Memorandum from North Wales Police
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 I am the Chief Constable of North Wales
Police and also the spokesman for the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO) on Wildlife Crime. In this letter I will be submitting
evidence from both perspectives and will attempt to be clear where
my view as Chief Constable may differ from that of ACPO. Where
the views of ACPO are expressed they can be taken as the view
of the Police Service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
1.2 The term wildlife crime appears not
to have been identified by the committee. The Police service does
not have a definition for the term but generally we would look
to offences falling within the following legislation as being
wildlife crime:
— Game Acts (including Deer and Salmon
and Freshwater Fisheries acts).
— Part i Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981
— Protection of Badgers Act 1992
— Part iii Conservation (Natural
Habitats & C) Regulations 1994
— Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996
— Control of Trade in Endangered Species
(Enforcement) Regulations 1997
1.3 It is clear from this list that not
all wildlife crime is confined to species in the wild as much
of the illegal trade in endangered species involves captive bred
specimens. It is perhaps better to consider wildlife crime as
being crime with a conservation implication. Even here there are
difficulties because the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the
Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 rather than being conservation
based are welfare based. Both ACPO and North Wales Police are
of the view that wildlife crime does not include legislation aimed
at ensuring the welfare of animals unless those offences are directed
at wild animals.
I would now submit views on the questions the
committee have raised:
2. WHAT IS
THE SCALE
AND IMPACT
OF WILDLIFE
CRIME?
2.1 The Police service in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland has little idea of the scale of wildlife
crime. We are required to keep statistics in a number of ways
but we have no requirement placed upon us to measure to measure
the extent of wildlife crime. All Police forces maintain statistics
in the following ways:
2.2 Crimes
These are offences that can be tried on indictment
or summarily. Few wildlife offences are crimes with the exceptions
being offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species
(Enforcement) Regulations 1997 and the release on non-native species
under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Unlike
offences such as theft or assault wildlife crime offences only
come to light when detected and as such the number of crimes cannot
be taken as any indication of the scale of the problem. Recently
work has been initiated to gauge the scale of illegal trade in
endangered species being conducted through Internet auction sites.
It is readily apparent that such trade is extensive but as yet
is not monitored sufficiently well to be reflected in crime figures.
2.3 Notifiable offences
Any offence that carries the potential of a
custodial sentence where persons have been reported for consideration
of prosecution must be recorded for statistical purposes. The
majority of wildlife offences are notifiable offences but within
the statistical reporting regime they are grouped together with
many other types of offences as miscellaneous offences and it
is not possible for them to be separated out to establish how
many relate to wildlife crime. A further difficulty is that these
statistics relate to the number of people reported for offences
and do not indicate the levels of undetected offending.
2.4 Event recording
Every Police force is obliged to provide statistics
to the Home Office on the types of call they receive. Specific
categories of calls have been identified which are standard throughout
the country. Those categories include "night poaching",
"poaching" and "wild birds protection" but
do not include categories that can be usefully utilised for other
wildlife offences such as badger baiting or the destruction of
the breeding sites of European Protected Species.
2.5 Within North Wales Police I have appointed
a Wildlife and Environmental Crime officer who has for the past
three years gathered information on the extent of wildlife crime
in North Wales. As a force we now know that we receive about 350
calls annually relating to wildlife crime. In 2002 the four Welsh
Police forces participated in a project that tried to gauge the
extent of wildlife crime in Wales. Two forces were able collect
information on a day-to-day basis from their event recording systems
whilst the other two contributed as they could. That project revealed
that in Wales in 2002 over 1,000 incidents of wildlife crime were
reported. A copy of the North Wales Police 2003 annual report
on wildlife crime is attached as appendix i.
2.6 It is my view that at present the UK
government is not able to properly gauge the extent of wildlife
crime. It may be that in the future such matters will in appropriate
circumstances be dealt with by means of fixed penalties and this
would in itself amount to a recording of detected offences. It
is the view of ACPO that the best way to establish the extent
of wildlife crime both detected and undetected will be via event
recording if the present Home Office classifications can be amended
to reflect the need for such statistics.
2.7 The impact of wildlife crime ranges
from negligible to serious organized criminal activity. The National
Criminal Intelligence Service has a national wildlife crime intelligence
unit that has initially identified issues of illegal caviar trade,
illegal trade in reptiles, birds of prey and parrots, and derivatives
of protected species in particular traditional medicines as being
priority issues. It is clear that this type of wildlife crime
not only threatens the very existence of certain species but also
involves organised criminal gangs who are involved because of
the substantial financial gain that can accrue from such activities.
2.8 Within the United Kingdom wildlife crime
has a substantial impact on our native species. In 2003 the Police
service met with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. As a
consequence of that meeting conservation objectives that the Police
could assist in achieving were identified as:
— Hen Harrier persecution. In England
the Hen Harrier faces extinction s a breeding species due primarily
to illegal actions such as shooting and illegal burning. Only
eight pairs successfully nested in the North of England in 2003
despite there being sufficient habitat to carry in excess of 230
pairs.
