07
Nov
14

Wildlife crime penalties: have your say

we want justiceThere has long been dissatisfaction with the penalties handed out to those convicted of wildlife crime. Yesterday’s sentencing of convicted mass raptor poisoner Allen Lambert of Stody Estate merely served to highlight the issue, again. But what we perceive to be unacceptably lenient penalties is certainly nothing new, and especially those sentences given to people (usually gamekeepers) associated with the game-shooting industry.

There’s a huge lack of public confidence in the way the judiciary deals with these criminals, with many people often talking about corruption, vested interests, biased judges/sheriffs etc. We’ve all come to expect unduly lenient measures – you only have to look at the comments on social media even before Lambert’s sentence was announced – people were predicting a metaphorical ‘slap on the wrist’, and in essence, that’s indeed what he got, even though the judge had stated that Lambert’s crimes “had crossed the custody threshold“.

Quite often (although apparently not in Lambert’s case), the accused’s employer (typically a wealthy landowner) will even fork out for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to put forward the accused’s defence. A QC is considered to be an exceptional lawyer of outstanding ability – it’s hardly a level playing field to pit a QC against an ‘average’ public prosecutor, leading to even more public concern about the perceived ‘fairness’ of these trials and any subsequent punishment.

Sentencing for wildlife crimes has been hit or miss in both Scotland and England. For most wildlife crime offences (although not all), the maximum sentence available for each offence is a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence. So for example, if someone had been convicted of poisoning two buzzards, they could potentially be hit with a £10,000 fine and a 12 month custodial sentence. As far as we’re aware, the maximum sentence has never been given. Instead, a large dollop of judicial discretion has been applied, resulting in weak and inconsistent penalties and a growing level of frustration amongst the general public who wish to see justice being done.

For example, in 2011, a gamekeeper in South Lanarkshire was convicted of poisoning four buzzards with the banned pesticide Alphachloralose. His sentence? An admonishment (basically a telling off). The maximum penalty available to the Sheriff was a £20,000 fine and/or a two-year custodial sentence. What was even more astonishing about this case was that the gamekeeper had been convicted of another wildlife crime three years earlier (illegal use of a crow cage trap in which he’d caught a buzzard), on the same land, for which he’d received a £300 fine. So the poisoning of four buzzards with a banned pesticide was his second conviction and yet he was given the most lenient penalty available.

A few months later, and just down the road in South Lanarkshire, a second gamekeeper was convicted of possessing the banned pesticide Carbofuran, which had been found in his vehicle. No charges were brought for the discovery of a dead buzzard and a pheasant bait (both tested positive for Carbofuran) found on land where this gamekeeper worked. His sentence? A £635 fine for possession (maximum sentence available was a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence).

Things may be about to change in Scotland. Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has, to his credit, instructed a review of wildlife crime penalties. The group’s remit is:

“To examine and report on how wildlife crime in Scotland is dealt with by the criminal courts, with particular reference to the range of penalties available and whether these are sufficient for the purposes of deterrence and whether they are commensurate with the damage to ecosystems that may be caused by wildlife crime”.

Now, while we don’t for one minute think that a potential increase in penalties will be the great panacea to stopping wildlife crime (for that to happen there also needs to be a significant change in investigation and enforcement procedures…..it’s pointless having a severe penalty in place if the criminal knows the chances of being caught are virtually nil…but more on that in due course), it is nevertheless an encouraging step, assuming of course that the review committee recommends an increase in penalties. They may not – see here for our previous comments on the membership of this review committee, which inexplicably includes the owner of a game-shooting estate.

This is where you come in. There is an opportunity for you to share your views with the review committee by answering a simple questionnaire that includes some carefully-thought out questions. The deadline for responding is two weeks today (21st November 2014) and the questionnaire can be filled in on-line and emailed to the committee. Please click here to download.

This is an excellent opportunity to have your say and perhaps have some influence on future wildlife crime sentencing options. Although the review is only applicable to sentencing options in Scotland, you do not have to live in Scotland to participate – it’s open to anyone from anywhere. And who knows, if improvements are made in the Scottish system then it provides more leverage for calls to do a similar review of wildlife crime penalties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The review committee is due to report its findings (and recommendations) early in the New Year.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Wildlife crime penalties: have your say”


  1. November 7, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    The whole system is corrupt.

  2. 4 Anand Prasad
    November 7, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Oh dear. Also on the committee is Robert Allan the same idiot who defended the recent Ross-shire massacre police press release.
    https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/ross-shire-massacre-more-on-that-police-scotland-press-release/
    A game shooting estate owner and a useless policeman; this Wildlife Penalties Report is going to be a showcase for exactly the bias which the report is supposed to investigate. Pathetic

  3. 5 nirofo
    November 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    The questionnaire is a bit ambiguous in its scope, however I completed it with a few to the point remarks and sent it off, it will be interesting to see the outcome, but I feel that the vested interest parties will dominate the result.

  4. 6 Neil Simms
    November 8, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    The penalties handed down to perpetrators of wildlife crime are totally inadequate and do not act as a deterrent at all. The hunting / shooting fraternity could not stop criminal activity in this area even if they wanted to, which they don’t.
    There are only two ways to stop such criminal activity.
    1. Make all blood sports illegal
    2. Punitive punishment for those who are actually caught, especially so if they are game keepers.

    • 7 nirofo
      November 9, 2014 at 2:14 am

      You’re right about gamekeepers, they should know above most others that wildlife persecution is illegal, its part of their job and hopefully their training, (if they had any) that they know. They are the main perpetrators of Raptor persecution in the UK, and are in full knowledge of the fact that they are committing criminal acts, for that very reason they should receive the maximum penalties allowed under the law including jail.

      There is no excuse for the law courts to let these blatant wildlife serial killers off the hook; time after time they are either admonished or receive such measly lenient penalties that at best they amount to no more than a slap on the wrist for being so daft as to get caught at it.

      The police, the judges and the sheriffs should be totally ashamed of themselves for allowing this sick murdering onslaught of our so-called protected birds of prey and other wildlife to continue without any repercussion.

      There is no deterrent whatsoever to curtail the wildlife persecuting activities of the shooting estates and their gamekeepers at present, the law as it stands appears to be totally biased towards protecting the owners of these estates, leaving them free to carry on committing wildlife crime at will in the full knowledge that the law won’t do a damned thing to stop them. It seems the police, the judges and the sheriffs etc, are too afraid to upset the old boys in the establishment in case it comes back and bites them on the backside

  5. 8 Mel Thorn
    November 10, 2014 at 9:09 am

    It is now high time that the owners of estates and persons responsible for running any form of hunting or shooting should be made responsible ‘by law’ for the actions of their gamekeepers and other employees.

    If these people were to face the prospect of penalties we may then see a more responsible attitude towards wildlife crime in all forms be it birds or mammals.

    There should also be a substantial increase in the upper limits of the penalties, fines, prison and others such as community service, that may be imposed by the courts, however, this would be of no consequence unless the courts themselves (Judges or magistrates, many of whom I suspect will be hunting or shooting people) have the will to actually implement any changes.

    It is a sad indictment on our society that many of the powerful and influential members of our parliament, courts, police and other enforcement agencies do not have the moral fortitude to uphold, let alone enforce, our British laws.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 3,106,470 hits

Archives

Our recent blog visitors