Penalties need to rise for wildlife crime, report concludes

Penalties for wildlife crime in Scotland have fallen behind those for other environmental offences, with fine levels not keeping pace with inflation, according to a report publlished today.

The report was produced by a review group chaired by Professor Mark Poustie of Strathclyde University. It was set up in the context of a ministerial commitment to enhance the enforcement of wildlife crime, particularly in relation to the level of penalties imposed. The group focused its work on the wildlife crime priority areas identified by the Government (bat persecution, badger persecution, illegal trade in endangered species, freshwater pearl mussels, poaching and raptor persecution).

As well as increases to the maximum available penalties, its 10 recommendations also include greater use of alternative penalties such as forfeiture, ensuring that in all cases the court can order loss of benefits such as firearm and shotgun certificates, the systematic use of impact statements in court, new sentencing guidelines, and consolidation of wildlife legislation.

Wildlife law should be treated in line with other areas of environmental law such as pollution control, the report states, on the basis that while many pollution offences are committed by corporate bodies, that is also true in wildlife law where badger sett or bat roost destruction, some damage to freshwater pearl mussels and some raptor crime is caused by corporate bodies in the course of commercial activity.

However, in contrast to the maximum penalties on summary conviction for many of the principal wildlife offences which have remained unchanged for over 30 years in some cases, the maximum penalties for the principal pollution offences have increased 20 fold from £2,000 to £40,000 and terms of imprisonment have been increased from up to three months to up to a year, and conviction on indictment is also available. In England & Wales the maximum fine on summary conviction for the principal Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 offences was increased from £5,000 to a potentially unlimited fine earlier in 2015. "It seemed to us that the developments in pollution control provided a system of penalties which could serve as a deterrent to a greater extent than those currently applying in wildlife law", the report concludes, calling for similar penalties to be available in wildlife cases.

The review group has noted the establishment of the Scottish Sentencing Council and the introduction in England & Wales of Sentencing Guidelines in relation to pollution offences, and considers that "the introduction of guidelines on wildlife crime sentencing could enhance the consistency and transparency of sentencing in wildlife cases".

Professor Poustie commented: “I consider that the group has produced a range of balanced and practical recommendations which should enhance the deterrence of penalties for wildlife crimes and I urge the minister to take forward the proposals in the report. I wish to thank my fellow members of the group for their extensive help in developing the report and also those who participated in the stakeholder engagement process for their contributions.”

Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod responded: "This report is one of a number of actions taken by the Scottish Government to tackle wildlife crime and ultimately provide better protection for Scotland’s environment and wildlife. I will carefully consider all the recommendations and will make a further announcement on how we intend to take this work forward.”

Click here to view the report.