Tag: vicarious liability

Vicarious liability prosecution: Andrew Duncan (Newlands Estate) part 4

Criminal proceedings continued last week against Andrew Walter Bryce Duncan, who is alleged to be vicariously liable for the crimes committed by gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick in April 2014.

Gamekeeper Dick was convicted in August 2015 of killing a buzzard on the Newlands Estate, Dumfriesshire by striking it with rocks and repeatedly stamping on it (see here). Dick was sentenced in September 2015 and was given a £2000 fine (see here), although he is appealing his conviction.

Proceedings against Andrew Duncan, 71, who is believed to be responsible for the pheasant shoot on Newlands Estate, began in August 2015 and a provisional trial date was set for 23rd November 2015 (see here). However, at an intermediate diet hearing in October, the November trial date was dumped and a notional diet hearing (where a trial date may be set) was set for 18th January 2016 (see here). At the January hearing, proceedings were adjourned again for another notional diet and a debate to take place on 11th March 2016.

At last week’s hearing the case was continued again, pending the result of William (Billy) Dick’s appeal.

The next installment of Andrew Duncan’s case will be heard on 4th April 2016.

Vicarious liability in relation to the persecution of raptors in Scotland (where one person may potentially be legally responsible for the criminal actions of another person working under their supervision) came in to force four years ago on 1st January 2012. To date there have been two successful convictions: one in December 2014 (see here) and one in December 2015 (see here).  One further case did not reach the prosecution stage due, we believe, to the difficulties associated with identifying the management structure on the estate where the crimes were committed (see here).

Previous blogs on the Andrew Duncan case here, here and here.

Vicarious liability prosecution: Andrew Duncan (Newlands Estate) part 3

Criminal proceedings continued yesterday against Andrew Walter Bryce Duncan, who is alleged to be vicariously liable for the crimes committed by gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick in April 2014.

Gamekeeper Dick was convicted in August 2015 of killing a buzzard on the Newlands Estate, Dumfriesshire by striking it with rocks and repeatedly stamping on it (see here). Dick was sentenced in September 2015 and was given a £2000 fine (see here), although we understand he may be appealing his conviction.

Proceedings against Andrew Duncan, 71, who is believed to be responsible for the pheasant shoot on Newlands Estate, began in August 2015 and a provisional trial date was set for 23rd November 2015 (see here). However, at an intermediate diet hearing in October, the November trial date was dumped and a notional diet hearing was set for 18th January 2016 (see here).

A notional diet hearing is where an actual trial date may be set.

However, at yesterday’s hearing proceedings were adjourned again for another notional diet and a debate, to take place on 11th March 2016.

Vicarious liability in relation to the persecution of raptors in Scotland (where one person may potentially be legally responsible for the criminal actions of another person working under their supervision) came in to force four years ago, on 1st January 2012. To date there have been two successful convictions: one in December 2014 (see here) and one in December 2015 (see here).  One further case did not reach the prosecution stage due, we believe, to the difficulties associated with identifying the management structure on the estate where the crimes were committed (see here).

Sporting agent on Cardross Estate convicted in latest vicarious liability case

Press release from the Crown Office:

A self-employed game farmer has pled guilty to wildlife offences, leading to the second conviction in Scotland by vicarious liability for wildlife crime against wild birds.

At Stirling Sheriff Court, Graham Christie was fined a total of £3,200 after admitting his liability for the crimes committed by James O’Reilly, a gamekeeper employed by him.

O’Reilly was previously sentenced to a community payback order after pleading guilty to intentionally trapping and injuring a buzzard, using an illegal gin trap, contrary to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite veterinary treatment for the severe injury caused to its leg, the buzzard required to be euthanised as it would never be suitable for release back to the wild. The buzzard had been in good condition otherwise.

Graham Christie leased part of the Cardross Estate in Stirlingshire to use for his business, Dunmhor Shooting. He had employed O’Reilly as head game-keeper with responsibility for pest control on this part of the estate.

