hotline for free on 0300 999 0101.

ENDS

An impressively detailed and quick press release & clear evidence of genuine partnership working. Great stuff from North Yorkshire Police’s Rural Taskforce.

Gamekeeper accused of killing owls on grouse moor in Yorkshire Dales National Park

A grouse moor gamekeeper appeared at Lancaster Magistrates Court this morning to face a series of charges linked to alleged wildlife crime.

Timothy David Cowin, 44, is alleged to have shot two protected short-eared owls in April 2017 at Whernside, Cumbria in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. It is further alleged he was in possession of items (a shotgun and an electronic calling device) capable of being used to kill wild birds.

Mr Cowin’s solicitor, Michael Kenyon, requested an adjournment and no plea was entered.

Mr Cowin will be invited to submit a plea at a case management hearing scheduled for 15th March 2018.

PLEASE NOTE: For legal reasons, we will not be accepting comments on this post at this stage. Thanks.

Photo of Lancaster Magistrates Court by Ruth Tingay

UPDATE 16 March 2018: Case against grouse moor gamekeeper Timothy Cowin part 2 (see here)

UPDATE 14 May 2018: Case against grouse moor gamekeeper Timothy Cowin part 3 (see here)

Buzzard found shot dead near Powys

From ITV News:

A buzzard which was found illegally shot near Powys has prompted concern by the RSPB and police.

The bird was found dead on the ground by a walker near Llanrhaeadr-ym-mochnant on 10 February, and it was reported to the police.

The bird was X-rayed by a local vet and found to contain at least eight pieces of shot.

Buzzards, like all birds of prey, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. To kill or injure one is a criminal offence and could result in an unlimited fine or up to six months in jail.

Jenny Shelton of the RSPB said: “It is saddening and concerning to hear that another protected bird of prey has been shot. This is a serious problem in Wales and the rest of the UK, and one which the RSPB employs a specialist team to tackle. We recently launched a hotline to provide a means of reporting crimes against birds of prey in complete confidence. Someone out there will know what has happened to this bird – please speak out and help end this brutal and illegal behavior“.

41 reports of wild bird crime in Wales were made to the RSPB’s Investigations unit in 2016, according to the 2016 Birdcrime report, published last November.

The report also revealed that there were no prosecutions for bird of prey persecution in the UK during 2016.

RSB Cymru Biodiversity Manager Stephen Bladwell said: “Knowing another bird of prey has fallen foul to persecution in Wales is disheartening. The latest Birdcrime report showed Powys was joint second highest UK County for raptor persecution from 2012-16 – with 22 confirmed incidents during the period. It seems there is a real problem in the county that needs addressing quickly if we are to protect the area’s wildlife. Our investigations team will continue to support Natural Resources Wales and the Rural Crime Team to address the issue“.

ENDS

Marsh harrier nest attacked on Yorkshire grouse moor: an update

In August 2017 we blogged about how a marsh harrier nest on Denton Moor in Nidderdale, Yorkshire had been repeatedly attacked by armed men dressed as gamekeepers (see here).

The adult harriers had been shot at and the eggs had been removed from the nest during a series of visits in May 2017, all caught on camera by the RSPB.

North Yorkshire Police launched an investigation, including a public appeal for information, and the RSPB released its video footage in the hope that somebody might be able to identify any of the armed men.

Unsurprisingly, there was a deafening silence from the leading representatives of the grouse-shooting industry (Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, Countryside Alliance, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust), which can’t have helped the efforts being made by the police.

As is so often the case we didn’t hear any more about this investigation and we assumed that in the absence of any witnesses or new evidence, and the wall of silence from the shooting industry, the case had been quietly parked along with all the others that never make it to court. However, it seems we’d underestimated North Yorkshire Police’s new Rural Taskforce.

Earlier this week, the RSPB Investigations Team provided an update on this criminal investigation and it’s quite clear that North Yorkshire Police has deployed a certain level of creative determination in its efforts to bring these criminals to justice.

According to the RSPB blog, North Yorkshire Police had tried to use forensic voice analysis to compare the voices caught on the camera footage with the voices of several suspects who had been brought in for interview. Unfortunately, the sound captured on the video footage was of insufficient quality to allow a comparison. That’s a shame, but full marks to the police for trying.

Think how much easier it would be, not to mention the savings to the public purse, if those within the grouse shooting industry stepped forward to help the police identify these criminal gunmen dressed as gamekeepers on this Yorkshire grouse moor.