Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 154)
THURSDAY 20 MAY 2004
SERGEANT PETER
CHARLESTON
Q140 Mrs Clark: In your evidence
you state that it is not that chief constables have insufficient
resources to donate to wildlife crime, but it is more the complete
absence of a message from government that this should be a priority
area to which resources have to be directed which dictates how
various forces up and down the country policed it and how many
resources they allocate themselves. How often are such priorities
reviewed with the Home Office?
Sergeant Charleston: I understand
that Home Office targets are produced annually.
Q141 Mrs Clark: Have ACPO raised
the need to review the priority attached to wildlife crime with
the Home Office?
Sergeant Charleston: ACPO have
been in touch with the Home Office on wildlife crime issues, and
certainly the Home Office are represented on the steering groups.
At the moment we have had no messages to suggest it is likely
to become a priority issue.
Q142 Mrs Clark: Perhaps that is something
we could usefully flag up during the course of this inquiry. We
have had evidence to make a link between wildlife crime and other
crimes such as burglary, drug offences and vehicle crime. Have
you found this in your own experience, and what action have you
taken to tackle it?
Sergeant Charleston: There are
certainly links between some wildlife crime and other criminal
behaviour.
Q143 Mrs Clark: So if somebody is
going to be likely to commit a crime against wildlife, it is also
odds on that they are into the other crimes as well.
Sergeant Charleston: I have little
doubt that people who are out committing poaching offences against
the Game Act are unlikely to walk past an unattended chainsaw
and will engage in criminal behaviour of that sort.
Q144 Mrs Clark: If that is the case,
is that not sufficient evidence for chief constables up and down
the country to move it up their priority list of resources?
Sergeant Charleston: The link
is certainly recognised. When we introduce initiatives, that link
between wildlife crime and other areas of criminal activity is
certainly highlighted as one of the reasons why you should be
putting resources into it. Rural crime as a whole is moving up
the agenda for chief constables, but still the wildlife crime
element plays a very small part in it.
Q145 Mrs Clark: It is very patchy,
is it not? Earlier on we talked about hare coursing and my experience
with the Cambridge force is that they have really cracked down
on it with very high profile initiatives, but obviously there
is not national consistency. Finally, to what extent do you think
organised crime is involved with wildlife crime?
Sergeant Charleston: I think much
of wildlife crime is organised. When we have looked at issues
of taking wild bird eggs, we know that people involved in that
activity communicate with each other, so to that extent that is
organised. The same could be said of those who go out badger baiting
or badger hunting. There are most definite links between people
living in different police areas and internationally. Much wildlife
crime can be said to be organised to a greater or lesser extent.
Q146 Mr Thomas: I want to pick up
on that point, Sergeant Charleston. I do not want to drag you
too deeply into a political argument, but you will recall that
this House is discussing a possible ban on fox hunting in the
future. If such a ban were to come about, the evidence we have
heard so far is that wildlife crime as a whole is under-manned,
under-staffed, under-prioritised generally. Do you think that
if the House of Commons and Parliament were to ban fox hunting
that that issue would have to be looked at as a wildlife crime
issue, or do you think we have to take a completely different
view of how you would then go about policing those issues, because
some people have said they would continue to organise fox hunting?
Sergeant Charleston: It is likely,
were fox hunting to be made illegal, that many police forces would
look to their wildlife crime officers to take the lead in addressing
the issue.
Q147 Mr Thomas: If it were to be
made a crime, are there experiences or links that you have, as
a wildlife crime officer, in relation to hare coursing or badger
baiting, and would you be using those experiences directly in
the fox-hunting context?
Sergeant Charleston: My first
reaction would be that we would, but without seeing the legislation
I could not say for sure.
Q148 Mr Thomas: I appreciate that.
You would not know what the penalties would be, which would be
an important consideration. Playing devil's advocate, could there
be a ban on fox hunting without wildlife crime becoming one of
the Home Office's priorities for police services? Would it be
practicable to do it unless the Home Office were involved . .
.
Sergeant Charleston: If fox hunting
were made illegal, the police force would see it as their business
to enforce the legislation. What priority we give to that would
depend on the messages we get as to how much resource we can put
towards it.
Q149 Paul Flynn: I do not know if
you remember the celebrated case involving a dozen of my constituents
who were arrested for duck feeding. They were a group of Ramblers
who were later compensated by the police in Dyfed-Powys, but they
were going to ramble in the Brecon Beacons, stopped on the way
to feed some ducks and then were arrested by the local police
and put in the slammer for eight hours. The police later compensated
each one of them, and the comment at the time was, "when
there is a hunt on here, the police go a bit daft." The resources
of the police are used energetically, with great diligence, to
protect the hunters at the moment, and if fox hunting is banned
would it not be a more profitable use of police time if they used
the resources they are using now to protect the hunt, which I
am sure must be a great burden to them if they are trying to arrest
my constituents in such a way, and would there not be an advantage
if there was a ban because it would be easier to arrest the fox
hunters than to arrest innocent ramblers?
Sergeant Charleston: I have no
knowledge of the particular case you refer to.
Q150 Paul Flynn: Do you not see that
there is a burden on police at the moment in protecting the hunt?
Sergeant Charleston: Yes, there
is.
Q151 Paul Flynn: And it is possibly
one that is an unreasonable burden. It would be much easier and
a more efficient use of resources if they had to arrest the hunters,
whose movements they have, rather than hunt saboteurs or people
who are innocent but suspected to be hunt saboteurs? I am trying
to make the point that Simon Thomas made. I am suggesting it would
reduce the burden on police when the ban on fox hunting, long
overdue, is introduced by this House.
Sergeant Charleston: the burden
on police in relation to fox hunting is concentrated at the moment
on the issues of public order. If fox hunting were to be made
illegal, then our response would depend to a great extent on the
powers that were given to us in relation to those matters.
Paul Flynn: Do you think it would be
a greater or lesser burden than it is now?
Chairman: We are straying into an area
of speculation. We have three minutes left in this part to include
questions that I think the Committee might find slightly more
relevant to the present inquiry.
Q152 Sue Doughty: I want to touch
on the issue of dialogue and co-operation between the different
organisations. We have had very positive evidence about your partnerships
with PAW and CCW. In your evidence you said that you had to do
quite a bit to build relationships with local authorities, with
English Nature and the Environment Agency. What dialogue do you
have with them now?
Sergeant Charleston: The dialogue
at the moment does take place and is patchy. In Wales we have
excellent dialogue in particular with the Countryside Council
for Wales. I am aware that in England some forces have very good
dialogue with agencies in their area; but as a national picture,
we can do much to improve the situation.
Q153 Sue Doughty: I understand what
you say about it being a national problem, but what are the specific
issues that are inhibiting this relationship? Are you doing anything
to break it down, or do you think it has to be done at the national
level and then cut down?
Sergeant Charleston: One of the
issues is the number of police forces there are in England, with
each force trying to build up relationships with those agencies.
English Nature is based in Peterborough and has regional offices,
and has a level of dialogue between those regional offices and
the resources they cover. We need to approach it on a more national
basis so that the same picture applies throughout.
Q154 Sue Doughty: Customs and Excise
deal with import and export of controlled species and non-native
species. What is your relationship with them? Do you have co-operation
with them?
Sergeant Charleston: We certainly
do have co-operation with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. They
have officers called CWESOs (Customs wildlife endangered species
officers) and they attend joint conferences with the police, looking
at wildlife crime. We have joint courses and Customs also sit
on the PAW steering group and take part in the PAW working groups.
Chairman: Bang on time! Thank you.
| 