The offences were committed more than a year after the introduction of the vicarious liability legislation.

The law placed responsibility on Christie unless he could show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent O’Reilly from committing the offences.

When asked by police how he was able to see what was going on ensure everything was done properly and professionally, Christie stated;

“Well I can only tell that by the amount of pheasants that were shown on a shoot day and that he was very good to be fair”.

Helen Nisbet, Head of the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit said:

“These offences were committed well after the vicarious liability offence was introduced and the accused had ample time in which to take advice and put appropriate measures in place.

“He failed in his responsibilities and as a result stands convicted of the killing of a wild bird using an illegal gin trap.

“Anyone who seeks to injure or kill wild birds and anyone who employs or engages the services of such persons without taking appropriate precautions to prevent these offences being committed can fully expect to be brought to account before the courts.”

Notes To Editors

1. Section 18A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the vicarious liability provisions, came into force on the 1st January 2012. They were created in an attempt to tackle raptor persecution by encouraging landowners, employers, and those with responsibility in connection with shooting to be diligent and proactive in countering wildlife crime.

2. James O’Reilly previously pled guilty to:

Intentionally injuring and taking a wild bird (a buzzard) by setting a gin trap (otherwise known as a leg hold trap) on open ground baited by a deer carcase contrary to section 1(1)(a); and,

Setting in position a trap, namely a gin trap (otherwise known as a leg hold trap) being of such a nature and so placed as to be likely to cause bodily injury to any wild birds contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

3. Section 18A(2) makes the accused guilty of the original offence and is liable to be punished accordingly.

4. Wildlife and environmental crime is a priority for COPFS. The development of specialist prosecutors and the creation of the COPFS Wildlife and Environment Crime Unit (WECU) have been significant steps forward in tackling wildlife crime. Our close working relationship with police wildlife crime officers and other specialist reporting agencies has permitted a collaborative building of expertise which has already shown impressive results. In serious cases, prosecutors work with wildlife investigators at an early stage to ensure that cases are prepared and presented to the highest standard.

WECU began operating from 15 August 2011.

END

Dunmhor Sporting LogoThis is good news, after the disappointment of the recent failure to prosecute another vicarious liability case on the Kildrummy Estate (see here). The penalty in this latest case (£3,200) is a considerable improvement on the pathetic £675 penalty given in the first successful vicarious liability case (see here), although it still falls far below what it could be and the fine itself is unlikely to act as any sort of deterrent to other would-be raptor killers. When you also consider the penalty handed to Christie’s gamekeeper for the original horrific offence (240 hours unpaid work – see here) it’s hard to get away from the sense that, although technically justice has prevailed in this case, the penalties do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Whether the reputation of Christie’s sporting agency, Dunmhor Sporting, will suffer as a consequence of his criminal conviction remains to be seen although that would be hard to measure. Let’s hope Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod gets on with accepting the recommendations of the recent Willdife Crime Penalties Review group (see here), which include raising the penalty for this type of offence to fines of up to £40,000 and a 12 month custodial sentence. It’ll also be interesting to see whether SNH  decides to slap a General Licence Restriction Order on the Cardross Estate.

In the meantime, huge congratulations to Fiscal Kate Fleming for a successful prosecution and to all those involved with the initial investigation, especially the SSPCA.

Photo of Graham Christie from Press & Journal.

Media coverage

BBC news here

STV news here

Press & Journal here

RSPB Scotland here

Police Scotland explain failure of vicarious liability in Kildrummy case

waneLast month we blogged about the failure of the Crown Office to initiate a vicarious liability prosecution in the Kildrummy case (see here).

A quick re-cap: in December 2014, Kildrummy Estate gamekeeper George Mutch was convicted of a series of wildlife crime offences that took place on Kildrummy Estate in 2012, including the trapping of a goshawk which he then beat to death with a stick (see here). In January 2015, Mutch was sentenced to four months in prison – the first gamekeeper in the UK to receive a custodial sentence for raptor persecution crimes (see here).

