beta

You're viewing our new website - find out more

Publication - Report

Wildlife crime in Scotland: 2015 annual report

Published: 25 Nov 2016
Part of:
Environment and climate change, Law and order
ISBN:
9781786526199

The fourth wildlife crime annual report, this highlights new data from the financial year 2014 to 2015.

70 page PDF

2.4MB

70 page PDF

2.4MB

Contents
Wildlife crime in Scotland: 2015 annual report
Appendix 3A - Further information on COPFS Case Outcomes

70 page PDF

2.4MB

Appendix 3A - Further information on COPFS Case Outcomes

Table A: Outcomes of all fish poaching cases

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

13

11

9

Alternative to prosecution

18

16

21

Prosecuted

24

33

8

of which convicted

19

23

8

Total number of reports received

55

60

38

Table B: Outcomes of all other wildlife cases

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

Under investigation

1

1

No action

22

18

14

Alternative to prosecution

12

14

13

Prosecuted

37

32

32*

of which convicted

25

24

20

Total number of reports received

71

65

60

*One prosecution remains live

Outcomes by Individual Case Category

Table C: Offences relating to badgers

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

1

1

Alternative to prosecution

1

Prosecuted

2

2

of which convicted

2

1

No. of reports received

3

4

Table D: Offences relating to birds

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

Under investigation

1

1

No action

7

3

3

Alternative to prosecution

2

5

3

Prosecuted

11

12

10**

of which convicted

8

10

7

No. of reports received

20

21

17

**One prosecution remains live

Table E: Offences relating to cruelty to wild animals

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

1

2

3

Alternative to prosecution

2

3

2

Prosecuted

4

5

6

of which convicted

2

4

4

No. of reports received

7

10

11

Table F: Offences relating to deer

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

2

2

Alternative to prosecution

1

1

Prosecuted

5

3

3

of which convicted

3

2

1

No. of reports received

8

4

5

Table G: Offences relating to hunting with dogs

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

2

7

2

Alternative to prosecution

Prosecuted

7

6

4

of which convicted

5

3

2

No. of reports received

9

13

6

Table H: Other wildlife offences

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

8

6

3

Alternative to prosecution

7

5

7

Prosecuted

8

6

7

of which convicted

5

5

5

No. of reports received

23

17

17

Table I: Other conservation offences

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

1

Alternative to prosecution

Prosecuted

of which convicted

No. of reports received

1

Badger cases - supplementary note

Between April 2012 and March 2015, four reports were submitted to COPFS in which an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 was the lead charge. A further three reports contained a charge under the Act, but the lead charge was one under snaring or animal welfare legislation. The figures provided in Tables 3 and in Table C of Appendix 3A reflect all seven cases.

The tables reflect case outcomes for any other appropriate offence, including snaring and animal welfare offences, if the circumstances did not justify the reporting or prosecution of charges under the Act.

A further 3 cases reported in these 3 years related to circumstances in which badgers were affected, bringing the total number of cases to 10. The outcomes of these 10 cases are shown in Table J below.

Table J: Case outcomes of supplementary Badgers offences

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-2015

No action

1

1

Alternative to prosecution

1

Prosecuted

3

4

of which convicted

3

3

No. of reports received

4

6

Six of the ten reports involved snaring incidents. In one such case, the evidence did not establish that an offence was committed. The remaining five were prosecuted and resulted in convictions.

Four of the reports related to sett interference, two of which involved the deliberate targeting of badgers and both were prosecuted. One resulted in a conviction. The other prosecution was brought to an end by the court. The remaining two cases related to agricultural or ground-work activity. One case was dealt with by the use of a prosecutor's direct measure. No action could be taken in the other case for legal reasons.


Contact