Gamekeeper fined £500 (2 Viewers)

[SueO]

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 ?

As I said in #11, I can see a fine for going on someone else's property with a gun.

I think he might have been there because he worked as a gamekeeper on the adjoining property.

This is copied from the article posted in #1:

At the time of the incident, on June 25, 2003 he was a gamekeeper on the Dinnet Estate, which shares a border with the Crannach.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Paul

some people are allowed to have guns

all the info was in the press release

Tim

 

[SueO]

I've been dwelling on my initial post and was compelled to post an apology. Shouldn't have commented at all, but I especially shouldn't have mentioned windfarms. I just thought it was ironic that the RSPB would have been so instrumental in prosecuting a guy who didn't shoot a bird when it seems from other posts here that they accept preventable deaths of birds elsewhere. Maybe they don't and I got that wrong. Anyway, I don't know nothing about nothing and should have kept my fingers shut. Valley Boy, I didn't know this was an area where people regularly persecuted birds. I'm not even sure what that means. Is persecuted a euphemism for being shot? I just thought if the guy in question was a gameskeeper from next door, it wouldn't be odd for him to be walking around with a gun. At any rate, I feel like an arse for saying anything. I shouldn't have. I even realized that the, 'Oh Boy', I started with sounded like a gleeful, Oh Boy!, here's an arguement. It was meant more as a subdued, Oh boy,(oh brother) here it comes. Sorry all-- from the big mouthed idiot of the day.

 

[Ian Bell]

Well Done

If the Hen Harrier was flushed,from a known nest site to the Gamekeeper and giving "distress calls",in the eyes of Scots Law,he was disturbing the bird willingly at the nest.That alone is an act of crime in the Wildlife Act 1981.There is also another Sporting Estate..!,not a million miles away,that has also raised suspicion regarding Raptors over the years.Well done to the RSPB Monitors and well done to the Judge.Hopefully,this shall raise awareness in neighbouring Estates in Northern Scotland.

 

[Capercaillie71]

500 pounds for contemplation? Seems a bit stiff as the guy said he didn't fire when he realized what the bird was.

I have been following this case for a while as I know some of the people involved. Suffice it to say that there was more to the story than appears in the report and I don't think there was much doubt as to what the intention was.

 

[s.g.]

Correct me if i am wrong but shouldent someone in possession of a firearm determin what they are looking at first befor they raise the firearm ?

[Well said Ben Nevis]

S. G.

 

[Ian Bell]

This clown of a Gamekeeper,was keeping a Schedule 1 species away from its nest.By raising a firearm at the bird,makes him more guilty of doing so and therefore he is committing a criminal act.Hopefully,more birders in moorland and mountain areas,report ANYONE they believe are breaking the law.The birds that live and breed in such areas are vulnerable to natural causes,without "human idiots" interfering.With or without firearms.

 

[Capercaillie71]

The report gives the impression that the gamekeeper may have changed his mind about shooting when he realised that the bird was a harrier.

However, my understanding is that the gamekeeper was already aware that there was a harrier's nest there and the only reason the harrier was not shot is that the RSPB surveillance people made themselves visible when they realised what he was about to do.

 

[TexasFlyway]

This doesn't make sense to me as a charge ?

"possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird."

Separate from all other charges (and as I read it, this was a separate charge ), this would mean that the mere posession of a shotgun by anyone would make them subject to prosecution.

That is unless there are shotguns specifically designed not to kill, or injure a wild bird. No mention was made as to the type of shot loaded in the shotgun, if any; just the possession of the shotgun.

Probably not enough detail given in the news report, but this just doesn't make any sense to me as presented.

 

[deborah4]

This doesn't make sense to me as a charge ?

"possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird."
.

The charge is ATTEMPT (not possessing a shotgun per se) to kill, injure or take a wild bird ...

To be interpreted within the meaning and purpose of the W&CA 1981 - (rules of legal interpretation of Statute Law)

Thus: the Acteus Rea of the criminal offence is 'attempt', the mens rea (intention) determined by circumstance, location, possession of shotgun - the question asked then; did the person intend to 'attempt' to kill, injure or take a wild bird? The verdict in this case was yes.

Draconian? maybe

Necessary? absolutely

 

[Nigel G]

This doesn't make sense to me as a charge ?

"possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird."

It wouldn't make sense because in itself it is not an offence. It would make all shotgun ownership illegal because all shotguns are "capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird".

Clearly there is either some context missing or some slightly inaccurate reporting in the newspaper article.

