Publication - Progress report

Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group: report

Published: 19 Nov 2015
Directorate:
Environment and Forestry Directorate
Part of:
Environment and climate change
ISBN:
9781785448317

Report from the review group commissioned by Scottish Government to examine whether the penalties for wildlife crimes were adequate and a deterrent.

75 page PDF

1.2 MB

75 page PDF

1.2 MB

Contents
Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group: report
Annex 3 - Background tables for questionnaire responses

75 page PDF

1.2 MB

Annex 3 - Background tables for questionnaire responses

Q1. Do you consider that the penalties available to the courts for wildlife crime in general are a deterrent?

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 13 21%
No 43 70%
Both 1 2%
Don't Know 4 7%
Total 61  

Q2. Do you consider that the penalties imposed by the courts for wildlife crime in general are a deterrent?

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 6 10%
No 56 90%
Don't Know 0 0%
Total 62  

Q3. Are there any particular sorts of wildlife crime where you believe the penalties imposed are not appropriate?

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 47 81%
No 7 12%
Don't Know 4 7%
Total 58  

Q4. Are there any particular sorts of wildlife crime where you believe the penalties imposed are appropriate?

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 21 35%
No 19 32%
Don't Know 20 33%
Total 60  

Q5. Are wildlife crime penalties:

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Too low 49 82%
About right 8 13%
Too high 2 3%
Some too low, some about right 1 2%
Total 60  

Q6. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents minor regulatory offences and 5 represents the most serious offences such as murder, where would you place the following offences

Offence Type Average
Killing birds of prey 3.8
Failing to observe trapping or snaring regulations 3.2
Badger baiting 3.7
Removing or damaging freshwater pearl mussels 3.5
Trading in endangered species 3.9
Poaching (deer, salmon etc 2.6
Killing bats / destroying bat roosts 3.5
Coursing (of mammals with dogs) 3.5

Q7. Which of following (court admonishment, court fine, community payback order (CPO), prison) would be appropriate for the following offences?

Offence Type Number (and %) of Respondents
Admonishment Court Fine CPO Prison Total
Killing birds of prey 1 (2%) 13 (22%) 11 (18%) 55 (92%) 60
Failing to observe trapping/snaring regs 5 (8%) 34 (58%) 17 (29%) 25 (42%) 59
Badger baiting 1 (2%) 19 (32%) 15 (25%) 51 (86%) 59
Removing/damaging pearl mussels 1 (2%) 28 (47%) 25 (42%) 28 (47%) 59
Trading in endangered species 2 (3%) 15 (25%) 12 (20%) 52 (88%) 59
Poaching (deer, salmon etc) 12 (20%) 35 (59%) 29 (49%) 15 (25%) 59
Killing bats/destroying roosts 2 (3%) 30 (51%) 27 (46%) 27 (46%) 59
Coursing (of mammals with dogs) 1 (2%) 24 (41%) 24 (41%) 36 (61%) 59

Note: Respondents could select more than one appropriate penalty for each type of offence and so the sum of the percentages in each row is greater than 100%.

Q8. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "not at all" and 5 represents "completely", to what extent do you think that Scottish criminal courts should take into account the impact of wildlife crime when sentencing?

  Average
(a) on the environment (or ecosystems)? 4.6
(b) on rural businesses? 3.6
(c) on the Scottish brand as regards tourism, food and drink exports? 4.2
(d) on animal welfare? 4.5

Q9. Do you think that different or additional penalties, other than those listed in Q7, should be available to the Scottish criminal courts to deal with wildlife crime?

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 42 74%
No 9 16%
Don't Know 6 11%
Total 57  

Q10. Should Court judgements provide background information on why certain penalties have been imposed?

Answer Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 58 95%
No 1 2%
Don't Know 2 3%
Total 61  

Contact