Tag: vicarious liability

Debate in Scottish Parliament today: eradicating raptor persecution from Scotland

ScottishParliamentChamberA debate will be held in Chamber today under the heading: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland.

The debate will be shown live on Holyrood TV (link below) and for those who can’t watch it live, we’ll add the video archive in due course.

The debate stems from a Parliamentary Motion submitted by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse last week:

Motion S4M-09916: Paul Wheelhouse, South Scotland, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 01/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

That the Parliament recognises the impact of wildlife crime in Scotland and the potential strain that this places on Scotland’s reputation; welcomes the Scottish Government’s determination to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland; supports the work of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime; welcomes the introduction of vicarious liability in wildlife crime in 2011 and the announcement in July 2013 of the review of wildlife crime penalties, the introduction of restrictions on general licences and the enforcement work being taken forward by Police Scotland; unreservedly condemns the appalling poisoning incident in Ross-shire that has killed at least 20 red kites and buzzards; recognises that these birds are a critical part of Scotland’s biodiversity and a key element in the growing wildlife tourism sector; expresses concern about the very worrying disappearance of the first sea eagle chick born from the reintroduced sea eagles on the east coast; considers that an update on the fight against wildlife crime is now timely, and welcomes agencies redoubling efforts to work together to protect Scotland’s remarkable wildlife.

The Presiding Officer has accepted the following amendment to this motion from Claire Baker MSP, who is smart enough to recognise that congratulatory back-slapping isn’t enough and that more action needs to be taken:

Motion S4M-09916.3: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), leave out from first “welcomes” to “Police Scotland” and insert “believes that the commitment to tackle wildlife crime is shared across the Parliament; acknowledges the work undertaken by the Scottish Government and its relevant bodies and partners in working to tackle wildlife crime, including the review of wildlife crime penalties and the consultation for increased powers for the Scottish SPCA; however believes that the latest wildlife crimes show the urgent need for further action in Scotland; calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a study of licensing and game bird legislation in other countries with a view to working with other parties to review wildlife crime legislation in Scotland”.

There were two other amendments lodged. One came from Liam McArthur MSP calling for more measures to enable a robust pursuit of raptor-killing criminals:

Motion S4M-09916.2: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), insert at end “, and believes that Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should work to ensure that this increased effort will lead to more resources for wildlife crime officers and specialist prosecutors to allow for cases of raptor persecution to be more robustly pursued“.

The second amendment was much more bizarre and came from Jamie McGrigor MSP, a long-time supporter of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association:

Motion S4M-09916.1: Jamie McGrigor, Highlands and Islands, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), insert at end “, and further welcomes the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association’s conservation project, the Year of the Wader, and NFU Scotland’s recently published Sea Eagle Action Plan“.

It’s not clear to us how either of these items are relevant to a debate on eradicating raptor persecution in Scotland.

To watch today’s live debate on Holyrood TV click here. [Session opens at 2pm but there are a number of items to get through before the wildlife crime debate begins].

UPDATE 23:00hrs: Click here to read our comments about today’s debate and to find the link to the archive footage.

Increased calls for jail sentences for raptor-killing criminals

RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust are calling on the authorities to start imposing jail sentences on those convicted of killing birds of prey, and also to start using the option of prosecutions under vicarious liability legislation.

A prison term as a sentencing option is already in place – no new laws are required, just a willingness from the authorities to start using existing legislation to its full effect. To date, nobody has ever received a jail term for the persecution of raptors. The new measures for vicarious liability in relation to raptor crime came in to force on 1st January 2012 – over two years later and we’re still waiting to see the first case.

The Scotsman is running an article on this today (see here), and there was also an interesting radio debate on BBC Radio Scotland between RSPB Scotland’s Head of Investigations, Ian Thomson, and Scottish Land & Estates’ Moorland Group Director, Tim Baynes. The debate can be listened to here for another 7 days (starts at 50:36 and runs to 58:11).

Talking of vicarious liability, we’ll shortly be blogging about a presentation on this very subject that was given to the annual Police Wildlife Crime conference last week. The presenter was none other than David McKie, the defence lawyer for the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. An interesting choice of speaker, we thought, and we’ll be examining what he, and several other speakers, including the Environment Minister, had to say in due course.

