Daniel Quinn admitted shooting three protected geese to prevent serious agricultural damage. He was acquitted on every charge. WWT described it as the first such ruling anywhere in the UK.
On 17 December 1993 Daniel Quinn went on trial at Dumfries Sheriff Court for deliberately shooting three protected wild geese at Powhillon. He did not deny firing the shots. His case was that the shootings were protected by section 4(3)(c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 because they had been necessary "for the purpose of preventing serious damage" to the agricultural holding.
By the trial, Powhillon had spent years trying to move geese from its grazing without shooting them. The farm had sought help from WWT, conservation bodies and the Scottish Office; applications for shooting licences had been refused or left undecided. Daniel admitted firing the shots and relied upon section 4(3)(c). He was acquitted of all four charges. In January 1994 the Department issued a licence, and WWT sought an interim interdict to prevent its use.
Powhillon's merse was productive cattle grazing, not unused ground. While cattle grazed the merse, other fields could be rested or closed for silage. When geese stripped and fouled that grazing, the loss travelled through the whole farming system: cattle had to be carried elsewhere, silage ground was put under pressure and the farm's winter feed was affected.
The merse was also habitat for breeding wildlife. R Hill & Co recalls lapwings, curlews and oystercatchers as familiar breeding birds there before the deterioration of the grazing. Before agricultural operations, family members walked the merse to find their nests and set markers so that work could proceed without damaging them. Protecting the nesting birds was part of the farm’s established practice alongside managing the cattle.
Scottish Office agricultural officers repeatedly visited the holding. Their reports recorded thousands of geese, heavy grazing, fouling, damaged grass cover and deterioration of the sward. The family recalls concentrations of about 12,000 to 13,000 birds in 1993 and the subsequent decline of familiar nesting birds as the merse deteriorated. The officers’ reports recorded the physical changes to the land; the observations of the birds came from those who farmed it.
The merse and foreshore had long been associated with wildfowling. In 1966 the Solway Wildfowlers Association entered into a Minute of Agreement and Lease with Powhillon's previous landlord. The shooting disturbed wildfowl and helped keep the flocks moving while the tenant continued to use the same ground for grazing.
After the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust acquired Powhillon in 1975, its recorded objectives included "improve the area for geese by reducing disturbance" and "expand the Caerlaverock National Nature Reserve". Reducing disturbance made the land more attractive to feeding geese. The same land remained productive cattle grazing and supported other wildlife. The management dispute concerned the consequences of concentrating geese on that land, the damage already being reported and the authorities’ response.
By October 1990 WWT was recording the collision directly. Its land agents acknowledged that March and April were the critical months because the same early grass was sought by the farm's cattle and the geese. WWT offered Mrs Hill £500 a year if the farm refrained from scaring geese between October and February, did not seek a licence to shoot them and did not allow shooters to cross Powhillon to reach the merse. The proposed payment was expressly described as payment for “positive conservation measures”, not as a rent rebate for goose damage.
The Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI citation, notified on 6 June 1988, described the biological and geological interests of an extensive estuarine area which included Powhillon. They extended beyond the wintering geese to breeding birds, saltmarsh vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians and other habitats. The citation identifies lapwings and oystercatchers among the breeding birds of the wider marshes, while curlews appear among the important wintering waders. It also records the importance of natterjack toads and great crested newts.
The supporting Special Protection Area and Ramsar statements likewise describe the wider Upper Solway’s internationally important waterbird populations and wetland interests. The SSSI citation distinguishes the intertidal feeding areas used by waders from the marshes and inland grazing on which geese feed. It also identifies changes in grazing and waterfowl management among the operations capable of affecting the site’s special interests.
Those designation documents described the wider Solway. At Powhillon, R Hill & Co’s recollection of locating and marking the nests of lapwings, curlews and oystercatchers describes how the merse was used and cared for locally. The holding supported both agricultural production and breeding wildlife before the damaging goose concentrations became the subject of official inspections and licensing applications.