In September 2015, the possibility for a vicarious liability prosecution against Mutch’s employer became impossible as the case had become legally time-barred (i.e. three years had elapsed since the commission of his crimes). We wanted to find out why a vicarious liability prosecution had not been brought in this case so we asked the Crown Office for an explanation. They responded by saying that as nobody had been reported to them for consideration, they couldn’t take forward a prosecution. We speculated (here) about the reasons why nobody had been reported, and thought that it probably had something to do with the fact that Kildrummy Estate is registered as an off-shore company (in Jersey) and thus identification of the actual owner was well hidden; this situation had been expertly uncovered by Andy Wightman’s research earlier this year – see here. However, to find out if this really was the reason why nobody had been reported to the Crown Office, we really needed to hear from Police Scotland, so last month we asked them why they hadn’t reported anyone from Kildrummy Estate to the Crown Office for consideration of a vicarious liability prosecution.

Police Scotland has now responded with a cryptic masterpiece, but if you look closely at their carefully-worded reply it is actually quite revealing:

“Police Scotland is committed to tackling wildlife crime whilst recognising that these investigations can often be challenging and prolonged. In 2013, a report about George Mutch was submitted to the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit (WECU) at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) alleging the unlawful taking and killing of birds of prey at Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire in 2012. Following a criminal prosecution Mr Mutch was convicted and sentenced to 4 months imprisonment in January 2015.

In parallel with the investigation surrounding the activities of George Mutch, enquiries were made to establish whether any further charges could be brought in terms of Vicarious Liability legislation (Section 18A of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981). However, this legislation does require an offence to have been committed and therefore charges can only be formally libelled once a conviction has been confirmed. Significant international investigations were undertaken by Police Scotland but after consultation with COPFS it was established that due to insufficient evidence the additional charge of Vicarious Liability could not be libelled.

The experience of this case has, however, identified opportunities for refining future Vicarious Liability investigations, a matter currently being explored with COPFS. Please be assured that Police Scotland will continue to ensure that robust and modern investigative tactics are utilised to bring those committing wildlife crime to justice. Police Scotland’s wildlife crime commitment is additionally reflected in our membership of PAW (Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime) Scotland.

I hope the above information addresses the issue raised by you in your correspondence.

Yours sincerely,
Sean Scott, Detective Chief Superintendent”.
END
For the purposes of our interest, the first paragraph can be ignored. Where things start to get interesting is in paragraph two. Pay close attention to the wording:
“Significant international investigations were undertaken……..it was established that due to insufficient evidence the additional charge of Vicarious Liability could not be libelled“.
“International investigations” can only relate to an enquiry about either the land owner, or Mutch’s employer, or who owned the shooting rights; in other words, the individual who could be liable for a potential vicarious liability prosecution. “Insufficient evidence” implies that Police Scotland knew who was responsible for managing Mutch, but just couldn’t prove it. Why? Because the details are hidden in an off-shore holding.
It is apparent then, in the Kildrummy case, that justice has been defeated because the details of land ownership (or at least the hierarchical management structure from Mutch upwards) are concealed. This has big implications for any future vicarious liability prosecutions on estates where the land is registered as an off-shore company (a convenient ploy to escape a potential criminal prosecution) and we’re pretty sure Andy Wightman will have something to say about this in terms of his work on the Land Reform Bill currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament. (Update: Andy Wightman has blogged abut this latest development – see here).
The first line of paragraph three, (“The experience of this case has, however, identified opportunities for refining future Vicarious Liability investigations….“) is interesting and we’ll watch to see what this ‘refinement’ might entail.
As an aside, we were interested to read that Police Scotland thinks that vicarious liability charges “can only be formally libelled once a conviction has been confirmed“. That’s not actually what the legislation says. The legislation allows that the person who committed the primary offence need not be prosecuted in order for a prosecution to be brought against the person in management or control (see here). We’re a bit bemused by Police Scotland’s interpretation of this in their above statement, but, as we say, it’s a bit of a side issue in this case because even if Mutch hadn’t been convicted but an attempt was still made to undertake a vicarious liability prosecution, presumably Police Scotland would still have faced the same issue of being unable to identify the person in management or control because these details are squirreled away in an office in Jersey, apparently beyond the reach of Police Scotland.
So, even though vicarious liability has failed in the Kildrummy case, we feel it’s important to acknowledge that in this case, as far as we currently understand what went on, the failure is through no fault of Police Scotland or the Crown Office. This failure is, though, an indication that Vicarious Liability is not the panacea the Scottish Government would like us to believe it is for putting an end to raptor persecution crimes. Since vicarious liability was introduced as an option on 1st January 2012, there has still only been one single successful prosecution. In almost four years, that’s not a good return rate by anyone’s standards.