Tomorrow there will be a debate in the Scottish Parliament called: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland. More on this later…

 

Environment Minister dismisses calls for more action against raptor killers

Fearnan Angus Glens Dec 2013Over recent weeks we’ve blogged about the increased calls on the Scottish Government to do more in the fight against raptor persecution.

First there were the hundreds of emails sent by the general public following the discovery of poisoned golden eagle Fearnan, found dead on an Angus grouse moor in December (see here). This was followed by a parliamentary motion condemning the illegal killing of birds of prey in Scotland (see here), closely followed with an amendment calling for sufficient resources to tackle raptor persecution and a review of game management legislation to assess whether further measures could be introduced (see here). Shortly afterwards came calls from the RSPB, the Scottish Raptor Study Group and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club for estate licensing to be introduced (see here and here).

This was a prime opportunity for our Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, to take advantage of such overwhelming public backing and really put his money where his mouth is. Instead, we got this, his generic response sent out by his aide towards the end of January:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your recent letter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Paul Wheelhouse. I have been asked to respond.

Mr Wheelhouse was appalled to hear that the young golden eagle Fearnan had been illegally poisoned in Angus. This was particularly disappointing coming as it did at the end of the Year of Natural Scotland, which had seen the golden eagle voted as Scotland’s favourite of the ‘Big Five’ species in an exercise conducted by Scottish Natural Heritage. While it is entirely understandable that there is a strong public interest in knowing more about the case, the Minister hopes you will understand that as there is a live and ongoing police investigation, it would be inappropriate for Scottish Ministers to comment further.

Clearly this has focused the attention of all who care about our wildlife on raptor persecution issues more generally. In recent years we have made some progress in reducing the number of raptor poisonings – down to three in 2012, but at the time of publication the Minister made it abundantly clear there would be no room for complacency, given the risk of a change to other forms of persecution. However, while the final numbers for 2013 have not yet been published, it does appear that there was an increase in confirmed poisonings. There were also a number of illegal shooting and trapping incidents involving raptors last year.

Mr Wheelhouse believes that these crimes have only served to reinforce the need for the new measures he announced in July 2013. These new measures were:

  • Scottish Natural Heritage to restrict the use of General Licences on holdings of land where there is reason to believe that wildlife crime has taken place. The 2014 General Licenses now contain an enabling paragraph making it clear to users that SNH can act where they believe it is appropriate to do so.
  • A review of the penalties associated with wildlife crime. The aim here is to ensure that the penalties for these offences are an adequate deterrent and that they properly reflect the damage that can be caused to ecosystems. The Minister will shortly announce further detail on the nature and scope of this review.
  • To encourage the use of the full range of investigative techniques at their disposal by Police Scotland, to identify and bring to justice the criminals responsible for wildlife crimes in Scotland, a measure fully and publicly supported by the Lord Advocate. A number of meetings have taken place involving the Lord Advocate in ensuring this is delivered.

Tackling raptor persecution remains a key priority for the Scottish Government and we will monitor the impact of these new measures. We believe there is a strong legal framework in place in Scotland. The key now to defeating wildlife crime is effective and robust enforcement action and we will work hard to ensure support and encouragement for those involved in law enforcement to put an end to this blight on Scotland’s reputation. Yours sincerely,

Karen Hunter

Wildlife Crime Policy Officer

Paul-Wheelhouse-MSP So here we have a situation where the Minister actually admits that the measures are not working (he acknowledges an increase in the reported poisoning figures from 2012-2013) but claims ‘we have made some progress’. Let’s just be clear – no, we haven’t made any progress. Raptor persecution continues on land used for game-shooting, just as it has for decades, and most of the criminals are still getting away with it without any fear of being prosecuted, with just a handful of exceptions. How that can be dressed up as ‘progress’ is unfathomable.

Wheelhouse still claims that the latest measures need to be given time to take effect (see here for his comments to the BBC two weeks ago). One of the measures he’s talking about is the introduction of vicarious liability. VL was introduced from 1st January 2012 – that’s more than two years ago – and still there hasn’t been a single prosecution. A more recent measure is one he suggested last July that has just come in to effect (as of Jan 1st) – the power given to SNH to restrict the use of general licenses on land where they suspect illegal persecution has taken place. Can anyone actually see landowner-loving SNH enforcing this restriction? Time will tell – and given that we’ve already had the first reported illegal poisoning incident this year (see here) it’ll be a good test. We’re not holding our breath.

