Bird Poisoning - Vicarious liability

[Malcolm]

Compliant or complacent.

Probably "complicit" is best! What is interesting to me is that vicarious liability has a long-standing history in Scots Law. However it is in civil law, particularly the law of negligence: a master has responsibility for the actions of his servant within certain parameters.

What I find interesting is that guilt or innocence in a criminal case does not mean that a further action cannot be brought under Civil law where there is a much lower standard of proof. That is "on the balance of probabilities compared with " beyond reasonable doubt".

What bearing does my preamble have on this? Just one thing - I know of no case where the civil law of negligence has been applied to these cases. I can't think why. Perhaps one of the lawyers on the forum could advise?

Malcolm   

[Scotaidh]

Good news, perhaps in combination with this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-11665227

Some more landowners might see that grouse arn't the cash cow that frequents their estates?

[Wildfisher]

Aye Scotaidh, Scotland has some real treasures and the madness of grouse shooting economics is not one of them. It'll take time, but things will change eventually. There will always be a place for huntin' shootin' and fishin' but they should not be to the exclusion of everything else. This weekend more walkers will take to the hills  than shooters over the entire year. In a democracy legitimacy comes in numbers.

[Sandison]

Personally, I welcome the legeslation. I would very much like to see it extended to cover the directors of organisations where major 'accidents' happen, such as on the railways, at sea, transport and building, et al.

[BLind_cast]

I'm pleased to see such a positive response to this proposed legislation, I have some small involvement in attempting to enforce the current laws.  As admin says there still needs to be a high level of proof to bring a case to court so there is no need to worry too much about Innocent parties being convicted.  The experience I have is that the guilty escape punishment in almost all cases with 'big boys done it an ran away' being the most regular plea.    In recent years prosecutions have failed even although poison was found in vehicles and equipment on the basis that is was shared equipment and no one individual could be held responsible.  The change in the law may mean that where ample evidence of poisoning is found but a particular keeper responsible can't be identified the owner/manager can still be charged.

Mr S suggests broadening the scope to cover companies in the case of accidents.  This could temper the 'profit at all costs' attitude.  This is of course the very same attitude that drives the management much of game shooting and grouse moors in particular.  Many of the offenders I witness are not traditional owners employing local keepers directly but multinational management companies bringing in their own teams of keepers from elsewhere usually south of the border.  They lease the ground and spend a lot on infrastructure to ease the path to the butts for their clients.  In order to maximise their profits no predator or competitor can be left alive.  The Victorian wildlife management pattern in alive and well in the Scottish uplands, it's just different people executing it.