Daniel did not begin with a shotgun. For about seven years the farm used the methods recommended to it: flags, whirlies, drums, bangers, gas guns and Verey pistols. Family members walked into the flocks and sent Sky, the farm collie, out across the merse. The birds lifted, circled and commonly settled again on another part of Powhillon. The methods could move them for a time; they did not protect the grazing day after day. An agricultural officer's March 1993 report records the continuing pressure and the repeated use of scaring.
R Hill & Co asked WWT to help control the geese. It approached the Nature Conservancy Council about damage to the SSSI merse; the Council referred the matter to the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Daniel then applied to Government for licences to shoot Barnacle geese. Each route led back to the same immediate problem: the farm needed protection before another season's grazing was lost.
As WWT sought to establish a wildfowl refuge, disputes arose over wildfowlers' access across Powhillon, including allegations of trespass and the application of refuge byelaws. Daniel recalls that wildfowlers asked him to confirm that he had authorised their passage across the farm. Those disputes introduced him to the statutory provisions and legal procedures being invoked around the refuge.
Daniel examined the Wildlife and Countryside Act after those disputes. By the time his own prosecution arose, he was relying upon a different provision: the defence for an authorised person whose action was necessary to prevent serious agricultural damage. His prosecution concerned the protection of a working cattle farm, rather than the wildfowlers' access to the merse.
WWT's own records confirm that protected-geese prosecutions preceded Daniel's case. On 26 November 1991 Dr Myrfyn Owen told Scottish Office official David Brown that the police were proceeding against another person caught shooting Barnacle geese. WWT understood that case to contain no claim that the shooting was connected with crop damage. Daniel's later prosecution therefore placed a different purpose and a different statutory protection before the court.
Section 1(1)(a) made it an offence intentionally to kill, injure or take a wild bird, subject to the provisions which followed. Section 4(3)(c), as it stood in 1993, provided that an "authorised person" would not be guilty where he showed that the action had been necessary "for the purpose of preventing serious damage" to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops and the other interests named in the Act. The statutory definition included an occupier of the land, or a person authorised by its owner or occupier.
The provision addressed action taken to prevent serious damage, rather than requiring the loss to be complete. Daniel relied upon the damage already suffered, the failure of scaring and the threatened further loss of grazing in explaining why he had shot the geese.
The surviving licence history begins years before the trial. On 8 April 1986 J. M. Riddet refused an application after inspecting Powhillon. A later application did not receive a decision at all.
In an internal minute dated 23 March 1992, J. M. Johnston recorded that Daniel had applied the previous year and that "no answer to the application was made". Johnston wrote that there was "no doubt that no decision was made" and referred to criticism of the Department's "refusal to come to a decision". The goose season passed without the application producing either authority to act or a reasoned refusal.
By March 1993 the years of scaring, inspection and application had not secured the grazing. The criminal complaint records that Daniel deliberately shot one Barnacle goose and one Pink-footed goose on 8 March. On 11 March he shot a further Barnacle goose.
WWT wardens John Doherty and Steven Cooper reported the 11 March shooting to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. WPC Annette Clark and PC William Dodds attended, Daniel was charged and his shotgun was seized. Criminal proceedings followed.
Procurator Fiscal David J. F. Howdle personally brought the complaint against Daniel. It contained four charges: three alleged contraventions of section 1(1)(a) of the 1981 Act in respect of the protected birds, and one allegation of breach of the peace arising from the treatment of a wounded Barnacle goose on 8 March.
Daniel admitted shooting the birds. He maintained that he had acted after other methods had failed and to prevent further serious damage to the grazing needed for Powhillon's cattle.
Howdle's involvement with Powhillon did not end with the acquittal. Four years later the same Procurator Fiscal petitioned Sheriff Michael Fletcher for the warrant under which the farm's entire cattle herd was removed before Daniel's animal-welfare trial.
