Criminal proceedings statistics

This section presents Scottish Government data on criminal proceedings related to wildlife crime. Note that not every recorded crime leads to a court proceeding. Data are presented for people proceeded against, and from a different source to the COPFS statistics in the previous section, hence figures are not directly comparable. Three important differences to note are:

• In this section, figures are presented according to the year that proceedings concluded in court, whereas in the COPFS section, figures are presented according to the year that cases are received.
• In this section, the unit of measurement is normally the number of people or number of offences. In the COPFS section, the unit of measurement is the number of cases, where a single case can include multiple people or offences.
• Figures in this section are presented according to main charge, as detailed below. However, in the previous COPFS section, figures related to cases in which at least one statutory wildlife offence was reported to COPFS. The COPFS figures may also include those reported as animal welfare offences only or in which a common law offence with a wildlife element has been reported, such as breach of the peace or culpable and reckless conduct.

Data in this section are presented up to 2023-24.

Criminal proceedings for wildlife crime

Where a single court proceeding involves a number of different offences, at least one of which concerns wildlife crime, criminal proceedings statistics only report it as a wildlife crime where this is the 'main charge'. The main charge is the one that conferred the most severe penalty, or the charge with the most serious crime code. More details on how main charge is defined are available in the Criminal Proceedings in Scotland bulletin and its annexes. Although there were 20 prosecutions in 2023-24 where wildlife crime was the main charge, there were a further 72 wildlife offences where it was not the main charge, giving a total of 92 offences prosecuted.

There have been some revisions to criminal proceedings figures for previous years. Cases which were not properly concluded in court have now been excluded from the results. This revision affects a small number of cases, and the effect is to slightly reduce the total number of proceedings. As a consequence, this slightly increases conviction rates.

Figure 5 shows the number of people proceeded against for wildlife crime in Scottish courts in 2023-24 by offence category, where wildlife crime was the main charge.

There were 20 people proceeded against in 2023-24 where wildlife crime was the main charge.
Figure 5: people prosecuted in Scottish Courts for wildlife crime offences in 2019-20 to 2023-24, where main charge.

Over the period, 2019-20 to 2023-24, annual wildlife crime prosecutions have varied substantially, with the COVID-19 pandemic likely to have had a major impact. Hence data for the period covered in Figure 5 should not be used to infer any long-term trends in wildlife crime prosecutions.

In 2023-24, the top three offence categories for criminal proceedings were hunting with dogs (six people), followed by ‘cruelty to wild animals’ and ‘other wildlife offences’ (both four people). Seventy percent of those proceeded against in 2023-24 were convicted. Considering offences, rather than people, 48% of offences were convicted (44 out of 92 offences).

In Figure 6, conviction rates for individual wildlife crime categories (where main charge) have been presented as a five-year average due to the small numbers of proceedings for some categories. Conviction rates vary across these categories, from 54% for ‘other wildlife offences’, to 100% for fish poaching. Percentage figures are not reported where fewer than 10 people were prosecuted.

The five-year average conviction rate for people prosecuted for wildlife crimes over 2019-20 to 2023-24 was 74%.
Figure 6: conviction rates for all prosecutions in Scottish courts for wildlife crime from 2019-20 to 2023-24.

For the 14 people convicted of a wildlife offence in 2023-24 (where main charge), Figure 7 shows the breakdown of penalties imposed. The most common punishment was a monetary penalty (eight people), followed by a community sentence (five people). This is broadly in line with aggregate totals for the five years from 2019-20 to 2023-24 which show that monetary penalties were the most common main penalty for wildlife crimes (36 out of 62 convictions; 58%) and no wildlife crime convictions during that period resulted in a custodial sentence*, where main charge.

*Note – although the wildlife crime element was not reported in the criminal proceedings data as the “main charge”, COPFS reported one case which concluded in 2022 with a custodial sentence for each of two charges – threatening and abusive behaviour and an s1 Wildlife and Countryside Act charge.

The most common main punishment for a wildlife crime conviction in 2023-24 was a monetary penalty.
Figure 7: people with a charge proved for wildlife crimes in Scottish Courts (where main charge), by main penalty, 2023-24.

Looking over a five-year period, the average monetary fine imposed for wildlife crimes was £1,335, with average fines by category ranging from £334 for fish poaching to £3,075 for offences against badgers.

It is not possible to establish the average number of Community Payback Order (CPO) hours as this information is not held in the Criminal Proceedings database.

Further detail: see Tables 18 to 25 of the supporting documents for people and offences proceeded against (2019-20 to 2023-24), conviction rates and penalties (including fines imposed).

Link between wildlife crime and convictions for other types of crime

As a result of user engagement following the publication of last year’s report, it was found that there is interest in understanding whether there are links between wildlife crimes and other types of crime.

In response to that requirement, this report includes a new section, which considers the criminal histories of those convicted of wildlife offences based on further exploration of Scottish Government criminal proceedings data. In particular, whether or not individuals who were convicted of wildlife crimes in the five-year period 2019-20 to 2023-24 had any previous convictions for other types of offence (i.e. not wildlife crimes) in the 10-year period preceding their wildlife crime. These previous convictions are counted according to the main charge, which is the most serious charge or that which carried that most severe penalty.

Around three-quarters of those convicted of hunting with dogs offences had at least one conviction for a non-wildlife offence in the previous 10 years.
Figure 8: for those convicted of wildlife offences from 2019-20 to 2023-24, number of people with at least one conviction for a non-wildlife offence in the previous 10 years.

In the five-year period 2019-20 to 2023-24, 62 people were convicted of a wildlife offence, where main charge. Of those 62 people, half of them (31 people) had at least one conviction for a non-wildlife offence in the previous 10 years. As can be seen in Figure 8, above, a particularly high percentage (76%) of those convicted of hunting with dogs (typically hare and deer coursing) had previous convictions for non-wildlife offences.

Of the 31 people with previous convictions for non-wildlife crimes, the previous convictions (87 in total), were for a range of offence types. The most frequent categories for previous convictions were:

• Road traffic offences (e.g. unlawful use, speeding): 44
• Anti-social offences (e.g. threatening or abusive behaviour): 15
• Crimes against society (e.g. weapons possession): 11
• Non-sexual crimes of violence (e.g. common assault): 11

Further detail: see Tables 26 and 27 for additional information on previous convictions, including previous wildlife crime convictions.