Wildlife crime in Scotland: annual report 2021

2. Headline trends

This chapter outlines the main trends in wildlife crime recorded by the police, reports of those charged by the police and processed by COPFS and numbers of people proceeded against in court.

Recorded crime

Table 1 provides a summary of the different types of wildlife crime recorded by the police over the five year period to 2020-21. These recorded crime statistics are Scottish Government statistical output derived from Police Scotland's recorded crime database.

In 2020-21 there were 305 offences relating to wildlife recorded by the police. This is an increase of 55% in comparison with 2019-20 (196 recorded offences).

While overall recorded wildlife offences increased, Cruelty to wild animals offences dropped by 54% from the previous years. Fish Poaching was the most commonly recorded type of crime in 2020-21 with 107 offences. Hunting with dogs is the other most commonly recorded type of crime and has increased by 136% from the 2019-20 year.

Table 1: Wildlife crime recorded by Police Scotland, 2016-17 to 2020-21

Offences relating to:	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21
Badgers*	6	14	15	6	13
Birds	50	45	46	36	37
Conservation (protected sites)	1	5	3	5	9
Cruelty to wild animals	24	32	31	35	16
Deer	14	18	17	23	20
Fish poaching	68	45	24	27	107
Hunting with dogs	22	41	22	36	85
Poaching and game laws	6	3	2	2	1
Other wildlife offences	40	33	11	24	17
Total	231	236	171	196	305

Source: Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2020-21

*Labelled as 'Other Conservation Offences' in 2020-21 set

Table 2 presents the distribution of the types of wildlife crime between different Police Scotland divisions in 2020-21.

Table 2: Wildlife crime recorded, by Police Scotland Division, 2020-21

Offences relating to:	North East	Argyll & West Dunbartonshire	Ayrshire	Dumfries & Galloway	Edinburgh	Fife	Forth Valley	Greater Glasgow	Highland & Islands	Lanarkshire	Renfrewshire & Inverclyde	Tayside	The Lothians & Scottish Borders	Total
Badgers	4	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	3	3	0	2	0	13
Birds	7	0	1	1	2	0	5	4	5	3	1	4	4	37
Conservation (protected sites)	0	0	6	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	9
Cruelty to wild animals	0	0	1	2	0	0	1	0	5	2	0	0	5	16
Deer	6	2	1	2	0	0	2	1	1	1	1	0	3	20
Fish poaching	21	3	3	0	1	3	22	4	29	11	0	2	8	107
Hunting with dogs	25	0	2	1	0	10	10	0	1	0	1	17	18	85
Poaching and game laws	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Other wildlife offences	1	0	0	2	0	1	4	0	2	0	0	7	0	17
Total	65	5	14	9	3	15	44	9	47	20	3	33	38	305

Source: Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2020-21

The highest number of wildlife offences in 2020-21 was recorded in the North East (65), followed by the Highland & Islands (47) and Forth Valley (44). Table 2 also shows that the majority of all fish poaching offences were recorded in the North East (21), Forth Valley (22) and the Highlands and Islands (29) divisions.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Statistics

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service's (COPFS) dedicated Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit (WECU) has been in operation since 15 August 2011. WECU investigates and manages the prosecution of all cases involving crimes against wildlife.

Case work of the Wildlife & Environmental Crime Unit in 2020-21

Table 3 shows the breakdown of wildlife cases received by COPFS in each of the financial years 2016-17 to 2020-21, following the standard categories used elsewhere in this report. Notes and Definitions on the COPFS data are available in Appendix 2 – Notes and Definitions for COPFS Data.

Table 3: Wildlife cases received by COPFS in 2016-17 to 2020-21

Offence relating to:	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21
Badgers	*	*	*	3	2
Birds	24(*)	13	12	1	10
Cruelty to wild animals	8(*)	0	*(*)	0	2(2)
Deer	*	*	*	3	2
Fish poaching	35	18	15(*)	17	55(1)
Hunting with dogs	7	22	7	13	25
Other wildlife offences	14(*)	*	11	11	5
Other conservation offences	*	0	0	1	4
Total	94(5)	67	54(*)	49	105(3)

Source: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

*= data suppressed. See Appendix 2.

The figures in brackets in Table 3 indicate the number of reports submitted by a specialist reporting agency: in the case of fish poaching offences, by the River Tweed Commissioners and in the remaining categories, by the Scottish SPCA.

The outcomes of these cases are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Outcomes of all wildlife cases reported to COPFS in 2016-17 to 2020-21

All reports	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21
No action	27	30	19(*)	23	31(1)
Alternative to prosecution	35	23	18(*)	14	55
Prosecuted	32	14	17	12	19
of which convicted	25	*	11	5	10(2)
of which pending trial	-	-	-	6(2)	7
No. of reports received	94(5)	67	54(*)	49	105(3)

Source: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

*= data suppressed. See Appendix 2.