 

[Collster]

Lets face it he was up to no good

 

[Ian Bell]

Lets face it he was up to no good

EXACTLY.

 

[TexasFlyway]

The charge is ATTEMPT (not possessing a shotgun per se) to kill, injure or take a wild bird ...

To be interpreted within the meaning and purpose of the W&CA 1981 - (rules of legal interpretation of Statute Law)

Thus: the Acteus Rea of the criminal offence is 'attempt', the mens rea (intention) determined by circumstance, location, possession of shotgun - the question asked then; did the person intend to 'attempt' to kill, injure or take a wild bird? The verdict in this case was yes.

Draconian? maybe

Necessary? absolutely

That makes a lot more sense. Too bad it wasn't reported that way.

 

[saluki]

The report gives the impression that the gamekeeper may have changed his mind about shooting when he realised that the bird was a harrier.

However, my understanding is that the gamekeeper was already aware that there was a harrier's nest there and the only reason the harrier was not shot is that the RSPB surveillance people made themselves visible when they realised what he was about to do.

Sounds about right to me - why would a keeper raise his gun to anything on a neighbouring estate? And what was he expecting to flush out of heather that he could shoot at that time of year - a crow? Don't think so. Hope he makes a better gardener than a keeper. Apart from the obvious considerations, the finger of suspicion would have probably fallen on the keeper of the neighbouring estate if the harriers had disappeared, so he could have made life awkward for a fellow keeper.

saluki

 

[KarltheBatman]

Armed tresspass

Great news to hear that he has been fined and his gun confiscated.

Not sure about Scottish Law, but under English/Welsh Law being on someone's land with a gun outside of a case, whether loaded or not, is considered an act of "armed tresspass". As a result the quilty party can face a large fine and 5 years inprisonment.

Maybe the Scottish equivalent is the charge of: "entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird."?

Just a ponder ... anyway last word from me on the sunject (probably)

YIPPEE ! ! ! !

 

[mamo]

I have been following this case for a while as I know some of the people involved. Suffice it to say that there was more to the story than appears in the report and I don't think there was much doubt as to what the intention was.

makes you wonder, if his intentions were suspected to be bad, why didn't the people watching the nest stop him well before he approached it? Surely prevention is better than prosecution?

mamo

 

[nirofo]

makes you wonder, if his intentions were suspected to be bad, why didn't the people watching the nest stop him well before he approached it? Surely prevention is better than prosecution?

mamo

The keepers and others have been getting away with it for years because they usually do the dirty deed when they are not being watched, (4.0 o'clock Tuesday morning perhaps?). I would say in this case he certainly didn't know he was being watched until the very last minute, it was almost too late to stop the bird being shot. If he hadn't seen the observers he would probably have shot the bird and then hidden it, the observers would then have had the chance to apprehend him on a more serious matter, this could have led to an even higher fine and or imprisonment?? Unfortunately if this had been the case the bird and it's eggs or young would be dead.

How long to the next keeper etc., being caught, in the mean time, how many birds of prey will have been shot, trapped, poisoned, snared, young killed, eggs destroyed, etc. No one will ever know??

nirofo.

 

[mamo]

The keepers and others have been getting away with it for years because they usually do the dirty deed when they are not being watched, (4.0 o'clock Tuesday morning perhaps?). I would say in this case he certainly didn't know he was being watched until the very last minute, it was almost too late to stop the bird being shot. If he hadn't seen the observers he would probably have shot the bird and then hidden it, the observers would then have had the chance to apprehend him on a more serious matter, this could have led to an even higher fine and or imprisonment?? Unfortunately if this had been the case the bird and it's eggs or young would be dead.

How long to the next keeper etc., being caught, in the mean time, how many birds of prey will have been shot, trapped, poisoned, snared, young killed, eggs destroyed, etc. No one will ever know??

nirofo.

surely, whether he knew he was being watched or not is irrelevant, if his actions were deemed suspect, he should not have been allowed to approach the nesting area, and the watchers shoud have made theirselves very visible to him.

mamo

 

[Osprey_watcher]

makes you wonder, if his intentions were suspected to be bad, why didn't the people watching the nest stop him well before he approached it? Surely prevention is better than prosecution?

mamo

I disagree.
If he'd been stopped well before he reached the vicinity of the nest he would certainly have denied he had any intention of wrongdoing, then come back later when the coast was clear. Since he knew the nest was being watched he would be more sneaky.
Better to prosecute and gain a conviction. That way he would know he had chance of going to prison if he re-offended.