Vicarious liability prosecution: Andrew Duncan (Newlands Estate) part 2

Back in August we blogged (here) about a vicarious liability prosecution against Andrew Walter Bryce Duncan of Newlands Estate, Dumfriesshire.

The prosecution against Mr Duncan began after the conviction in August of Newlands Estate gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick, who was found guilty of illegally killing a buzzard by striking it with rocks and repeatedly stamping on it (see here). Dick was sentenced in September and received a £2,000 fine (here). It also emerged that the Newlands Estate was a member of Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) and an accredited member of SLE’s ‘Wildlife Estates Scotland’ initiative (see here).

The vicarious liability prosecution against Duncan continued last week with an intermediate diet at Dumfries Sheriff Court. Prior to that hearing, a provisional trial date had been set for 23rd November 2015.

However, at last week’s hearing the provisional trial date (November) was dumped and now a notional trial diet has been set for 18th January 2016. A notional trial diet just means that a formal trial date is likely to be set at that hearing.

So why the delay in the case against Mr Duncan? It may be because the gamekeeper, Billy Dick, is rumoured to be appealing his conviction, which if upheld could impact on the allegations against Mr Duncan. Although, confusingly, a vicarious liability prosecution is not dependent on the conviction of the person who committed the primary offence, but the prosecutor must demonstrate that the primary offence took place and that the offence was committed by a third party who has a specific relationship to the person being charged with vicarious liability (see here).

Clear? As mud. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens with the gamekeeper’s appeal.

Vicarious liability: contravention of human rights?

waneThe use of vicarious liability legislation is extremely topical right now, especially as we recently learned there was to be no vicarious liability prosecution in the Kildrummy case. We currently await a response from Police Scotland to explain why the legislation wasn’t enforced in this case (see here).

A couple of days ago a Cambridge University academic, Dr Findlay Stark, contacted us on Twitter to discuss his views about the vicarious liability legislation and whether it was in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dr Stark is a lecturer in criminal law and specialises in the philosophical/theoretical aspects of this field. Rather than conduct an unsatisfactorily abbreviated discussion on Twitter, we asked him to consider writing a blog about this issue. He has done so, and it’s a fascinating read.

Dr Stark’s stance is that the current legislation may violate the human rights of the accused in a vicarious liability case. It’s important to point out that Dr Stark’s position is genuinely independent. There’s no hidden agenda for or against landowners/estate managers or conservationists; it’s a purely academic viewpoint and this gives some weight to his arguments.

He provides much food for thought and it’ll be interesting to see whether his recommendation is acted upon by the defence agent in the next vicarious liability prosecution.

Read his blog here

No vicarious liability prosecution for Kildrummy Estate

Last month we blogged about whether anyone from the Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire would face a vicarious liability prosecution for the criminal actions of Kildrummy gamekeeper George Mutch.

Mutch, as you may recall, was convicted in December 2014 for various wildlife crimes he committed on the Kildrummy Estate in August and September 2012, including the trapping of a goshawk which he then beat to death with a stick (see here). In January 2015, Mutch was sentenced to four months in prison; a landmark custodial sentence for a raptor-killing gamekeeper (see here).

