This is the evidence from someone with plentiful experience of investigating wildlife crime. Here are some excerpts from his expert testimony;
- I was a senior crime investigator with the police but found investigating wildlife crime a very frustrating part of my work as a police officer. Of the many wildlife crimes I was tasked to investigate in relation to birds of prey I succeeded only once in obtaining evidence to convict one gamekeeper of poisoning birds of prey. I dealt with many other cases of wildlife crime against raptors and although I was able to obtain evidence there was always insufficient evidence to prosecute and sadly in one case was badly let down by the prosecuting services. In many of these investigations there was sufficient evidence to prove culpability under civil law but the criminal law quite rightly requires a greater burden of proof to prove guilt.
- In these investigations and other wildlife incidents I was used to hearing the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and Land Managers distant themselves from these crimes saying there was no evidence to suggest their employees were responsible for the crimes being investigated. They would then follow up by saying they would do everything possible to assist the police. I never once heard of a case where the SGA gave the police good intelligence or assisted the police in relation to one of their members committing wildlife crime.
- I know that if the police are serious about stopping the illegal killing of golden eagle on grouse moors then it would require a dedicated team of police officers that are used to dealing with major incidents or serious crime to make inroads into these crimes. It simply is not going to happen. Sadly major wildlife crime is way down in the priorities of the police services although they will tell you different.
- In my opinion the only way to stop this type of crime is that the Scottish Government should issue licences to shooting estates. Then if the burden of proof against any estate under civil law is sufficient to prove that a serious wildlife crime has taken place then that licence is withdrawn from the guilty estate.
“In many of these investigations there was sufficient evidence to prove culpability under civil law but the criminal law quite rightly requires a greater burden of proof to prove guilt.”
I am aware that this is the opinion of an individual (albeit one with substantial professional experience in the matter) and that ultimately it is the courts who decide if a case is proven or not – but if this statement is correct it suggests an alternative strategy that the RSPB and other conservation bodies could pursue. If they have sufficient evidence to satisfy a civil court why not publicly name the individual concerned? If he sues he will lose and if he doesn’t then it is a tacit admission of guilt? A few such cases would substantially undermine the pretence peddled by supporters of DGS that the allegations of widespread crime are exaggerated or wrong.
Many estates and therefore their owners, have been publicly named in relation to wildlife crime in Scotland over the last 40 years, I myself used to help with that. I was never aware of even a single attempt to sue any individual, organisation or media outlet over that. They either couldn’t care less – as such killing of birds of prey/laying out poison has been such a normal and accepted practice over huge areas of the country – or they were clever enough to know that any court action would just turn up the spotlight…So..it patently hasnt worked as a conservation tool so far – I do feel however that at last the public generally are beginning to see what is going on and that it does affect them – their taxes paying for subsidies, their communities getting flooded, their local development held back, their local reputation tarnished….So yes, always name…but dont expect shame from these hardened criminals who feel they are entitled to be above the law.