Daniel continued to use the licensing process while awaiting trial. On 15 October 1993 David H. Brown of the Scottish Office refused his application of 8 September. Brown acknowledged that the presence of substantial numbers of geese at certain times "does cause damage to grassland at Powhillon". The Department nevertheless considered that a licence should not be issued after striking "a reasonable balance between agricultural and conservation interests" and consulting Scottish Natural Heritage.
Nine months after the shootings, the case came before Sheriff Cameron at Dumfries. The surviving defence papers begin with the decisive fact: Daniel had committed the acts alleged in the shooting charges. Unless the agricultural protection applied, he would be convicted.
The trial therefore turned upon why he had fired, what was happening to Powhillon and whether the available alternatives could prevent further serious damage. The court heard how the merse fitted into the cattle enterprise, how loss of that grazing displaced cattle onto fields needed for silage and how the agricultural effect extended beyond the grass consumed on the day of an inspection.
The history of non-lethal control was put before the court: the flags and devices spread over the farm; the gas guns and Verey pistols; the work of repeatedly walking among the birds; and the use of Sky to lift them. The evidence was that the flocks commonly circled and landed elsewhere on the holding. Years of activity had demonstrated movement without lasting protection.
The licence history was also part of the case. Daniel had repeatedly asked Government for authority. Agricultural officers had inspected the farm. The official process had not produced a licence before the shootings, and the October 1993 refusal had since acknowledged the very damage for which he said protection was required.
David Brown gave evidence from inside the Department responsible for the licence decisions. The surviving trial record says that Brown knew of five applications by Daniel and that none had succeeded. It records his acceptance that serious damage existed on the merse and grassland and that local agricultural officers supported intervention.
The same record says Brown accepted that, if the applications had been considered on agricultural damage alone, at least some would have been granted. They had not been decided on agriculture alone. Conservation advice, the special protection of Barnacle geese and the Secretary of State's environmental responsibilities had also been placed in the balance.
The licensing decision under section 16 involved the Secretary of State's assessment of an application. At trial, Sheriff Cameron had to decide whether the statutory defence under section 4(3)(c) applied to Daniel's actions.
On 20 January 1994 M. Macdonald of the Scottish Office Solicitor's Office recorded that departmental agricultural staff had been “in no doubt” that the geese were causing serious damage and had “consistently advised” that the circumstances warranted a licence. She wrote that Ministers had personally decided to refuse it without referring the decision to the Solicitor's Office.
Macdonald also recorded that the Department's local agricultural officers had appeared as defence witnesses and could only tell the court that serious damage existed. Her understanding was that the Sheriff accepted that evidence and acquitted Daniel. By the date of her memorandum the Department had issued the licence; Macdonald wrote internally that Daniel had received “rather a raw deal”.
On 17 December 1993 Sheriff Cameron acquitted Daniel Quinn of all four charges. The defence was based on section 4(3)(c), and the condition of the holding, the measures already tried, the licensing history and the Scottish Office's agricultural evidence had been put before the court.
No written opinion setting out Sheriff Cameron's reasons has been located in the records examined. The charge sheet, defence submissions, notes of Brown's evidence and the court outcome preserve the case presented and its result. In a separate proceeding the following month, Lord Johnston recorded that Daniel “was acquitted on the defence under Section 4”.
On 12 January 1994 WWT's Director General, Dr Myrfyn Owen, wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He reported that the court had accepted Daniel's section 4(3)(c) defence because he had acted to prevent serious crop damage and stated: “This is the first time that such a ruling has been made anywhere in the UK.”
Owen called the result an “unfortunate ruling” and urged the Secretary of State not to grant a licence. He described five earlier licence applications as having been refused, although the Scottish Office's March 1992 minute acknowledged that an application had received no decision. His letter records WWT's contemporary opposition to the acquittal and its consequences for the licence.
On 12 January 1994 David Brown wrote that "in the light of the new circumstances following your acquittal" it had been decided to issue Daniel a licence permitting Barnacle geese to be killed or taken.