In September 2015 we noticed that time was running out for a subsequent potential vicarious liability prosecution because after three years from the date the crime was committed, the case becomes ‘time-barred’ and a prosecution is no longer possible. We decided to ask the Crown Office for information about any pending vicarious liability prosecution (see here) but to be honest, we weren’t expecting much of a response.

However, the Crown Office has surprised us by issuing the following unusually open response:

“Wildlife and environmental crime is a priority for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Such cases are investigated and prosecuted by our specialist Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit, WECU. A report was submitted by the police against George Mutch alleging the unlawful taking and killing of birds of prey by him at Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire in dates in August and September 2012 and considered by WECU. Following further investigation, a criminal prosecution was raised. Mr Mutch pled not guilty but was convicted of the offences after trial and in January 2015 he was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

Despite further investigations including investigations which focused on establishing vicarious liability, no-one else has been reported to COPFS in relation to the events which took place in Kildrummy Estate in 2012 and accordingly, no further prosecution, including any prosecution for a vicarious liability offence, has taken place“.

FAILSo, just to be clear, a vicarious liability prosecution is not underway, and as this case has now become time-barred (because the offences were committed in Aug/Sept 2012), as we understand it there won’t be a vicarious liability prosecution for this case in the future. Massive fail.

This will be a huge disappointment to all those who have been following this particular case, and especially for those who worked so hard to secure the initial conviction of Mutch. But perhaps more importantly, this is yet further evidence that the new and much-lauded Government measures to tackle raptor persecution are simply not working as well as they should be.

So what went wrong, and what are the potential ramifications for future vicarious liability prosecutions?

Let’s go back to that statement from the Crown Office, and particularly the first part of the sentence in the last paragraph:

“Despite further investigations including investigations which focused on establishing vicarious liability, no-one else has been reported to COPFS…..”

It’s clear from this that attempts were made to identify somebody for a vicarious liability prosecution. There are at least three possible explanations for what happened next:

  1. An individual was identified but they were able to show that they had exercised ‘due diligence‘ in that they had written records demonstrating that they did not know the offences were being committed AND they had taken all reasonable steps AND exercised all due diligence to prevent the offences being committed. This is possible, of course, but in this particular case is fairly implausible given that during the trial, Mutch was asked, quite pointedly by the Fiscal Tom Dysart, whether he had received training [from his employer/supervisor] for the use of his traps, to which Mutch had replied ‘No’. Given Mutch’s claim, if his employer/supervisor had subsequently claimed due diligence as a defence to a vicarious liability prosecution, the case should have been heard in court where the Fiscal could challenge the veracity of the employer’s/supervisor’s claims.
  2. Police Scotland ran out of time for their investigation. This is plausible, seeing as Mutch was only convicted in December 2014 leaving just nine months before the case became time-barred. Having said that, if this is what happened it would reflect badly on Police Scotland because they should have been thinking about, and planning for, a potential vicarious liability prosecution way back in 2012 when they were first made aware of these crimes. The legislation enabling vicarious liability prosecutions was enacted on 1st January 2012, to much public fanfare, so the police can hardly claim they didn’t know about it at the time they were initially investigating these crimes in September 2012.
  3. It was impossible for Police Scotland to identify a suspect for a potential vicarious liability prosecution due to the complexity of ownership at Kildrummy Estate. On the one hand, this seems a pretty implausible explanation. Mutch, surely, knew who employed him and who paid his wages. But on the other hand, this explanation could be highly plausible given the convoluted information about ownership of the Kildrummy Estate as revealed by Andy Wightman’s excellent investigation earlier this year – see here. If this is indeed what happened in this case, it has far-reaching implications for future vicarious liability prosecutions. All an estate owner has to do to avoid a potential prosecution is register his/her land in an offshore tax haven because then the landowner becomes untraceable. Genius. For a fascinating and detailed explanation of how these tax havens work, and how the Scottish Government has so far refused to legislate against them despite recommendations, have a read of Andy’s latest blog – here.

