• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Gamekeeper fined £500 (1 Viewer)

Hi Henry,

Thanks for the link just read the article. Good news for Hen Harriers in Scotland, as well as other birds. Glad they took the gun away from him. Wonder how long it will be, if ever when English courts take things as seriously?

In fact why do all courts hand out different fines, sentences etc. depending on magistrates to decide rather than the same set rules everywhere. Sorry I can't get the words right you all know how I feel about birds. Drivers have fixed penalties, there are definite times/jail sentences for criminal offences why not for Wildlife Crime? The same offences keep occuring but they are all treat different why?

Ann
 
Oh Boy, I can see this thread is going to be lively. 500 pounds for contemplation? Seems a bit stiff as the guy said he didn't fire when he realized what the bird was. I'm sure this thread will take this turn eventually, so I might as well be the first one. If a generator is built in a protected area, do the generator owners, land owners that the wind generator is on, and all and sundry who had legal say in constructing said generators in a protected space now have to pay an even stiffer fine when a protected species is killed by a generator?

Edited:
I don't want people thinking I've 'hijacked' this thread unduly. My mind just leap to the windgenerator thing because I have been following those threads. My mind went where it went because:
a. The article comes from Scotland
b. The Scots, or people living there seem to take their raptors and protected birds seriously
c. Scotland and protection of raptors made me think of Windfarms
 
Last edited:
Thank you for posting that Henry and well done to the court.

If they can be charged and fined for just pointing their shotgun at a protected bird, things must be looking up.

D
 
Peregrinator said:
I don't want people thinking I've 'hijacked' this thread unduly.


I would say regardless of the windfarm issue, the issue of illegal persecution of raptors has to be dealt with stiffly. What's the point of protesting about windfarms if the raptors have already been shot by others with ill intent (but of course this can be reversed - why bother to protect them from gamekeepers if we allow them to be sliced by turbines). Understand the gist of your post, but would say both tracks need to be given prominence and I would guess trying to relate the fines to each other can only water down the campaign in one of the two.
 
I think the fine was for deliberate disturbance.

Peregrinator said:
Oh Boy, I can see this thread is going to be lively. 500 pounds for contemplation? Seems a bit stiff as the guy said he didn't fire when he realized what the bird was. I'm sure this thread will take this turn eventually, so I might as well be the first one. If a generator is built in a protected area, do the generator owners, land owners that the wind generator is on, and all and sundry who had legal say in constructing said generators in a protected space now have to pay an even stiffer fine when a protected species is killed by a generator?

Edited:
I don't want people thinking I've 'hijacked' this thread unduly. My mind just leap to the windgenerator thing because I have been following those threads. My mind went where it went because:
a. The article comes from Scotland
b. The Scots, or people living there seem to take their raptors and protected birds seriously
c. Scotland and protection of raptors made me think of Windfarms
 
Touty said:
I think the fine was for deliberate disturbance.

Okay, sorry, I re-read the article. I see that:

Stonehaven Sheriff court was told that Colin Marshall had "contemplated" killing the protected bird, but made no attempt to do so.


I guess the fine was for:

Marshall admitted two charges - entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird. Not guilty pleas to a further two charges, of attempting to kill, injure or take a hen harrier and of intentionally disturbing its young, were also accepted.


I can see a fine for taking a fire arm onto someones else's property. Still, the fine seems a bit heavy handed because nothing was harmed. I'm glad he didn't find any foxes.
 
BTW Touty--lmao when I read the line about your journalist friend. It reminds me of a retired lawyer I knew who claimed he had been a plumber.
 
Peregrinator said:
Okay, sorry, I re-read the article. I see that:

Stonehaven Sheriff court was told that Colin Marshall had "contemplated" killing the protected bird, but made no attempt to do so.


I guess the fine was for:

Marshall admitted two charges - entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird. Not guilty pleas to a further two charges, of attempting to kill, injure or take a hen harrier and of intentionally disturbing its young, were also accepted.


I can see a fine for taking a fire arm onto someones else's property. Still, the fine seems a bit heavy handed because nothing was harmed. I'm glad he didn't find any foxes.
I don't think the fine was heavy handed. As this incident took place in an area where raptors are being illegaly persecuted what would you expect? Look at the cost to various organisations attempting to protect these birds. Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt. Lets face it, if it wasn't for humans persecuting these birds they wouldn't be under threat( apart from the odd fox).
 
valley boy said:
I don't think the fine was heavy handed. As this incident took place in an area where raptors are being illegaly persecuted what would you expect? Look at the cost to various organisations attempting to protect these birds. Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt. Lets face it, if it wasn't for humans persecuting these birds they wouldn't be under threat( apart from the odd fox).

Perhaps I need to read to article again, I don't recall that there was an 'incident'. I seem to remember that the guy pointed a gun, realized what he was pointing at, and lowered the gun.


from valley boy="Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt."

I guess I don't get it. I didn't think not shooting was actually an attempt. Shooting, and missing would be an attempt.
 
Last edited:
Peregrinator said:
Perhaps I need to read to article again, I don't recall that there was an 'incident'. I seem to remember that the guy pointed a gun, realized what he was pointing at, and lowered the gun.


from valley boy="Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt." I guess I don't get it. I didn't think not shooting was actually an attempt. Shooting, and missing would be an attempt.
If you go walking around with a gun in an area where persecution takes place then you are asking for trouble, which is exactly what he got. Open your eyes and get real. Why do you think he was there then ?
 
valley boy said:
If you go walking around with a gun in an area where persecution takes place then you are asking for trouble, which is exactly what he got. Open your eyes and get real. Why do you think he was there then ?

the man was convicted of 'entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird.'

nothing more or less. He pleaded guilty to both charges.

regardless of our opinions, no one should be convicted without an offence being committed (it's hard to make it stand up in court you know!). Just being there with a gun might make you an idiot but not a criminal until an offence is committed.

not.
 
Tim Allwood said:
the man was convicted of 'entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird.'

nothing more or less. He pleaded guilty to both charges.

regardless of our opinions, no one should be convicted without an offence being committed (it's hard to make it stand up in court you know!). Just being there with a gun might make you an idiot but not a criminal until an offence is committed.

QUOTE]
surely being there with a gun is a criminal offence or he wouldn't have been fined for pleading guilty to it
 
Tim Allwood said:
the man was convicted of 'entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird.'

nothing more or less. He pleaded guilty to both charges.

regardless of our opinions, no one should be convicted without an offence being committed (it's hard to make it stand up in court you know!). Just being there with a gun might make you an idiot but not a criminal until an offence is committed.

not.

This was the offence committed:

'Marshall admitted two charges - entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird.'
 
It would be nice to see fines for bird-related crimes being put back into the work of the RSPB for example, instead of into the CJSystem public coffers.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top