Brown had refused a licence in October 1993 while accepting that geese caused damage at Powhillon. His January 1994 letter expressly linked the change in the Department's position to Daniel's acquittal. The licence imposed conditions requiring shooting to scare rather than unrestricted shooting to kill.
The licence did not end the dispute. WWT petitioned the Court of Session to prevent Mrs Hill authorising Daniel to use it and to prevent Daniel from shooting.
On 19 January 1994 Lord Johnston refused interim interdict. His opinion records that Daniel had shot three geese without a licence and “was acquitted on the defence under Section 4”. It also records that the Government licence followed on 12 January and that the Department's stated change of circumstances appeared to be Daniel's acquittal. Johnston held that the licence was a statutory right available to the tenant under the lease and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the agricultural enterprise.
WWT relied on its reserved hunting and game rights under the lease. Johnston also considered the qualification preserving statutory rights available to the tenant and held that interim interdict would effectively revoke the licence issued by the Secretary of State. WWT's counsel acknowledged that a damages claim might arise if game numbers were permitted to grow beyond what the parties to the lease could reasonably have contemplated and crops were damaged. Johnston also noted the contrast between that concession and a recent letter from WWT's agents denying that goose damage existed. His decision concerned interim interdict; it did not determine WWT's liability for damage to the farm.
The result reached a national audience within weeks. The BBC's surviving programme record identifies Countryfile programme A:NBMT141F, dated 16 January 1994, as Michael Collie's report on the dispute between WWT and a tenant farmer on the Solway Firth salt marshes. It names Danny Quinn as the tenant farmer and records him discussing bird damage, the lease, the need for trust between landlord and tenant, shooting the geese to protect his crops and the court case.
When Daniel asked the BBC for a copy in 2014, the catalogue description and detailed timings remained. The BBC then searched its archive vaults and reported that its only master was missing, so it could not supply the recording. The surviving BBC record nevertheless fixes the programme and its subject within a month of the acquittal. Public controversy continued: WWT issued a press release about the shooting in October 1994.
On 25 April 1995, J. N. Randall submitted a memorandum to Ministers concerning proposed amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The proposals followed a challenge to the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Birds Directive. Randall expressly identified Daniel Quinn's case when explaining the proposed changes to the agricultural-damage defence and the licensing provisions.
In paragraph 9, Randall recorded that the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust supported the proposed requirement for there to be "no other satisfactory solution" before a licence could be granted. WWT argued that participation in a goose-management scheme, such as those operated by Scottish Natural Heritage on Islay and the Solway, could provide a satisfactory alternative to shooting. Randall also warned that WWT and others might take legal action if a further licence were issued to Daniel the following season.
Randall recorded that Scottish Office and Department of the Environment officials regarded WWT's interpretation of the Birds Directive as "perverse". Their explanation was that the Directive's derogation was intended to prevent serious damage to crops, not to compensate farmers for allowing that damage to occur. They said the requirement to consider other satisfactory solutions was intended to ensure that measures such as non-lethal scaring were properly considered before the killing of protected birds was authorised.
The same memorandum referred to the need to apply for a licence when serious damage could reasonably be anticipated. That was the preventative purpose of the licensing provisions: an application could be considered before the anticipated damage was complete. The availability of a payment scheme was not, by itself, a finding that damage to Powhillon's grazing could be prevented. Randall's account of WWT's proposal did not record payment of compensation to R Hill & Co.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1995 came into force on 30 November 1995. They required a person relying on the section 4(3)(c) agricultural-damage defence to show that there was no other satisfactory solution, to have applied promptly for a licence where the need for action had become apparent in advance and the application had not been determined, and to notify the agriculture Minister promptly afterwards. The regulations also required the licensing authority under section 16 to be satisfied that there was no other satisfactory solution before granting a licence. These additional requirements did not apply retrospectively to Daniel's December 1993 trial.
The subsequent licence-application record and agricultural inspections show how the preventative purpose of the legislation operated at Powhillon after those changes.