For how much longer does Wheelhouse expect us to stand by and watch as our raptors are poisoned, trapped, shot and bludgeoned to death while he’s still dicking around saying ‘we need more time, more time’? Conveniently, he hasn’t actually stipulated a time frame.

We don’t need more time at all. NOW is the time to get hold of these filthy criminals and he’d find he has the support of thousands of people if only he had the guts to do what he knows is needed.

Ironically, he also told the BBC this: “Robust and effective law enforcement is the next step in the continued efforts made here in Scotland to tackle ongoing crime“.

He knows fine well that the most effective and robust law enforcement will come by increasing the investigatory powers of the SSPCA. We’ve been waiting for three years now for the promised public consultation on this important issue – here’s the timeline:

Feb 2011: The consultation was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a consultation was in order.

Sept 2011: Seven months later MSP Elaine Murray lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.

Nov 2011: Elaine Murray MSP formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, then promised that the consultation would happen in the first half of 2012.

Sept 2012: 9 months later and nothing had happened so we asked Paul Wheelhouse, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:

 “The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.

 July 2013: 10 months later and still no sign so we asked the Environment Minister again. In August 2013, this was the response:

 “We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.

Sept 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Wheelhouse said this:

“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.

Jan 2014: In response to one of our blog readers who wrote to the Minister to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:

“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.

Does anyone still believe that tackling raptor persecution is a Scottish Government ‘key priority’?

Latest measure to tackle raptor persecution now in place

Last July, following a series of raptor persecution incidents, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse announced his intention to introduce ‘further measures’ to tackle the ongoing problem (see here).

One of those measures has recently come in to force (as of 1st Jan 2014).

That measure is an enabling paragraph in some of the 2014 General Licences that says this:

SNH reserves the right to exclude the use of this General Licence by certain persons and/or on certain areas of land where we have reason to believe that wild birds have been taken or killed by such persons and/or on such land other than in accordance with this General Licence.

First of all, we applaud Paul Wheelhouse’s intentions, at least, and his determination to make sure this measure has been enacted. Good for him. However, as we blogged at the time, we really don’t see how this latest measure can be enforced (see here for our reasons).

For once, it seems that many of the game-shooting organisations are in agreement with us. Before SNH issued the 2014 General Licences, they had their usual consultation period and asked for comments about this new enabling paragraph, amongst other things (see here). They have just published those consultation responses and all the respondents from within the game-shooting lobby raised many of the same concerns as us.

So, even though this new measure is now in place, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be effectively deployed….a bit like the legislation relating to vicarious liability. We might be wrong, of course, but only time will tell.

In general terms, the 2014 General Licences are not much better than the 2013 General Licences in that many of the previous concerns raised (going back several years!) have still not been addressed. We’ve blogged about this a lot (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and don’t intend to go over all the points again….not just yet, anyway. We understand that SNH is intending to organise further research in 2014 to address many of the concerns, although they said that when they issued the 2013 General Licences and yet here we are, another year gone by and we’re still waiting for that research.

While we wait, it’s worth you having a look at the responses to the 2014 General Licence consultation – especially the response from the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, who once again are asking for ‘quota systems’ for buzzards, ravens, pine martens and badgers.

Download the PDF here: Consultation responses to General Licences 2014

Naturally, we’ll be watching with interest to see whether SNH has cause to withdraw the use of the General Licences, on the basis that they have ‘reason to believe’ that wild birds have been illegally taken or killed. The enabling paragraph probably cannot be used retrospectively so we’ll just have to wait until we see the next incident of criminal activity, which probably won’t be too far off, and then we’ll see what happens.

 

Subtle editing of Angus gamekeeper poison article: at whose request?

Courier originalOn Wednesday we blogged about an article that had appeared in the Courier that morning. The article was all about a retired Angus gamekeeper, Colin Gair, who claimed that gamekeepers were being put under pressure to use poison baits to protect grouse stocks. Here is what we wrote in that blog.

