The Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee will take evidence on the Government’s 2016 annual wildlife crime report this morning.
This can be watched live at 10.30am on Scottish Parliament TV here [click on Committee Room 1]. We’ll post a link to the archive video and the official transcript when it becomes available.
The Committee will hear evidence from Police Scotland and the Crown Office. Last year, for the first time, representatives from the RSPB, Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, Scottish Badgers and the Bat Conservation Trust were also invited to present evidence, but apparently not this year.
Here are the background papers relating to today’s evidence session: ECCLR agenda papers 16 January 2018
The Environment Committee has a good track record of asking pertinent questions about the annual wildlife crime report and has not been afraid to challenge witnesses with some determination (e.g. see here and here).
Since last year’s evidence session a number of issues have emerged, not least the Crown Office’s controversial decisions to drop a number of long-running prosecution cases, mostly without explanation. The Environment Committee wrote to the Crown Office to seek explanation but many questions remain unanswered. Hopefully the Committee will pursue this matter today.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Looks like we need to change the law ASAP. Hopefully the committee will pick up on this.
From linked letter to Graeme Dey from Sara Shaw, Head of Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit COPFS
‘The statutory access rights granted by section 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 are granted for specific purposes. The purpose of investigating and detecting crime is not one of those purposes. It follows that
someone who is on land for such a purpose is not there pursuant to the rights granted under the Act. ‘
and this below explains why they didn’t allow RSPB video evidence even when it was not intended to catch criminal activity
‘the Scottish Outdoor Access Code states that where people exercising access rights wish to undertake surveys of natural or cultural heritage which require the installation of any equipment or instruments they
should “seek the permission of the relevant land managers”: para. 3.64. ‘
Public interest and common law are obviously not intended for the likes of us.
“should” is not “must” and in the meantime keep filming the tweed lot bludgeoning and shooting raptors and releasing to the public and lets see what happens.
Wonder why sspca are not invited. I note in the governments wildlife crime figures sspca investigate a significant amount of wildlife crime.
Excluding NGO, s will suit the police who clearly do not wish to enter into partnership working. Given the current climate within police scotland where money and resources are scarce this approach is madness.
Police Scotland, copfs and Scottish Government getting together to highlight the great things they achieved no doubt.
In reality wildlife crime has got worse with less enforcement, less prosecutions, no new legislation.
Wildlife criminals killing with impunity.
The message which came across regarding video evidence – that anyone suspecting wildlife criminality should liaise with the Police regarding the possibility of installing covert cameras – is all very fine in theory. However, how many offences might be missed because of the ensuing delay in installing the cameras. It is also unfortunate that the installation of a camera in a remote location without permission should be construed as an invasion of the privacy of people frequenting the area. Presumably this would include gamekeepers going about their unlawful business. What a farce this is.
Hi Dylanben,
Just to clarify, there is no chance at all that the Police would be allowed to install cameras for the purpose of detecting wildlife crime, because these crimes don’t meet the required threshold tests the Police need to gain authority under RIPSA. In other words, wildlife crimes are not considered ‘serious’ enough to warrant such permission to be granted.
Your point about the invasion of privacy is interesting and is something we’ve discussed before. In our opinion, placing a camera to point directly at the nest of a Sched 1 species (e.g. hen harrier) in the middle of a remote moor can’t possibly be construed as an invasion of anyone’s privacy, seeing as Sched 1 nests are off limits to everyone except Sched 1 licence holders!
We’ll discuss this further when we blog about today’s evidence session….later in the week once the official transcript has been published.
Well God help us if the four stoogies are all that stands between us and the criminals, what an apathetic display and a total waste of time . And please tell me I am wrong in thinking that Sara Shaw is Head of Wildlife and Environmental Crime unit Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service – her title is twice as long as anything she had to say ,certainly longer than anything sensible she had to say.
Am I the only one to think that a couple of contributions from our Scottish Wildlife Crime Coordinator Police Scotland were a bit puzzling, for example , some thing along the lines of – there are some very intelligent people out there who are very good at accusing estates of crime where no crime has taken place – and – game keepers are out often at night and we liaise with then re. criminal activity- ( not his exact words but close enough, I do agree however that game keepers are out at night : – shooting raptors)
Noticed too that Janus face Dey had to get in on the act with his piece about traps being tampered with in the Angus Glens , his mates to my knowledge have been lobbying him about this for over a year and a half . No mention however of the level of intimidation and harassment suffered at the hands of the tweed clad thugs that he seems to be only too keen to support. I could go on and list the scary level of this intimidation but think it would be blocked as it of course is hearsay and they are always mob handed. And before some well meaning soul suggests I should have gone to the police – I did and it was ME who aggressively questioned by them and of course nothing happened.
Introduce a licensing system for shooting estates.
Make it a condition of the licence that the landowner, and the licence holder, consent to the installation of covert surveillance cameras, and the use of evidence obtained from them, for the purposes of detecting and prosecuting wildlife crime.
Simple and straightforward.
I ask myself what is best option.
Little or no investigation and no covert film.which is admissable.
Or
Covert film highlighting serious and organised killing or raptors and wildlife which is in admissable.
Of course I am choosing the latter which at the very least proves to the public, politicians and the dark side the scale of the problem.
Getting crimes into the media doesn’t need to be admissable.
I may be being cinical but perhaps , police,copfs and Scottish Government wish to downplay wildlife crime and sweep it under the carpet.
Think I agree with this approach. It’s clear that video evidence gathered without landowners permission is unlikely to be used in court. Asking the landowner obviously defeats the object. However, gaining footage that can be used to make a case to the public is probably still a very valuable tool to use. In the end, this issue will be resolved by public, and hopefully, political pressure. Gaining convictions of criminals is only a part of that (albeit rather satisfying.)