The figures in brackets in Table 4 indicate the number of reports submitted by a specialist reporting agency: in the case of fish poaching offences, by the River Tweed Commissioners and in the remaining categories, by the Scottish SPCA.

The following information relates to cases reported in 2020-21:

Prosecution in court was undertaken in 19 cases (18% of cases received):

• 10 cases resulted in a conviction (53% of cases prosecuted).
• 2 cases resulted in acquittal (10% of cases prosecuted). In some cases this reflects the verdict following trial and in others, the result of a plea adjustment.
• 7 cases are pending trial at the time of writing (37% of cases).

55 cases were dealt with by an alternative to prosecution (52% of cases received). Fiscal fines were issued in the majority of those cases. Warning letters were issued in others.

No action was taken in 31 cases (30% of cases received). In the majority of those cases, no action was taken for legal reasons.

The legal reasons included:

• circumstances that did not constitute a crime; and
• instances where there was insufficient evidence to permit proceedings.

Further information about cases received in 2020-21 is as follows:

• A total of 23 reports (22% of cases received) involved activity targeting hares or rabbits.
• 2 reports (2% of cases received) related to circumstances involving badgers.
• 25 cases (24% of cases received) involved dogs.
• 5 cases (5% of cases received) involved the use of traps and snares.
• The cases in the "Hunting with dogs" category related to allegations of hare coursing or deer coursing.

"Other wildlife offences" included alleged contraventions of regulation 39(1)(d) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 namely damaging or destroying the breeding site or resting place of a European protected species.

Other reported cases included circumstances involving bats and dolphins.

Further details of case outcomes in the individual categories are provided in Appendix 2A – Further Information on COPFS Case Outcomes.

Notable cases

Fish Poaching

• An individual was found guilty of fishing for salmon without legal right or written permission contrary to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, Sections 6(1) and (2) and was fined £300.

Hare Coursing

• An individual pled guilty to deliberately hunting hares and rabbits with dogs contrary to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2022, Section 1(1) and was made the subject of a Community Payback Order for 80 hours.
• An individual pled guilty to interfering with a badger sett by arranging clearance of land and damaging the badger sett contrary to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Section 3(1)(a) and was fined £9000.

Cruelty to Wild Animals

• An individual pled guilty to keeping dogs for an animal fight involving badgers and foxes contrary to the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, Section 23(1)(a). The individual was made the subject of a Community Payback Order of 160 hours and disqualified from owning, being in charge of or being in possession of dogs for a period of 5 years. A deprivation order was made in respect of the dogs involved.
• A further individual pled guilty to keeping and training dogs for an animal fight involving badgers and foxes contrary to the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, Section 23(1)(a). The individual was made the subject of a Community Payback Order of 270 hours and disqualified from owning or keeping dogs for a period of 4 years. A deprivation order was made in respect of the dogs involved.

Other Wildlife offences

• An individual pled guilty to recklessly killing an owl and a goshawk by catching the birds in a multi crow cage trap and failing to release them. Consequently they perished from exposure and lack of food and water contrary to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 1(1)(a). The individual was sentenced to a £300 fine.

Other Conservation Offences

• An individual was fined £2000 after intentionally or recklessly damaging a natural feature specified in a site of scientific interest contrary to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, Section 19(3).

Criminal proceedings statistics

Table 5 shows the number of people proceeded against in Scottish courts and the relevant conviction rates for wildlife offences between 2016-17 and 2020-21. Please note that this table is a summary and a breakdown of proceedings for specific offences is provided at Appendix 3 - Court proceedings and penalties data by specific offence.

Table 5: People proceeded against in Scottish Courts for wildlife crimes ¹, 2016-17 to 2020-21

Offences relating to:	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	Last five financial years
						Total proceedings	Conviction rate
Badgers	-	2	-	-	-	2	50%
Birds	4	3	2	4	-	13	100%
Cruelty to wild animals	2	5	-	3	-	10	90%
Deer	1	1	-	-	-	2	100%
Hunting with dogs	8	4	6	-	1	19	79%
Fish poaching	5	5	3	5	-	18	94%
Other wildlife offences	3	9	4	-	1	17	71%
Total proceeded against	23	27	15	12	2	81	85%
Total guilty	22	24	10	11	1
% guilty	96%	89%	67%	92%	50%
Total number of offences proceeded against2	59	52	43	33	8
Total number of offences found guilty2	32	25	15	24	3
% guilty2	54%	48%	35%	73%	38%

Source: Scottish Government Criminal Proceedings Database

1 Where main charge, excluding where stated

2 All charges

3 Data from 2020-21 are affected by the pandemic and subsequent court closures and should not be considered indicative of long term trends.