The Courier article seemed to cause quite a stir and was soon being cited all over social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. That’s not surprising – it’s not very often that you get a gamekeeper willing to admit that illegal practices such as poisoning are still taking place so of course, people would be interested in reading about that.

We didn’t think anything more of it until Thursday morning. After reading one of the comments left on our blog it became apparent that the original article in the Courier appeared to have been edited with some material removed and some new material added.

That’s not so unusual – many on-line news articles are edited, often adding new quotes from different sources when they become available; we even do that on our own lowly blog. However, not many news articles are edited in such a radical way as to change the original information into something completely different. Bizarrely, that is exactly what looks like has happened with the Courier article.

After some digging, we have been able to find a cached version of the original Courier article, which was published on-line at 9.07 am on Weds 8th Jan 2014. Here is the text:

Gamekeepers are being put under pressure to use illegal poison to protect grouse stocks, a retired keeper has claimed.

Colin Gair, who worked across a variety of Angus estates during a 50-year career, has hit out at the use of poisoned baits, which claimed the life of a golden eagle in Angus in November.

Fearnan’s death is the latest in a series of incidents — several other eagles and other raptors having been shot, poisoned or trapped on sporting estates.

Mr Gair, 66, claimed the situation in Angus had deteriorated in the past two years and is urging gamekeepers to speak out if they are being asked to use poison.

He said: “Grouse have to be reared naturally on the heather moors, therefore vermin must be controlled, but legally all the keeper can do is trap and shoot.

“If you are a gamekeeper who is a married man with wife and family and the very nature of the job entails living in a tied house, pressure can be applied to you.

“If you are asked by a landowner or the tenant to use poison it is not easy for a keeper to say ‘I refuse to do this’ when his house, job and future might be at risk.”

The Tayside division of Police Scotland said their inquiries into the death of Fearnan are continuing.

Fearnan Angus Glens Dec 2013Now, compare the original version of the Courier article with the edited version that appeared on-line five hours later at 2.07 pm on Weds 8th Jan 2014. Here is the text:

Gamekeepers are being urged to contact police if they are asked by landowners or tenants to use illegal poisons to protect grouse stocks.

Retired keeper Colin Gair made the plea in the wake of the death of the golden eagle Fearnan, which died after being poisoned in Angus in November.

The type of poison used has not been revealed by police, but website Raptor Persecution Scotland, which has been tracking the series of killings in Angus, claim the poison was the illegal pesticide carbofuran.

In the past five and a half years, four eagles, a red kite and seven buzzards have been shot, poisoned or trapped on sporting estates in the Angus glens.

Mr Gair said he didn’t have pressure applied to him to use poison during his career, but was aware of the practice taking place.

He claimed young keepers who are fearful of losing their job could easily be coerced into using poison by unscrupulous tenants.

“I am certain many moors do not use poison, but some do and there are areas of Angus which are regarded as raptor black holes,” he claimed.

“If you are a young keeper with a wife and kids you dare not stick your head above the parapet, but I hope that someone will come forward and report that they have been asked to use poison to police.”

Mr Gair, 66, said the agricultural poisons used would be very difficult to obtain by gamekeepers and speculated that they were more likely to be supplied by corrupt traders to one or two shoot managers before being passed down to keepers.

He added: “Who is the real criminal in the poisoning cases? Is it the keeper who knowingly uses the chemical or is it another person who deliberately buys the chemical and passes it on to keepers with instructions to use it for vermin control?

“With most of these concentrated agricultural chemicals you would just need a few drops on an animal’s carcase and it would be deadly for anything that eats it.”

Tayside Raptor Study Group expert and wildlife artist Keith Brockie has called on the Scottish Government to licence shooting estates, a move Mr Gair said he would not oppose.

However, if licensing did come in, he said there would have to be some “give and take” and that the killing of certain raptors be allowed.

He added: “If gamekeeping and shooting interests are to face a licencing system, then we should be given something in return.”

Anyone with information that could assist police inquiries regarding the death of Fearnan is asked to contact 101, or speak to any officer.

That’s quite a different story being told in the edited version. What struck us the most was the change in the opening paragraph. In the original version, Mr Gair’s claim is crystal clear:

“Gamekeepers ARE BEING put under pressure to use illegal poison to protect grouse stocks“.

