The Sheriff Appeal Court has confirmed the convictions of an Aberdeen wildlife-tour operator for disturbing dolphins and pilot whales, ruling that the term “disturb” in marine-protection law should be given its ordinary meaning.
Owner and skipper Richard James Greenhowe of the sailing vessel Seacab appealed two charges under Regulation 39(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994, stemming from incidents in July 2023.
Incidents that led to convictions
The first incident occurred on 22 July 2023 near the north breakwater at Aberdeen Harbour. Video showed Seacab passing a feeding group of dolphins, turning back, and crossing the same area again at five to ten metres distance. The sheriff found that the vessel’s movements had disturbed them and that Greenhowe’s conduct was reckless.
The second incident, on 30 July, involved up to 25 pilot whales. Seacab approached a larger pod at speed, slowed, positioned itself between the whales and open water, then turned back toward the pod, prompting the group to move shoreward. The smaller pod also became separated, which the sheriff regarded as disturbance, particularly given the danger of pilot whales stranding when close to shore.
The sheriff fined Greenhowe £1,000 for the dolphin disturbance and £1,500 for the pilot-whale incident. Leave to appeal the sentence was denied, but a limited appeal against conviction was permitted.
Interpretation of “disturb” under the law
The legal question centered on the meaning of “disturb” in Regulation 39(2). The provision makes it an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb any dolphin, porpoise or whale, without defining the term.
Greenhowe argued that disturbance is a specialist behavioural concept that requires expert assessment. He cited NatureScot guidance, which defines disturbance as an interaction that changes an animal’s behaviour or environment in ways affecting its well-being.
The Crown countered that, absent a statutory definition, Parliament intended the ordinary English meaning. The Sheriff Appeal Court accepted this view, stating that the guidance may assist but cannot override primary legislation.
The court emphasized that the focus of the verb “disturb” is on the accused’s conduct and state of mind, rather than requiring proof of a scientifically defined effect. Agitation, intrusion, interference, frustration or interruption fall within the ordinary meaning.
The court rejected the claim that disturbance could only be established through skilled evidence. Expert witness Karen Hall of NatureScot was allowed to explain marine-mammal behaviour, but the sheriff remained the ultimate fact-finder. Hall noted the pod’s separation as a clear sign of disturbance and described the lack of a stranding as “extremely fortunate”. For the dolphins, she highlighted close approach and rapid maneuvers.
The stated case did not contain questions challenging the sheriff’s material findings in fact that the dolphins and pilot whales had been disturbed. All three questions were answered against Greenhowe, and the appeal was refused.
Implications of the ruling
The Sheriff Appeal Court’s judgment was delivered by Sheriff Principal Gillian A Wade KC, sitting with Appeal Sheriffs I H Cruickshank and W A Sheehan. The court held that the offence focuses on the accused’s deliberate or reckless conduct rather than requiring proof of a particular scientifically defined effect on the animals.
The ruling is reported as [2026] SAC (Crim) 12 and provides a clear statement of the law on the meaning of “disturb” in the context of marine mammal protection.