Given the faith that the Environment Minister has placed in the use of vicarious liability prosecutions as an effective tool to tackle illegal raptor persecution (and thus sees no need to introduce further measures), and given the failure to prosecute in this particular case, as well as the huge public interest, an explanation is required about what did (or didn’t) happen here. The Crown Office has said it didn’t prosecute because Police Scotland didn’t report anybody for a potential vicarious liability prosecution. So, the next port of call for an explanation has to be Police Scotland. They can’t use their usual get out clause of saying ‘Sorry, can’t comment, it’s a live investigation’ because this case is no longer live. It’s very much dead in the water. So will they show some transparency and accountability here? Let’s hope so.

To ask Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham why nobody was reported for a vicarious liability prosecution in relation to raptor persecution crimes at Kildrummy Estate in 2012, please email: ACC.CrimeMCPP@scotland.pnn.police.uk

Kildrummy Estate: vicarious liability prosecution?

On 11th December 2014, Scottish gamekeeper (and SGA member) George Mutch was convicted of four wildlife crime offences that he’d committed on the Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire in 2012 (see here).

On 12th January 2015, Mutch was given a four month custodial sentence for his crimes; the first gamekeeper to be jailed in the UK for killing raptors (see here).

Both his conviction and sentence were widely welcomed across the conservation community, not least because video evidence had been deemed admissible in this case and because the agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution had worked exceptionally hard to achieve these results.

Hopes were high that a subsequent vicarious liability prosecution would follow, especially when a journalist friend told us that Fiscal Tom Dysart had made a point of asking Mutch in court whether he’d received any training for the use of his traps, to which Mutch had replied, “No”. That response would indicate that a defence of ‘due diligence‘ wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny for anyone charged with being vicariously liable for Mutch’s crimes. All good so far, although Andy Wightman cast doubt over the feasibility of charging someone from Kildrummy Estate given the difficulty of establishing ownership there (read his blog here).

So seven months on, what’s happening now?

Well, it all gets a bit interesting around about now.  As we understand it, for offences committed under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, criminal proceedings MUST begin within three years from the date of the commission of the offence (two years in England & Wales). After three years, the case becomes ‘time-barred’ and it is no longer possible to prosecute.

Mutch was convicted of four offences, and the dates those offences were commissioned are as follows (info from COPFS press release, January 2015) –

  1. On 14 August 2012 & 15 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly kill or take a wild bird, namely a goshawk.
  2. On 23 August 2012 and 24 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly take a wild bird, namely a buzzard.
  3. On 28 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a wild bird, namely a goshawk.
  4. Between 6 August 2012 – 13 September 2012, Mutch did use a trap to catch two goshawks and a buzzard.

Pay close attention to those dates. The first three offences are now time-barred (unless someone has already been charged) because it is over three years since they took place. The final offence is not quite time-barred, but will be by this Sunday (13 Sept 2015).

So, two big questions:

  1.  Has somebody from Kildrummy Estate been charged for a vicarious liability prosecution for the first three offences, and if not, why not?
  2. Is the Crown Office intending to charge someone (before Sunday) from Kildrummy Estate for a vicarious liability prosecution for the fourth offence, and if not, why not?

This case is of huge public interest and we don’t think it unreasonable to be asking questions, especially when successive Environment Ministers keep telling us that the effectiveness of Government policy against the raptor killers will be measured by the success of approaches such as vicarious liability.

If, like us, you’re curious about what’s happening with this case, you can email the Crown Office and ask them. The usual response when we ask about criminal cases is ‘As this case is on-going it would be inappropriate to comment’. It’s a handy ‘get out’ option when the authorities want to keep the public in the dark. The Crown Office could legitimately respond like this in this case, if they’ve already charged somebody. However, if they haven’t charged anybody, then the case is now time-barred and therefore cannot be said to be ‘on-going’.