In the edited version, this claim has been considerably diluted to this:

“Gamekeepers are being urged to contact police IF they are asked by landowners or tenants to use illegal poisons to protect grouse stocks“.

Suddenly the article has gone from ‘they are being put under pressure’ to ‘if they are being asked’.

Another  significant change is the removal of Mr Gair’s claim that ‘the situation in Angus has deteriorated in the past two years‘. That statement does not appear in the edited version.

New material in the edited version includes: a reference to this blog, Mr Gair’s claims that he was never asked to poison anything throughout his career, his claim that ‘young keepers could easily be coerced’ [into poisoning], his view that ‘many moors do not use poison’, his view on the ‘difficulty’ of obtaining poisons, the reference to Keith Brockie and Keith Brockie’s view that estate licensing should be on the cards, and Mr Gair’s view of estate licensing.

We are intrigued by the scale of the editing that took place on the original article, and we’re particularly interested in who or what might have prompted such fundamental changes to the original article. Who might not have been happy with the claims made in the original article, that gamekeepers were being pressurised by landowners to use poison to protect grouse stocks? And who might have the power and influence to instruct those editorial changes? Hmmm….

Meanwhile, the landowners’ organisation Scottish Land & Estates has written a letter to the Courier to complain about the [edited] version of the article. Here’s what they had to say:

Sir,

The article by Rob McLaren “Gamekeepers urged to report unscrupulous owners” (January 8) repeats some very dangerous assumptions.  The death of the golden eagle “Fearnan” has been subject to police investigation for over a month and there has been no indication that it resulted from the actions of a gamekeeper or that it was related to grouse moor management. Anything more than was included in the police press release of 19th December is speculation.

The gamekeeper Colin Mair [sic], whose purely personal comments are repeated in the article, admits that he “didn’t have pressure applied to him to use poison during his career” and merely speculates that others might have done. To be quite clear, landowners do not put pressure on gamekeepers to use poison or break the law, indeed any gamekeeper would have full protection of employment legislation if that should happen. In the few cases where gamekeepers have been convicted for using poison to control predators, there has been no indication that they were told by their employers to do so and particularly no evidence that poisons were supplied by shoot managers, as the article alleges.  Since 2011, the already strong laws on employer liability have been tightened further by a “vicarious liability” offence whereby a land owner, manager or employer can be held liable for wild bird offences carried out by another person even if he was not aware of them.  Any estate employing gamekeepers now has to make it doubly clear that no illegal activity can be condoned.

If anyone, including a gamekeeper, has specific evidence as to who was responsible for the death of the golden eagle, it should be reported to the police immediately.  This case needs to be resolved as soon as possible, not least to put an end to speculative comment of the kind repeated in this article.

Tim Baynes

Director, Scottish Land & Estates Moorland Group 

Red-faced police admit ‘skinned badgers’ were actually roe deer

Ah, police wildlife crime investigations at their finest.

It has emerged that the ‘six skinned badgers’ reported by the police as having been found dumped by a road in Peebles last Friday (see here) were actually roe deer remains.

A news release put out this morning (see here) confirms that the mis-identification was revealed during post-mortem tests at the Scottish Agricultural College in Edinburgh.

Quite how roe deer remains can be mistaken for badger carcasses is anyone’s guess.

The revelation will be doubly embarrassing for Police Scotland, as the ‘six skinned badgers’ report had led to a question in the parliamentary Chamber yesterday (see here).

We had expected Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse to field the question, although it turns out that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny Macaskill, had to answer instead, given that the question centred on ‘police resources’ for tackling wildlife crime.

His response was predictable – almost as if reading from a script. Video footage of the question and answer session can be viewed here (from 06.32 onwards). There was also a question from MSP Nigel Don (SNP, North Angus) about the poisoned eagle ‘Fearnan’ and the effectiveness of vicarious liability. Again, the answer was predictably staid.

Whilst this latest police fiasco reassures us that, on this occasion at least, six badgers have not been brutally killed and skinned, it does nothing to increase our confidence in Police Scotland’s ability to effectively tackle wildlife crime, especially if they can’t even tell the difference between two mammals that bear absolutely no resemblance to each other.

