Court rules on 'decoys'

A Shropshire man who used a caged magpie as a trap to lure other magpies to their deaths should not have escaped conviction for causing "unnecessary suffering" to the bird, a High Court judge has ruled.

Norman Shinton, of Little Dawley, Telford, hoped to safeguard the local songbird population by setting up the Larsen trap to control the number of magpies in his garden.

Mr Shinton, a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, faced a charge of "unlawfully confining" the magpie in breach of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

He also faced another charge of causing unnecessary suffering by "unreasonably confining" the magpie as he used the bird over and over again between 5 and 10 July 2000, instead of "rotating" decoys.

Claw injuries

He was cleared of both charges at Telford Magistrates Court in April last year.

The RSPCA appealed against the ruling to the High Court focusing solely on the unnecessary suffering charge, brought under the Protection of Animals Act.

The High Court heard on Monday that an RSPCA inspector who visited Mr Shinton's home found the bird dirty and covered with a greasy film, with primary feathers broken on both wings and injuries to its claws.

The judge, Mr Justice Levenson said Mr Shinton was authorised as the owner or occupier of land to confine the magpie in a cage trap.

He said there was no doubt that the use of the Larsen trap fell within the terms of the licence, and Telford district judge Philip Browning was right to acquit on that charge.

But he added the district judge had gone wrong in law when he cleared Mr Shinton of causing the bird unnecessary suffering, contrary to the 1911 Protection of Animals Act.

'Prosecution risk'

Mr Levenson ruled that even though the trap might be lawful, it was "illogical" to say its owner was therefore absolved of all responsibility.

"It is quite impossible to say that this bird did not suffer unnecessarily," he said.

Mr Justice Levenson said it was unnecessary to send the case back to the magistrates court for it to be reconsidered as the RSPCA had only brought the case to clarify the law.

Phil Wilson, chief superintendent of the RSPCA's prosecution department, welcomed the judge's ruling.

He said: "It is the RSPCA's view that these traps are inherently cruel.

"Members of the public who use them for what they perceive as the greater good are at risk of prosecution if birds are subject to any unnecessary suffering."