It always strikes me as a bit odd that when we talk about crimes against wildlife we always refer to them as ‘wildlife crime’. Why not just crime? Illegal persecution of wildlife is a criminal act after all, but for some reason there is a need to label it differently to all other illegal behaviour. These crimes are notoriously downgraded which raises the question, is this downgrading because the victim is an animal?

Over the years we have seen a number of steps towards elevating the status of wildlife crime and raising awareness of the challenges which come with prosecuting those who persecute wildlife – in short, sending the message that wildlife crime is a crime in the same way as any other crime. There are a huge number of dedicated individuals and groups of people, including OneKind, who have campaigned for wildlife crime to be taken more seriously, policed more effectively and for the penalties to reflect the crime. In Scotland in recent years we’ve seen a thematic review on the issue, annual police conferences on combating wildlife crime and ongoing initiatives like the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.

OneKind has recently contributed views to a review of penalties for wildlife crime and supported proposals to give Scottish SPCA Inspectors more effective powers of investigation, stressing the suffering caused by these crimes, and the need to address them more rigorously. The last few weeks have seen two significant events which send the clearest message yet that wildlife persecution will not be tolerated. The first was the case of Ninian Stewart who became the first landowner to be fined for offences carried out by a gamekeeper in his employment. This is the first conviction for vicarious liability which came into force last year under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. Mr Stewart was fined £675 for the actions of a gamekeeper on his estate in Dumfries and Galloway who illegally poisoned a buzzard. Peter Bell was a full-time gamekeeper employed by Mr Stewart when he laced a pheasant carcass with carbofuran and set it as bait. While this might seem to be a relatively low fine the repercussions will be significant.

Just this week a gamekeeper in Aberdeenshire has been jailed for four months for illegally trapping and killing a goshawk. This is the first time a gamekeeper has been jailed for a crime against raptors. George Mutch was found guilty of four charges relating to recklessly killing or injuring a goshawk and illegally taking away two other raptors.

Both these cases are victories in the fight against wildlife persecution and send a strong message to those who think they are above the law. Nonetheless, as we made clear in our response to the wildlife penalties review, there is much more that can be done to deter and prevent these largely premeditated crimes. Existing penalty levels under the summary court process may be adequate for straightforward first offences, but they quickly fall short when a case involves many victims, extreme cruelty or repeat offending, and they need to be increased. OneKind would like courts to be able to order individuals convicted of wildlife crimes to undergo a programme to give insight into the impact of their behaviour on their fellow creatures. We also support moves towards withdrawing the open general licence from land where there is evidence of crimes against protected birds of prey – indeed, we have called for this to be extended to cover all forms of wildlife crimes. In other words, if we can avoid the protracted and costly court process we may be able to address wildlife crimes before they are committed.

At OneKind welfare in the wild is one of our priority campaigns and during the course of our fieldwork we see harrowing cases of cruelty, many of which go unprosecuted. We would like to think these recent cases show that the laws can and will be upheld consistently, so be it raptor persecution, snaring and trapping, badger baiting or any other act which causes needless suffering, there is no place to hide. The net must close in on those who break the law in the countryside and we will continue to work to expose this.

Our fieldwork is a vital part of our work but is costly. If you support the verdicts in these landmark cases then please donate to OneKind to help fund more work which could result in similar prosecutions.