The acquittal and licence did not end the underlying conflict. In the 1996/97 season consultation on a further application was still continuing when the deadline for issuing Barnacle-goose licences passed. An October 1996 inspection had anticipated greater goose pressure as the winter progressed.
When officials returned on 30 April 1997, the anticipated damage had occurred. Their report described heavy grazing, loss of productive ryegrass, weeds, insufficient cattle grazing and a substantially reduced carrying capacity. The Department later accepted that damage had "indeed taken place". By then the geese were leaving, and the Government said a licence would have no practical benefit.
The inspection had predicted greater goose pressure, but the licensing process continued beyond the seasonal deadline. The subsequent inspection confirmed the damage after the geese had begun to leave.
The damage which R Hill & Co reported was not confined to the cost of replacing cattle grazing. It affected the vegetation and ground conditions of land within the designated SSSI. Scottish Office agricultural officers recorded the effects of heavy goose use over several seasons. In October 1993, Ian Matheson described grass consumed and fouled by geese and the effect of their webbed feet paddling the silty and clay surface, which could inhibit the development of grass roots. The report referred to bare ground and puddling already observed in March.
In 1994 further agricultural observations included clumps of grass pulled from the ground, grazing and fouling. Other reports recorded damaged drainage and defective sea-wall outlets, as well as deterioration attributable to the geese. The condition of the merse was therefore being documented both as a problem for livestock production and as physical deterioration of the designated land.
Following an inspection on 30 April 1997, John M. Riddet’s report of 11 July 1997 recorded severe damage to grassland and a persistently poor sward. He also expressed concern that the botanical interest of the merse had been severely damaged. His observation concerned the vegetation itself, not merely the loss of grazing value.
R Hill & Co recalls that the lapwings, curlews and oystercatchers which had once nested on the merse became less prominent as that habitat deteriorated. The agricultural officers’ reports describe damage to the ground and vegetation; the family’s account identifies the change it witnessed in the breeding birds. Both form part of the history of the SSSI and of the decisions made about goose management at Powhillon.
The cattle had been removed from Powhillon in March 1997 under a warrant granted by Sheriff Michael Fletcher. Without normal cattle grazing, the sward grew rank, its agricultural value declined and it became less attractive to geese.
A licence application made on 6 October 1997 was not refused until 22 April 1998. By October 1998 a further refusal relied in part upon the "continued absence of agricultural activity". The farm had sought protection while cattle grazing still existed. After the cattle were gone, the resulting absence of agricultural activity became part of the reason for withholding further agricultural protection.
The acquittal disposed of the criminal charges. It did not determine whether WWT was responsible under the lease for the goose damage or other alleged failures affecting the holding.
On 24 March 1994, Mrs Janet Hill's solicitors applied for a statutory agricultural arbiter. The claim included WWT's alleged failure to control game numbers. When WWT argued that the wild-geese claim should be dismissed, arbiter John Galloway Marshall rejected that submission because the lease reserved "deer, wild fowl and wild animals of every kind". He ordered that the issue proceed to proof.
The wildfowl-damage claim survived WWT's attempt to dismiss it, but no final determination followed from substantive proof. The cattle were removed in March 1997 and the family was ejected in June 1999 while the underlying damages dispute remained unresolved. The subsequent proceedings are examined in the Damages Arbitration.
Daniel's prosecution ended in acquittal. The Scottish Office linked the grant of a shooting licence to that result. WWT then sought interim interdict against the use of the licence, but Lord Johnston refused it. His opinion also recorded WWT counsel's acceptance that a damages claim could arise from an excessive increase in game numbers under the lease.
The shooting trial and the interim-interdict proceedings did not decide the landlord's alleged liability for the damage to Powhillon's agricultural holding. That question was referred to the Damages Arbitration in 1994. Marshall directed the wildfowl-damage claim to proof, but the substantive landlord-and-tenant dispute remained undetermined.
Animal Rights Farming
SSSI Habitat and Goose Damage
Gary McAteer Beltrami
"doesn't contain antibodies"
Procurator Fiscal
Sheriff