APPENDIX 1
Memorandum from the Bat Conservation Trust/RSPB[1]
1. Over a two year period April 2001 to
March 2003 there were six successful prosecutions relating to
bats. The total fines for all the prosecutions was only £2,600
(the maximum fine is £5,000 per offence). There were no prison
sentences. Bats are declining and endangered and the fines received
for the offences do not reflect the seriousness or the effect
on bat conservation. A total of 98% of bat offences reported involved
roosts (and therefore whole colonies of bats) rather than individual
bats, increasing the conservation significance.
2. No. During the two year period April
2001 to March 2003 a total of 144 offences against bats were reported.
67% were as a result of development and building work, often by
large companies. A number of companies told bat groups that unless
they saw the law being enforced they would continue to ignore
the legislation. Other companies told the police that it would
be cheaper to pay the fines than to properly take bats into consideration
during building works. The fines for damaging or destroying a
roost ranged from £200 to £1,500. In each case this
would be less than it would cost to properly take the bats into
consideration.
3. The introduction of prison sentences
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 could make a difference,
but it remains to be seen if they are handed out for any bat crime.
Prison sentences are urgently needed under The Conservation (Natural
Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994.
4. I try to provide CPS with a case file
for each bat prosecution, which details the conservation significance
of the case and the need for appropriate penalties in order to
act as a deterrent. I understand that WWF has produced sentencing
guidelines for wildlife crime for magistrates.
5. In previous bat cases my case file has
been used by the crown prosecutor. I do not know if the WWF guidelines
are being used.
6. Unknown.
January 2004
1 http://www.bats.org.uk/downloads/BatCrimeReport.pdf
also submitted. Back
| 
