A report published today by Scottish Environment LINK has been described as a “damning indictment” of the failure to effectively tackle wildlife crime in Scotland.
The report, ‘Natural Injustice: A review of the enforcement of wildlife protection legislation in Scotland’ will make for uncomfortable reading by those responsible for addressing wildlife crime, including the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Crown Office.
The report examines the experiences of LINK member organisations who have been involved in reporting wildlife crimes and tracks the progress of 148 confirmed crimes that were reported to the Police over a six-year period (2008-2013). The crimes included the persecution of badgers, raptors, bats and freshwater pearl mussels – four of the stated national wildlife crime priorities.
The report’s findings are indeed damning. Here is an overview, lifted from the Executive Summary:
Main Findings
- The four areas of wildlife crime are under-recorded and the standard of information that is recorded is generally inconsistently collected which limits its usefulness. This is highlighted by the significant discrepancies between the annual crime figures produced by the wildlife NGOs and those produced by the Scottish Government.
- There is an urgent need to re-examine the recording systems in use, not only to increase public confidence in the Scottish Government’s figures but also to provide a more accurate evaluation of the extent of wildlife crime.
- Of the 148 confirmed wildlife crimes reported to the police during 2008-2013, 98 (66.2%) are known to have resulted in a follow-up investigation.
- At least 27 wildlife crimes (18.2%) did not result in a follow-up investigation and were effectively ignored. It is feasible that as many as one third of reported incidents were un-investigated.
- The failure to conduct a follow-up investigation was not limited to one particular region but occurred in five of eight regions.
- Of the follow-up investigations that did occur, LINK respondents considered just over one third (35.1%) to have been conducted satisfactorily. Criticisms included delayed police response times (sometimes as long as several months from the initial incident report) leading to the disappearance of evidence, delays exacerbated by un-trained police wildlife crime officers and a lack of seriousness with which senior police officers treat wildlife crime, failure to apply for search warrants, failure to conduct covert searches, poorly-targeted and/or restricted search efforts, the premature disposal of evidence prior to toxicology examination and a chronic failure to communicate with partner agencies either as a result of police under-resourcing and/or politically-motivated deliberate exclusion policies.
- Of the 148 confirmed wildlife crimes, only 20 (13.5%) resulted in a prosecution.
- A minimum of at least 111 crimes (75%) failed to result in a prosecution. The failure rate was consistent across all regions.
- In some instances the failure to prosecute was recognised as a result of the innate problems associated with investigating crime in remote areas, but in many cases the cause of failure was inextricably linked to a poor follow-up investigation.
- Twenty of the confirmed wildlife crimes (13.5%) are known to have reached the prosecution stage and of those, 15 are known to have resulted in a conviction. This figure should be viewed as a minimum as several cases are currently on-going and thus the number of known convictions may increase.
- Many of the sentences were at the lower end of the scale and penalties issued for similar crimes appear to have been applied inconsistently.
- Overall, but with a few noticeable exceptions, there is, amongst LINK members, an overwhelming lack of confidence in the ability of the statutory agencies to adequately investigate wildlife crime and in the willingness of the judiciary to impose meaningful deterrent sentences.
END
The report includes three case studies which amount to a devastating catalogue of incompetence. The Appendices are even more damning, detailing the personal experiences of LINK members. Here are a few examples:
“The first of six instances on this estate but not followed up until three years later”.
“Took a very long time for police to report to Crown Office. No progress on second individual found in possession of illegal poisons”.
“Failure to follow-up suspect’s admission that he had laid out poisoned baits”.
“Police made appointment with suspect to search his sheds!!”
“Delay in warrant despite ongoing killing. Insufficient attempts to get full picture of evidence. Premature disposal of evidence by police prior to toxicology analyses”.
“Estate employees were invited to participate in the search! Police also took their word that perpetrators likely to be neighbours, despite long history of persecution here”.
“No further enquiry despite estate’s history of wildlife crime. Police insisted on no publicity”.
“Despite many previous offences at locus, police considered an active search of vehicles to be disproportionate”.
“Police were contacted but without seeing the carcass refused to attend as they considered it to be too decomposed. Partner agency attended the scene a few days later but carcass had disappeared”.
“No follow up and when I asked about it the WCO admitted he had forgotten about it”.
The report’s findings have been supported by 17 LINK environmental NGOs, including the Scottish Wildlife Trust, WWF Scotland, Scottish Badgers, RSPB Scotland, Scottish Wild Land Group, Scottish Raptor Study Group and the John Muir Trust.
LINK has also published a second report, outlining 20 recommendations for improvement.
Download Natural-Injustice-paper1-FINAL
Download Natural-Injustice-paper2-FINAL
Media coverage
BBC News here (includes quotes from COPFS, Scottish Government, RSPB Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association).
STV here (including quote from Police Scotland)
Herald here