So long, Sheriff Drummond

One of the most influential figures in the world of Scottish wildlife crime enforcement, and particularly in relation to raptor persecution, has finally retired. There are some who will be delighted with this news, others not so much.

Sheriff Kevin Drummond QC left office this week after 13 years in the Sheriff courts of the Scottish Borders. In addition, he’d played a significant role on various PAW Scotland committees, including Chair of the Legislation, Regulation and Guidance Sub Group (see here), and was a member of the high-level PAW Scotland Executive Group (see here). He was also heavily involved in the provision of ‘mock trials’ as part of a training programme for police wildlife crime officers and procurators fiscal to help prepare them for dealing with wildlife crime trials. Prior to being appointed Sheriff, he had worked as a leading defence QC whose clients included gamekeepers accused of wildlife crimes. His own reported hobbies include shooting and fishing (see here).

An article in the Selkirk Advertiser reporting his retirement (see here) describes the Sheriff as ‘well-respected’, ‘fair and consistent’ and ‘kind and approachable’. We’d agree with ‘consistent’ at least. In a number of cases over which Sheriff Drummond presided around 2006-2007 there was opportunity to sentence the convicted gamekeepers in his court to jail time – a provision that had at the time been recently introduced in an attempt to crack down on raptor persecution. Disappointingly, Sheriff Drummond decided that community service orders were adequate punishments for these convicted poisoners, including one case that had been described by one RSPB investigator as ‘the worst he had seen in 20 years’. This reluctance to send convicted poisoners to jail is still very much in evidence in Sheriff courts right across Scotland – there still hasn’t been a single one.

Sheriff Drummond held strong views against the introduction of vicarious liability – his visibly agitated performance in front of the WANE bill committee in 2010 was quite a display – and he also strongly opposed the concept of increasing the investigatory powers of SSPCA inspectors to allow them to take on raptor persecution cases (e.g. see here).

There were calls for the Sheriff’s dismissal from the PAW Scotland group following another of his outbursts at the Police Wildlife Crime Conference in 2010 when a wildlife investigator asked whether there should be tougher sentences for wildlife criminals. Sheriff Drummond’s reported response, “Get a life“, was met with ‘shock and bewilderment’ by conference delegates but was later defended by then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham (see here).

Many years earlier RSPB Investigator Dave Dick also found himself on the receiving end of one of the Sheriff’s seemingly characteristic tantrums. Here’s an excerpt from Dave’s 2012 book, Wildlife Crime: The Making of an Investigations Officer:

“Thursday 20 June 1991. Jedburgh Sheriff Court and Jimmy [a gamekeeper] has got himself a QC – or more correctly, Jimmy’s boss, a wealthy Austrian banker, has got Jimmy a QC. Kevin Drummond, QC, who walks into the Fiscal’s office just before the trial is due to start, where I am having a last-minute conference as was the normal, efficient practice by 1991. Kevin announces that he is going to win this case because Section 19 of the 1981 Act does not permit a constable to enter land and search for evidence. The Fiscal may have been used to this robust, even arrogant approach but I wasn’t and in my naivety, combined with experience of Section 19 in court, I blurted out, “Do you really think that’s what Parliament thought, when they drew this up?” The resulting angry out-burst (‘You may be very good at what you do out there, Mr Dick, but in here, I’m in charge!’) was my first sight of an apparent lack of control which I have since witnessed many times“.

It is without question that Sheriff Drummond has had considerable influence on the approach taken to tackling wildlife crime in Scotland, at both a strategic governmental level as well as on the front-line level in court. That influence has been welcomed by some, while exasperating others.

Today is his 70th birthday and we wish him a long and enjoyable retirement – here’s hoping he doesn’t ‘do a Dysart‘ – we’re all hoping for the start of a new era.

More on that vicarious liability prosecution

wane1Regular blog readers will know that we’ve been chasing information about the first potential prosecution under the new vicarious liability legislation for some time.

The case in point relates to the conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell, who was guilty of poisoning offences on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates in December 2012 (see here).

In July 2013 we asked the Environment Minister for an update on the VL prosecution (see here). He replied in August and said it would be inappropriate to comment as police enquiries had not yet concluded (see here). Fair enough.

By early October we expected the police enquiries to have been completed, ten months after the original offence was committed, so we asked the Environment Minister for an update (see here).