— Bat Crime. All species of bats in
the United Kingdom are of conservation concern with illegal activity
connected to development being the primary concern.
— Illegal trade in endangered species.
This area of criminal activity was identified because of the impact
it can have on the global populations of protected species.
— Regional concerns. It was recognised
that different areas of the United Kingdom might have areas of
conservation concern that are not regarded as a national problem.
In Wales regional objectives have been identified as development
activity impacting upon European Protected Species in particular
Dormice, Great Crested Newt and Otter, illegal burning on Sites
of Special Scientific Interest and the illegal use of off road
motor vehicles on Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
2.9 Other areas of wildlife crime can also
be shown to have had substantial impact on native species. The
illegal collection of wild bird eggs has until very recent times
impacted upon the populations of such species as Chough and Dartford
warbler. The extent of this problem has been much reduced in recent
years due to proactive police operations and the availability
of recently introduced custodial sentencing.
3. IS THE
FRAMEWORK OF
NATIONAL AND
EUROPEAN LAW
AND OF
INTERNATIONAL REGULATION
ROBUST ENOUGH
TO DEAL
WITH WILDLIFE
CRIME EFFECTIVELY?
3.1 It is the view of ACPO that the framework
of law and regulation is sufficiently robust for effective enforcement.
There is a view that regulations protecting European Protected
Species may in fact be so inflexible that in some circumstances
developers will commit offences because of the difficulties in
obtaining licences to relocate such species. In such circumstances
they may be faced with the choice of committing offences with
little chance of prosecution or not being able to carry out proposed
works. We feel that it would be of conservation benefit if regulations
adopted a more pragmatic approach to dealing with protected species
where they are locally common.
3.2 The legislation relating to wildlife
is not in itself complicated but does lack clarity on occasion
as to what legislators are seeking to protect. The small number
of cases being dealt with by courts has resulted in few stated
cases and as a consequence many of the provisions in both acts
and regulations are not understood. By way of example damage to
bat roosts is an offence under both the Wildlife and Countryside
Act and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations. However
the term "roost" is not defined and there is no guidance
as to when a place previously occupied by bats loses its legal
protection.
3.3 Although not an operational Policing
issue I am aware that in some instances European Directives have
not been fully transposed into regulations. This is of course
a matter for government but it is an issue for police wildlife
crime officers who are dealing with environmental campaigners
who may have an incomplete understanding of the situation. A further
matter of concern is that reviews at present being carried out
of Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation
(Natural Habitats & c) 1994 must ensure that where species
feature in both pieces of legislation that there is consistency
between both. The proposed offshore habitats regulations must
also be consistent.
4. DO RESPONSIBLE
BODIES THAT
DEAL WITH
THIS TYPE
OF CRIME
HAVE SUFFICIENT
RESOURCES AND
POWERS TO
DO SO?
DO THEY
TREAT WILDLIFE
CRIME WITH
PROPER AND
DUE GRAVITY?
4.1 Chief Constables undoubtedly have sufficient
resources to deal with wildlife crime should we decide that such
matters should be resourced. However we receive no messages from
government indicating that these matters should have resources
directed towards it. Few Chief Constables are therefore prepared
to dedicate resources towards areas they are not asked to concentrate
on. Within England, Wales and Northern Ireland the majority of
forces recognise wildlife crime as being Police business. Most
seek to address the issue via a network of divisional wildlife
officers carrying that responsibility in addition to their other
roles. These networks sometimes operate through a co-ordinating
officer who in the majority of cases also carries out the role
in addition to other duties. The lack of importance attached to
wildlife crime by managers within the Police service often results
in wildlife crime officers being unable to operate effectively
being given little encouragement and time to carry out their duties.
It is widely recognised by those with knowledge of the area that
were it not for the enthusiasm and dedication of some of those
officers wildlife crime would not be investigated.
A number of forces (17) have full time wildlife
crime officers, of those 11 utilise Police officers, 3 utilise
support staff and 3 utilise Police officers who have other duties
although they spend a substantial part of their duties addressing
wildlife crime. Recent years has seen an increase in the number
of forces utilising full time wildlife crime officers. However
without records demonstrating the extent of wildlife crime it
is difficult to present a business case for such officers and
appointments seem in some instances dependent on the views of
chief Police officers. A change of senior management within a
force more often than not leads to a review of the post of wildlife
crime officer and the numbers of officers performing the role
full time only shows slight increase because for each post created
another may be lost. In my own period in office a number of forces
including the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have
created full time posts but these gains have been offset by the
loss of posts in Thames Valley and Lancashire Police areas.
4.2 The passing of legislation primarily
the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice
Act 2003 have done much to ensure that Police officers have powers
to effectively enforce the law. There remain areas where our powers
do not permit proactive Police action in particular in relation
to offences under the Protection of Badgers Act. We are hopeful
however that issues such as this can be addressed during the reviews
at present being undertaken of Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 and of animal welfare legislation.