It is important to note that data from 2020-21 are affected by the pandemic and subsequent court closures and should not be considered indicative of long term trends. There were 2 people proceeded against for wildlife related offences in 2020-21, a 20% decrease from 2018-19 (15 people). The largest decrease for specific categories was in 'hunting with dogs' (with no persons proceeded against compared to six in 2017-18). There was, however, an increase in the number of proceedings for 'Cruelty to wild animals' and 'Fish poaching', up to three and five respectively in 2019-20 from zero and three in 2018-19.

Conviction rates for individual wildlife crime categories have been presented as a five year average due to the small numbers of proceedings for some categories. This shows that conviction rates vary among these categories, from 50% to 100%.

Although a single court proceeding can involve a number of different offences, it should be noted that Criminal Proceedings statistics only report on the 'main charge'. Unless otherwise stated, proceedings and convictions for wildlife crimes referred to in this section are for when the wildlife crime was the main charge in a single court proceeding. For example, if a shotgun offence receives a higher penalty than a wildlife offence in the same proceeding, the shotgun offence would be counted, not the wildlife offence. To illustrate the difference, the total number of individual wildlife offence convictions in each year, regardless of whether the wildlife offence was the main charge or not, are presented at the bottom of Table 5.

In 2020-21 court proceedings were held covering a total of 8 wildlife crime offences, in comparison to the 3 proceedings where wildlife crime was the main charge in a case.

Tables 6 and 7 present information on penalties issued for wildlife crime convictions and have been presented as aggregate figures due to the small numbers of proceedings for some crime categories in individual years.

Table 6: People with a charge* proved for wildlife crimes in Scottish Courts, by main penalty, 2016-17 to 2020-21

	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21
People proceeded against	23	29	15	12	2
People with a charge proved	22	25	10	11	1
Of which received:
Custody	1	2	-	-	-
Community sentence	5	3	1	4	1
Monetary	15	17	7	7	-
Other	1	3	2	-	-

Source: Criminal Proceedings Statistics

* Where main charge

1. Data from 2020-21 are affected by the pandemic and subsequent court closures and should not be considered indicative of long term trends.

In Table 7, aggregate totals for the five years from 2016-17 to 2020-21 show that monetary punishments are mostly likely to be given for all wildlife crime types. Only 4% of all wildlife crime convictions resulted in a custodial sentence.

Average fines and custodial sentences are also presented in Table 7. 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 nor is it available for other types of crime.

Table 7: People with a charge* proved for wildlife crimes in Scottish Courts, by main penalty and wildlife crime, 2016-17 to 2020-21

Offences relating to:	2016-17 to 2020-21 totals					Average
	Total with a charge proved	Custody	Community sentence	Monetary	Other	Custodial sentence length (days)	Monetary fine (£)
Badgers	1	-	-	1	-	-	300
Birds	13	-	2	9	2	-	840
Cruelty to wild animals	9	1	1	6	1	126	475
Deer	2	-	-	2	-	-	413
Hunting with dogs	15	2	4	9	-	142	1,074
Fish poaching	17	-	4	10	3	-	248
Other wildlife offences	12	-	3	9	-	-	856
Totals	69	3	14	46	6	137	682

Source: Criminal Proceedings Statistics

* Where main charge

1. Data from 2020-21 are affected by the pandemic and subsequent court closures and should not be considered indicative of long term trends.

Comparing data sources

While the criminal justice IT systems represented in Tables 1 to 7 have common standards in terms of classifying crimes and penalties, care should be taken when comparing the different sets of statistics:

• Prosecutions may not happen or be concluded in the same year as a crime was recorded by Police Scotland. Timing is also an issue when comparing COPFS figures (which refer to prosecutions brought in respect of cases reported to COPFS in each financial year) and Criminal Proceedings statistics (which represent only prosecutions commenced and, of those, prosecutions concluded to the point of conviction, in each financial year)
• In the Police Scotland recorded crime statistics, a single crime or offence recorded by the police may have more than one perpetrator. By comparison the court statistics measure individuals who are proceeded against, which may be for more than one crime. As outlined above, only the main charge in a prosecution is presented for criminal proceeding statistics
• There is the possibility that the crime or offence recorded by Police Scotland may be altered e.g. when Police Scotland submit a report of alleged offending to COPFS, and COPFS may alter the charges during their case marking process, which makes it difficult to track crimes through the criminal justice process
• Additionally, crimes and offences alleged to have been committed by children less than 16 years old are not included in the criminal proceedings statistics as these are representative of activity in the adult courts. Young people are generally processed through the children's hearings system
• There may be discontinuity when comparing between the National Statistics data and Police Scotland data as any information provided by Police Scotland is taken from a 'live' system which is continually being updated as investigations progress. Whereas, the data provided by Police Scotland for the production of the National Statistics on Recorded Crime is extracted at the same time each year and is not back-revised. As a result, a reduction of in the number of crimes and offences recorded is expected due to two main scenarios:
  • 1. Crimes and offences can be reclassified to a different crime or offence type i.e. from a wildlife crime to a different kind of crime, or
  • 2. they can be re-designated as not being a crime following additional investigations.