About you
What is your name?
Name
Ruth Tingay
Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Individual
Radio button:
Ticked
Organisation
Organisation
Raptor Persecution Scotland
Penalties
Are the proposed maximum penalties for animal welfare offences set at the right level to act as a deterrent?
Please enter your views in the box below:
None
Are the proposed maximum penalties for wildlife offences set at the right level to act as a deterrent?
Please enter your views in the box below:
The revised maximum penalties for wildlife offences are welcomed. They represent a significant increase from current maximum penalties, particularly for the more serious offences, and reflect growing public awareness and concern about wildlife crime.
It's impossible to be certain that these proposed maximum penalties will serve as a deterrent. Studies have shown that increasing the tariffs available to the judiciary under wildlife legislation will count for little if the problems of early-stage
enforcement (e.g. under-resourcing, gathering evidence and investigating cases) are
also not addressed. In other words, regardless of the punitive value of a sentence, the
deterrent effect will be limited if an offender concludes that the chances of being
caught and receiving the punishment are minimal.
In relation to the illegal persecution of birds of prey, it is rare for an offender to be identified let alone prosecuted. There are a number of raptor persecution hotspots where offences are recorded repeatedly, year after year. It is quite clear that current deterrents are inadequate.
Nonetheless, assuming enforcement is adequate and an offender has been identified, prosecuted and convicted, then the severity of the sentence also becomes important. A prison sentence of five years, an unlimited fine, or both, does reflect the abhorrence of the serious offences AND the conservation impact of the offence on some protected species, assuming the court imposes the maximum tariff where appropriate.
It's impossible to be certain that these proposed maximum penalties will serve as a deterrent. Studies have shown that increasing the tariffs available to the judiciary under wildlife legislation will count for little if the problems of early-stage
enforcement (e.g. under-resourcing, gathering evidence and investigating cases) are
also not addressed. In other words, regardless of the punitive value of a sentence, the
deterrent effect will be limited if an offender concludes that the chances of being
caught and receiving the punishment are minimal.
In relation to the illegal persecution of birds of prey, it is rare for an offender to be identified let alone prosecuted. There are a number of raptor persecution hotspots where offences are recorded repeatedly, year after year. It is quite clear that current deterrents are inadequate.
Nonetheless, assuming enforcement is adequate and an offender has been identified, prosecuted and convicted, then the severity of the sentence also becomes important. A prison sentence of five years, an unlimited fine, or both, does reflect the abhorrence of the serious offences AND the conservation impact of the offence on some protected species, assuming the court imposes the maximum tariff where appropriate.
Can you give specific examples where existing maximum penalties have been insufficient?
Please provide any examples in the box below:
In relation to offences under the W&CA for the persecution of birds of prey I can't think of a single case where the maximum penalty has even been applied.
Prosecutions are few and far between due to enforcement issues and especially in recent years where it is believed offenders have switched tactics to help avoid prosecution. For examples of inadequate penalties being applied 2008-2013 please see Table 12 in Natural Injustice (Paper 1): A review of the enforcement of wildlife protection legislation in Scotland (2015), Scottish Environment LINK.
Only one offender has ever been given a custodial sentence for raptor persecution offences: a gamekeeper was sentenced to four months in 2015 for operating illegal traps and killing a goshawk onRedacted text. Redacted text
The most recent case involved the conviction of gamekeeperRedacted textwho pleaded guilty to nine offences on the Redacted textRedacted text
Redacted text His firearms and other equipment was confiscated. This sentence was described a 'monumentally inadequate' by the conservation community.
There was no vicarious liability prosecution for the estate.Redacted text
Prosecutions are few and far between due to enforcement issues and especially in recent years where it is believed offenders have switched tactics to help avoid prosecution. For examples of inadequate penalties being applied 2008-2013 please see Table 12 in Natural Injustice (Paper 1): A review of the enforcement of wildlife protection legislation in Scotland (2015), Scottish Environment LINK.
Only one offender has ever been given a custodial sentence for raptor persecution offences: a gamekeeper was sentenced to four months in 2015 for operating illegal traps and killing a goshawk on
The most recent case involved the conviction of gamekeeper
There was no vicarious liability prosecution for the estate.
Do the proposals on wildlife penalties fully address the recommendations of the Poustie review on penalties?
Please give your views in the box below:
To be honest, I can't remember. The Poustie Review was published four years ago and I'd have to find time to read it again in detail to be able to comment on this question.
Are the proposals for treatment of service animals necessary and appropriate?
Please give your views in the box below:
None
Will the proposals have implications for how evidence is gathered and treated?
Please enter your views in the box below:
None
New powers for enforcement agencies without a Court Order
Are the proposals to allow enforcement agencies to intervene without a need for a court order necessary and appropriate?
Please give your views in the box below:
None
What impact will the proposals have on: local authorities; animal welfare agencies, sanctuaries and rehoming centres; commercial businesses, individuals and; the welfare of different types of animal?
Please provide your views in the box below:
None
Compensation & Fixed Penalty Notices
Are the proposals to pay compensation to an owner necessary and appropriate?
Please give your views in the box below:
None
Will Fixed Penalty Notices act as a deterrent and how should they be used to maximise their positive impact on animal welfare?
Please give your views in the box below:
None
Any further issues or views
Do you have any further issues or views about the Bill, and the adequacy of other legislation to deal with wildlife crime, that have not been covered in previous questions.
Please provide any further issues or views you wish to raise in the box below:
I don't know if this is beyond the scope of the Bill but the failure to impose vicarious liability prosecutions in many cases of raptor persecution is a big issue.
Since its enactment on 1st January 2012 there have only been two successful prosecutions. There are at least a dozen cases where it could have been applied but wasn't. In some of those cases, the Crown Office has refused to provide an explanation other than 'it was not in the public interest to continue to trial'.
Of course, there may well be situations where a prosecution isn't warranted (e.g. the alleged offender has an adequate defence, or is of ill-health) but increased transparency would increase the public's confidence in these decisions.
Since its enactment on 1st January 2012 there have only been two successful prosecutions. There are at least a dozen cases where it could have been applied but wasn't. In some of those cases, the Crown Office has refused to provide an explanation other than 'it was not in the public interest to continue to trial'.
Of course, there may well be situations where a prosecution isn't warranted (e.g. the alleged offender has an adequate defence, or is of ill-health) but increased transparency would increase the public's confidence in these decisions.