One of our blog readers wrote the following comment a couple of days ago:

“I duly sent an e-mail to Mr Wheelhouse about the update on whether or not there would be a prosecution under the vicarious liability following Mr Bells conviction. I’m apparently not allowed to post the reply anywhere but was told Mr Wheelhouse is unable to enter into discussion about such matters and I was pointed in the direction of The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for any information I might want“.

Interesting. So the first excuse given was that ‘police enquiries had not yet concluded’, and that has now changed to ‘Wheelhouse is unable to enter into discussion’ (and apparently members of the public are not permitted to publish the Minister’s replies to their queries).

Anyone getting the impression that these answers are designed to subdue any further reporting on this case?

Wheelhouse has apparently suggested contacting the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for the information. Let’s do that, taking note of the word ‘service’ – they are supposedly serving us, the general public.

The thing is, we’re not too sure who within COPFS to contact for this information. Rumour has it that the head of the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit (WECU) at COPFS, Craig Harris, has since moved on. Rumour also has it that a new head of unit has been installed although it’s not clear who that person is, although six-figure-Dysart’s name has been mentioned. Hmm.

We could ask the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, who is the ministerial head of COPFS, although we’ve been unable to find a direct email address for him.

Let’s try our luck with the COPFS’s general email address and ask the following questions:

Dear COPFS,

Please can you tell us the name of the new head of the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit at COPFS? And please could you tell us whether there will be a prosecution under the vicarious liability legislation relating to the poisoning offences carried out at the Glasserton and Physgill Estates in December 2012? Thanks.

Emails to: enquirypoint@copfs.gsi.gov.uk

UPDATE: The email address to use is apparently this: _WildlifeSpecialists@copfs.gsi.gov.uk  Please note the underscore at the beginning of the address. Thanks to the contributors who have provided this new address.

Benyon given the boot

Some good news! Richard Benyon MP, the DEFRA minister, has been booted out in today’s Government reshuffle. He now returns to the back benches, presumably with more time to pursue his ‘sporting’ interests on his grouse moor in Scotland and his pheasant shoot estate in Berkshire.

Benyon had been in post at DEFRA for just over three years, with special responsibility for biodiversity and the natural environment, amongst other things (see here).

He is best known to us for being in office when a buzzard ‘management’ trial was sanctioned in 2012 (see here) which DEFRA almost got away with until public opinion forced a speedy government u-turn (see here).

Benyon also refused to criminalise the possession of the banned poison Carbofuran in England (see here) and didn’t see the need to introduce vicarious liability in England, but instead applauded gamekeepers “for the wonderful work they do in providing excellent biodiversity across our countryside” (see here).

Good riddance.

Vicarious liability prosecution?

wane1On July 1st this year, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse set out his proposed ‘further measures’ to tackle the continuing problem of illegal raptor persecution (see here).

In response to his announcement, on July 2nd we asked him (see here) for clarification on some of these ‘further measures’ and also for updates on some previously promised measures, including prosecutions under the new vicarious liability legislation.

On August 4th we blogged about the Minister’s responses to our questions (see here).

One of the questions we’d asked him was this:

Question 3:

Please can you advise whether there will be a prosecution under the new vicarious liability legislation following the recent conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell, found guilty of poisoning offences on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates? If you don’t know the answer (which would be surprising, given that you said in March 2013 that you would be “keeping an eye on this particular area [i.e. vicarious liability] with interest”, please can you provide the contact details of someone who can answer the question?

The Minister’s response was this:

It would be inappropriate to comment further on this case as police enquiries have not yet concluded.

At the time we said we weren’t too impressed with this response, seeing as though 8 months had already elapsed since the original crimes were committed (in December 2012). However, as this was the first time a potential prosecution had been considered under the new legislation, we didn’t have a benchmark for how long these cases might take. We also said we would ask, periodically, for updates on this case so that it couldn’t be quietly swept under the carpet.

It’s now October, ten months after the original crimes were committed, and there’s still no official word. We thought it was time to ask the Minister for another update.

Dear Paul Wheelhouse,

Please could you provide an update on whether there will be a prosecution under the new vicarious liability legislation following the recent conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell, found guilty of poisoning offences on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates?

Thanks.

Emails to: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk