A wildlife charity has said its confidence in the ability of Scotland's justice system to prosecute criminals who target birds of prey is being significantly undermined.
RSPB Scotland voiced its concerns after another prosecution of an individual charged with alleged wildlife crime offences was dropped by the Crown Office.
The charity said that in July 2015 it captured video footage of an illegal "pole trap" being set on an estate in Angus.
However the Crown Office said that the law places limitations on the admissibility of evidence which has been obtained irregularly.
It comes after charges against a former gamekeeper accused of illegally shooting a bird of prey in Moray were dropped.
RSPB Scotland said one of its cameras at Cabrach in Moray recorded evidence suggesting that a hen harrier had been illegally killed in June 2013 but the Crown Office said the evidence would not be admissible in court.
Commenting on the latest case, RSPB Scotland's head of species and land management, Duncan Orr-Ewing said: "For one case, where there was excellent video evidence to support the prosecution, to be discontinued inexplicably by the Crown Office so close to the trial was baffling.
"For a second case to be discontinued, again with no explanation from the Crown Office, and again without the opportunity for the evidence to be tested in court, is deeply concerning, and significantly undermines our confidence in the ability of Scotland's justice system to bear down on the criminals who continue to target our protected birds of prey."
RSPB Scotland said that after initially finding the trap the team made it safe as they had no mobile phone signal to contact the police, and deployed a video camera focused on the area, with a view to securing the evidence until the police could attend and recover the trap.
A few days later, RSPB Scotland staff accompanied a police wildlife crime officer to the scene, where it was found that the trap had been reset.
The police seized the device as evidence, and the camera was recovered.
Footage recorded by the camera allegedly showed an individual resetting the trap twice in the days after which it had been found, RSPB Scotland said.
A Crown Office spokesman said: "Discussions have taken place over a number of years between RSPB and COPFS about the admissibility of evidence obtained through the use of covert surveillance.
"The Crown has consistently made clear the limitations which the law places on the admissibility of evidence which has been obtained irregularly. The Crown will continue to have further dialogue with RSPB to explain the legal position.
"The Crown is committed to the rigorous, fair and independent prosecution of crime, including wildlife and environmental crime. It has a specialist unit dedicated to the prosecution of wildlife and environmental crime, acting under the direction, as required, of a Senior Advocate Depute.
"The investigation of crime is subject to rules which have developed over many years and aim to strike a balance between enabling justice to be done and protecting the public from illegal or irregular invasions of their liberties. The Crown requires to apply the law fairly and independently to the circumstances of each case."
Susan Davies, Director of Conservation at the Scottish Wildlife Trust, said: "The public will be disappointed that the prosecution of another alleged wildlife crime has been dropped due to inadmissible evidence.
"This footage demonstrates that raptor persecution continues to be a problem, and that some land managers need to clean up their act. We urge the Scottish Government to toughen their resolve in tackling these unacceptable practices."
A spokesman for The Scottish Gamekeepers Association said: "The SGA has no membership interest in this case and has an unequivocal approach to wildlife crime.
"Our members are made acutely aware of what is required in setting traps. Those who fail to comply should consider the effects this has on the reputation of others in the profession.
"Judgments on what is admissible or not in terms of deploying video surveillance are judgments to be made by independent law officers, qualified to make them, not membership organisations like ourselves."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here