February 2018
For years, we have seen criminals getting away with derisory sentences or very small fines and courts not understanding the seriousness of the crimes in front of them, mainly due to a lack of sentencing guidance. There has been some improvement in recent years, but this is a small step forward.
So can you imagine my surprise when I hear that ‘Civil Sanctions’ may be used in the new COTES (Control of Trade in Endangered Species) Regulations? This would essentially mean downgrading some wildlife sentences to a small fine. We rely on the effective use of sanctions and the fear of offenders being processed through the justice system to stop people offending. This is a vital tool in successful wildlife law enforcement. Facing a possible prison sentence and unlimited fine really do act as a deterrent - but a Civil Sanction fine would not.
Money is one of the key drivers behind the illegal wildlife trade, with vast amounts of profit made by criminals. It would be a huge let-down if the Government choose to move away from a criminal penalty, which currently has unlimited fines, compared to a Civil Sanction, which is in my eyes is a low grade, small, on the spot type of fine.
We have to ask, will this really act as a deterrent? Will this stop criminal gangs? I fear not. It will send the wrong message just as the UK is about to host the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference in London in October, with the eyes of the world looking at us.
In the UK, some wildlife crimes are currently not even recorded or notifiable. If we downgrade them even further without recording them, then we risk encouraging the illegal trade and publicly saying these are now minor offences. Currently our National Wildlife Crime Unit is not permanently funded and the Home Office tried cutting budgets and staff from the frontline CITES Border Force Team in 2017. Both of these vital agencies are leading the fight in the UK against the illegal wildlife trade - to remove criminal sanctions away from them is like giving criminals a get out of jail free card. The UK needs to have strong penalties, notifiable offences, sentencing guidance and well-funded and resourced specialist enforcement units in place prior to October’s conference if it really wants to be a global leader in this area.
Akella and Allan, in their paper ‘Dismantling Wildlife Crime’, argue that ‘investments in patrols, intelligence-led enforcement and multi-agency enforcement task forces will be ineffective in deterring wildlife crime, and essentially wasted, if cases are not successfully prosecuted.’ They also argue that if our sanctions for wildlife crimes are ‘insufficient to act as a deterrent, and do not reflect the seriousness of offences’ (St John et al., 2012) that again they will not act as deterrent and therefore encourage illegal activity.
The UK needs to be setting a global example and to be a world leader in the fight against wildlife crime. Any perceived weakening of our legislation at this critical time would be a big mistake. So here’s hoping the Government will reconsider Civil Sanctions in the new COTES regulations.
David Cowdrey, Head of Policy and Campaigns
IFAW
Follow David on Twitter @Padfootsguide and IFAW @IFAWUK.
The opinions expressed in this blog are the author's and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership
Latest Blog Posts