4.3 No environmental or wildlife crimes
are considered to be serious arrestable offences and the definition
of serious crime within the Police Act does not include any environmental
or wildlife crime. As a consequence the police are often unable
to investigate matters as effectively as they can when investigating
serious crime. Wildlife crime sometimes involves threats to the
extinction of species locally nationally or internationally. Such
matters should surely be seen as serious crime.
4.4 Reducing instances of wildlife crime
rather than the prosecution of offenders must be the approach
shown by wildlife crime officers and the benefits to wildlife
of early intervention need no further explanation. Reports are
often received to the effect that development threatens protected
species and it would always be the preferred option of the Police
to take action to prevent offences taking place. Our reaction
to such reports is often limited simply because of a lack of data
to show the presence of such species. Whilst planning legislation
can often be utilised to prove or disprove presence of protected
species many reports of crime cannot depend on this mechanism.
In such cases there is in my view a need to provide powers of
entry onto land and buildings to the statutory nature conservation
agencies. Such powers would enable those officers to carry out
surveys of land to confirm or disprove the presence of protected
species and this would do much facilitate an effective Police
response.
4.5 I would suggest that at present the
message received from government is that wildlife crime is not
an issue that needs to be given any sort of priority by the Police
albeit that the legislation does make it clear that it is Police
business. As already explained it is very difficult to obtain
any form of national statistics relating to wildlife crime and
this suggests indifference to the extent of the problem. This
leads to the perception amongst many Police officers that wildlife
crime is an unimportant issue. There are certain wildlife crime
investigations where the keeping and care of exhibits leads to
charges totalling many thousands of pounds. Many officers managing
budgets will baulk at the cost of such investigations and matters
might not be investigated because of the cost implications. This
again occurs because of the perception that wildlife crime is
unimportant.
5. IS THERE
SUFFICIENT DIALOGUE
AND CO-OPERATION
ACROSS GOVERNMENT
AND AMONGST
THE VARIOUS
BODIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEALING
WITH THIS
SORT OF
CRIME?
5.1 The Partnership for Action against Wildlife
crime (PAW) has been established to assist enforcement agencies
in tackling wildlife crime and is co-chaired by Mr Martin Brasher
of DEFRA and myself. The partners consist not only our two organisations
but also many other organisations both government and non-government
all of whom have an interest in tackling wildlife crime. This
partnership has existed for some years and has achieved significant
results including the strengthening of Police powers in relation
to wildlife crime.
5.2 There are a number of other partnerships
that have been initiated with a view to tackling wildlife crime.
Within Wales a partnership has been established between the Police
service and the Countryside Council for Wales that has seen the
secondment of two Police Sergeants to work in the offices of CCW.
Those officers are charged with reducing wildlife crime in Wales
and act in a coordinating role ensuring that reports of wildlife
crime in their areas are dealt with in an effective manner.
5.3 Last year the Police service asked the
Joint nature Conservation Committee to identify conservation objectives
that the Police could assist in achieving. As previously explained
we are now clear as to what our wildlife priorities are Hen Harrier
persecution, crimes directed against bats, the illegal trade in
endangered species s well as identified regional objectives.
5.4 The illegal trade in endangered species
is one which colleagues in HM Customs and Excise have a great
deal of expertise. The Police service is utilising that expertise
through joint Police/Customs training courses.
5.5 Non government agencies also work in
partnership with the Police service, the RSPB has a respected
investigations unit that routinely works in partnership with Police
officers and also provides training input to Police forces. Traffic
International, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation
and the Confederation of Badger Groups are three other organisations
with whom we have valuable partnerships and there are many others
that could be detailed further.
5.6 This does I feel provide ample evidence
that the Police service and others do confer and cooperate when
addressing wildlife crime. We should not however think that we
have done enough. It is equally clear that in certain areas we
need to improve. In particular I believe that the Police service
still has much to do to build partnerships with organisations
such as Local Authorities, English Nature and the Environment
Agency.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 The committee's press release asks if
there are any other areas of environmental crime that need to
be considered. The Police service as I explained in my opening
statement looks at wildlife crime as crime against species. It
is however important that the issue of crime against habitat is
considered as without habitat in which to thrive no amount of
work will secure the needs of biodiversity. The protected site
regime and how offences committed under that regime are dealt
with is I feel a further area that could be considered by the
environmental audit committee if it is not doing so under this
wildlife crime heading.
6.2 The Statutory Nature Conservation Committee
who also makes decisions as to how such matters are finalised
investigates crimes committed against Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). Legislation at present being considered in Scotland
aims to provide Police officers with powers to investigate such
matters and in Wales investigations are conducted by Police officers
at the request of the Countryside Council for Wales.
6.3 Such arrangements result in crimes against
SSSI's being investigated using any Police resources that are
available for any other type of criminal investigation including
forensic expertise and specialist equipment such as air support.
I would like to see such arrangements in place throughout England,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
March 2004
| 
