PIGEON COURT CASE - NARGC VINDICATES RIGHT OF FARMERS TO PROTECT CROPS

On Thursday morning, 9th July, in Tullamore District Court, the State withdrew all charges in relation to the Pigeon shooting case. When the case opened originally on June 17th, NARGC solicitor, Mr William Egan, made the point very vigorously that if the Court would hear a legal submission from him it would become obvious that the State had no case as no offence had been committed. The Judge refused to hear the submission without first hearing evidence in the case. Nonetheless, copies of the legal submission were circulated to the State Solicitor and the Judge.

In the course of the opening evidence given by the Wildlife Ranger on the 17th, she made a remark to the effect that for the period in question in 2007, the Minister had not at the relevant time signed the Declaration which gave legal effect under Article 9 of the Birds Directive to the shooting of Pigeons and other species for crop protection. This was completely new information to us. The Court then adjourned and allocated a full day to hear all of the evidence in the case on the 9th of July.

In the immediate aftermath of the opening day, steps were taken by the NARGC solicitor and the Director to unearth certain facts which would be highly relevant to this case. Firstly, the Director contacted the National Parks and Wildlife Service and reminded them that at the particular time they had reassured NARGC that although the Minister had not yet signed the Declaration through an administrative hiccup in his Department the Declaration was on the Minister's desk awaiting his signature and would be signed to cover all of the relevant period. He was reassured that all gun club members could go about their normal business of crop protection without any fear of interference from the Wildlife Service. The Wildlife Service confirmed recalling the assurances which had been given. In view of the evidence which had been given by the Wildlife Ranger, a copy of the signed Declaration was sought for production to the Court on the reconvened day of the 9th of July. It was confirmed that a signed copy would be provided immediately. When the signed copy had not arrived some three days later, we discovered that a problem had now emerged in that the Minister had never signed the Declaration at all. While all of this was going on, our solicitor submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Department seeking all of the signed Declarations for the past number of years in relation to the protection of crops and the protection of airports etc. Further discussions with NPWS took in the following days during which the NARGC Director put the case that they should withdraw from this case immediately as it was quite clear there was no legal basis for the prosecution to begin with. It was pointed out that we were now faced with the prospect of what now transpires was negligence by the Minister and his Officials which would lead us to seeking an adjournment of the case on the 9th and seeking to have witness summonses issued for the attendance in court of senior NPWS officials and the Minister. On Friday the 3rd of July, the NARGC Director again spoke to the Wildlife Service and he was informed that the State Solicitor had been instructed to contact William Egan and should have done so the previous day. No contact had been made. It transpired that the State Solicitor had been instructed to withdraw the case in its entirety. As already stated, when the Court reconvened on the 9th of July, all charges against our gun club member were withdrawn. Not only were the charges withdrawn, but his firearm and all equipment seized were handed back to him immediately in the Court. In an unprecedented move in what was a criminal prosecution, the Judge awarded costs to the defendant, i.e. to us. The State accepted this Order. It is virtually unheard of for costs to be awarded in a case where a criminal prosecution is being taken.

There is no doubt but that there have been serious difficulties on the State's side as regards the operation of the derogation system and this has been entirely due to misinterpretation of the legislation. It is equally clear to us that the difficulties also arise in part as a result of negligence and not because of any legal difficulties. Our solicitor has been instructed to pursue the Freedom of Information request as we believe it will unearth a significant body of information which will be helpful to us in future. Our solicitor also made an issue to the Judge of the fact that he had attempted to make his legal submission when the case opened to her in which he was arguing very strongly that no cause of prosecution existed as no offence had been committed. He pointed out that the State had now arrived in Court, having objected to the legal submissions, confirming that there was no offence committed. The basic tenet of the legal submission centered around the fact that in the wording of the Minister's own Declarations and in the wording of the Birds Directive upon which the Declarations are based at Article 9 of the Directive, the intent is to prevent crop damage and this means that the birds must be shot before causing damage. There is no notion that the derogation is there to simply punish birds by killing them after they have caused damage. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that the derogation is not only to protect crops but also to provide adequate levels of safety from birds at airports and to prevent the spread of disease. If prevention in advance of the damage was not at the core of the derogation, then it would have to be accepted that planes would have to already have crashed on landing or take-off at airports before the birds could be shot or that citizens would have to have contracted disease. This would clearly be preposterous! It is clear that Airport personnel did carry out protection measures against damage and injury to aircraft by birds. Yet only gun club members would appear to have been the ones prosecuted for operating under the same legislation!! It was also argued in our submission that the Minister by his own Declaration only has to satisfy himself that the birds listed in the schedule are "likely" to cause damage to crops. In other words, it is not absolutely necessary that they actually cause damage to fall within the scope of the derogation. The Minister also states in his declaration the area where the birds may be culled and he does this on a provincial basis and in the current case he states that the birds may be killed in Leinster for the purposes of crop protection. This in effect means that you can kill the birds in your back garden provided you are in Leinster.

From all of this, there can be no question but that the shooting of Wood Pigeons on stubble is absolutely lawful. We are happy therefore to advise our Members that they may shoot Pigeons on stubble and should there be any interference with them while doing so, we would request that the individuals concerned contact this Office immediately on 01-4974 888 or on 087-2541 827.

It should be a matter of considerable comfort to all club Members that the Association has confronted this matter head-on and in so doing has protected the interests of all Club Members and the rights of farmers to protect their crops.

This was a most important case not only for the Association but for the farming community at large. When we took on the task of defending the Club Member and therefore the entire principle, we discovered much to our advantage from the research carried out by both the NARGC Office and by our solicitor who is to be complimented on the handling of this case.

Des Crofton,
Director NARGC.