Let’s see how transparent and accountable they wish to be. Emails to Helen Nisbet, Head of Wildlife & Environmental Crime Unit, Crown Office & Procurators Fiscal Office: Helen.Nisbet@copfs.gsi.gov.uk

Scottish gamekeeper fined £2000 for killing buzzard

A Scottish gamekeeper who was recently convicted of killing a buzzard has been sentenced this morning.

William (Billy) Dick, 25, was convicted on 4th August 2015 of illegally killing the buzzard on the Newlands Estate in Dumfriesshire (see here). Two witnesses, alerted to the scene by the sound of gunshot, had observed him throwing rocks at a buzzard which was flailing on the ground, and then they observed him repeatedly stamping on the bird. They observed Dick wrapping something inside a coat and placing it inside his vehicle and then driving away. The carcass was never recovered but a dead hare, feathers and a blood-stained rock were found at the scene. DNA evidence from the feathers confirmed they came from a buzzard.

At Dumfries Sheriff Court this morning the sheriff told Dick that he believed Dick had killed the buzzard “to further the interests of your employer“.

Dick was fined £1,500 for killing the buzzard and a further £500 for possession of the dead buzzard.

Dick’s firearms certificate had been revoked but we understand this is being appealed tomorrow.

So, a £2,000 fine for offences that merit a maximum £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence. Had Dick pleaded not guilty this fine would have been even smaller (a reward for an early plea). It’s about time the Scottish Government published its commissioned report on wildlife crime penalties, which is already nine months overdue.

Well done to the SSPCA and Police Scotland for an effective investigation and congratulations to Procurator Fiscal Kate Fleming for a successful prosecution. Particularly well done to the two witnesses who reported their observations and were prepared to testify in court.

There is an on-going vicarious liability case relating to this crime (see here) and it’ll be interesting to see what happens in light of the sheriff’s comments in court this morning.

When we blogged about Dick’s conviction in August we asked the SGA whether Dick was one of their members. They refused to answer at the time, saying it would be inappropriate to comment until the case had concluded. Well, now it has concluded so let’s ask them again.

Emails to SGA: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

Dear SGA, Is/was convicted gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick one of your members?

We also asked Scottish Land & Estates whether the Newlands Estate was one of their members. They didn’t respond. Let’s ask them again: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk

Dear SLE, Is/was the Newlands Estate one of your members?

UPDATE 12.30hrs: COPFS press release here, with disturbing details of Dick’s actions.

UPDATE 13.30hrs: RSPB statement here

UPDATE 13.35hrs: BBC news article here, which indicates Dick may appeal his conviction. There’s also a quote from the SGA, once again refusing to comment on the membership status of Dick “until the legal process has concluded”. Why so coy?

UPDATE 18.50hrs: Turns out the Newlands Estate is a member of Scottish Land & Estates and the Wildlife Estates Scotland initiative – see here for blog post

Vicarious liability prosecution: Andrew Walter Bryce Duncan

A prosecution is underway against Andrew Walter Bryce Duncan, who is alleged to be vicariously liable for the criminal actions of gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick, who was recently convicted of killing a buzzard in April 2014 (see here).

Duncan, 71, of Kirkton, Dumfriesshire, is understood to manage the pheasant shoot on the Newlands Estate where Dick committed his crimes. Dick is due to be sentenced in September.

At a hearing in Dumfries Sheriff Court on Tuesday 18th August 2015, a trial date was set for Duncan (23rd November 2015) with an intermediate diet due to be heard on 20th October 2015.

Great to see the Crown Office pursuing this prosecution. We’ll follow proceedings with interest.

Vicarious liability in relation to the persecution of raptors in Scotland (where one person may potentially be legally responsible for the criminal actions of another person) came in to force on 1st January 2012. To date there has only been one conviction – landowner Ninian Robert Hathorn Johnston Stewart was convicted in December 2014 of being vicariously liable for the criminal actions of Glasserton & Physgill Estates gamekeeper Peter Bell (see here).