 and welcome you to the 26-week event of this year's rule of affairs climate change and environment committee, before we move the first item let me remind everybody including the gallery that mobile phones, electronic devices should be switched off that can interfere with sound system, that can communicate to hit system that you may use tablets and politicians as part of the meeting papers. Agenda item one is subordinate legislation. The first item today for the committee to consider is the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2014 SSI 2014 stroke 260. Members should note that no mention to a null has been received in relation to this instrument and I refer members to the paper and ask if there are any comments about this subordinate legislation just now. There are none so far. I'm just going to raise the fact that in the paper that we've been presented with, it's clear that in terms of marine protected areas that the subject is extremely sensitive and that one of the policy objectives was hastened for this order in order to try and curb one fishing vessel which had broken the voluntary agreement not to troll in the marl beds on that ground. That's why this order was brought in at an earlier stage than the usual 28 days. Therefore, we understand why this happened and I just wanted to put on record that we're glad about the vigilance with regard to marl beds and the difficulties of policing them and that indeed we'll be very interested to see how they start to recover in due course. Apart from that comment, are there any others? Just because we have the opportunity to note, we don't usually worry about these things but the advantage of the negative procedure on these things is that it can be brought in immediately. We sometimes feel that the affirmative procedure is more important because it gives us more time to scrutinise things but actually there are times when you don't want time. We just need to get on with it. Any other comments with regard to that? Are we agreed that we don't wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument at present? We're agreed. Agenda item 2, the Scottish Government's wildlife crime in Scotland 2013 annual report. This second item today is for the committee to take evidence on the wildlife crime annual report for 2013 from Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate's Office. The committee will follow us up with evidence session next week with the minister and we welcome our witnesses today. Malcolm Graham, assistant chief constable, major crime and public protection, Police Scotland. Good morning. Robbie Allen, detective chief superintendent, wildlife crime portfolio holder and Police Scotland. Welcome. Patrick Hughes, head of wildlife and environmental crime unit in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We'd like to kick off a look at some issues related to the data in this report. Now, we recognise that in order to have data you have to have a good number of years data to be able to draw any conclusions about the relative merits of it. Looking at the data, there have been some suggestions that it could be clearer, but if we look at the quality of the data, why is the 2013-14 data not yet available and why does the report use a mixture of calendar year and financial year information for a start? Just indicate if you want to answer and the sound system will take care of your microphone. Malcolm Graham. Okay, thanks very much. I think that the main answer to that question is that there is a Scottish Government report. Scottish Government is responsible for the reporting period that it covers. I would also be safe to say that it is very much a work in progress that the first of such reports, as committee members will be aware, was produced last year. This year's report has sought to build on that, but I think that if the observation is, could the data be more consistent throughout the report and could it be more timely, then I think that the answer to both those questions in the future is yes, it should be. Indeed, some of the data that you refer to would be available, but I think that my understanding of the challenges posed is that it attempts to draw together data from a variety of different sources and source organisations and therefore to get some degree of comparability and consistency. The Government has made a decision to look at the reporting year of a calendar year, although you will see that some of the data, particularly that from the police, is working on the financial year, which would be consistent with all the data that the police produces. The only thing that I would add to that is that the terms of the report focus specifically on a calendar year, so the main focus of the report should be on the data that relates to calendar year 2013. The data that has been provided by the Crown Office does relate to 2013. I think that that is true for some other data but not for all the data that is in the report. You ask why data is provided in terms of financial or accounting years, and I think that that depends obviously on the organisation that provides it. You will see from the report that data has been provided which goes back over a number of years, again for financial and accounting years. My understanding is that the reason why the data has been presented in that way is to assist understanding and to provide some kind of context. I think that as we move forward the expectation would be that obviously this report will be a recurring event that in the future all of the data will focus on calendar years and that as we build up a database then we will essentially be able to compare one year, one calendar year against another and that would help considerably. I should say that as well that I think that we are all conscious that there are in terms of understanding the data and in terms of its presentation and its clarity, there is room for improvement. I should say as well that we have agreed with the Scottish Government that our technical staff will have a meeting ideally within the next month to clarify the extent to which the statistics that we use can be brought into line with each other, which would mean that the report for next year will hopefully be presentationally easier to understand. Thank you very much. With regard to the clearer picture of trends in the data, have you thought about disaggregating categories so that poaching offences can be seen as a separate category? I have to say that the Crown Office data does not do that. At the moment, there is no proposal from the Crown Office to disaggregate data that would relate to poaching as opposed to other wildlife offences. Part of the difficulty is that wildlife crime has a definition that has now been agreed through the partnership against wildlife crime in Scotland, which is its acts or emissions that have an effect on any wild animal or environment. That is the position that we are currently working in. At the same time, however, a great deal of the legislation that applies to the field has essentially been inherited from previous eras. You will know yourselves that a consolidation statute was recently passed, which effectively brought together and harmonised as much as possible the various statutes that we had. We have the position that, although some wildlife crimes are directed at the welfare of an animal at the need to protect endangered species, other ones are inherited from previous game acts, from the deer act, and are much more focused on poaching. The different statutory provisions have a different impact on the crime, depending on the nature of the crime, but I am sorry to answer your question. At present, we do not, certainly from the Crown Office's point of view, we would not propose to disaggregate that data. I understand why now, but we thought to ask because clearly that is something that hits the headlines separately and people understand the concept of poaching perhaps in a way. If no other members have a question on data, I would like to move on to there may be more, I suppose, later as we go through detection of wildlife crime. Jim Hume. Thank you, convener, and good morning to all. Obviously, you know what you know and you don't know what you don't know if that makes sense, but I am just trying to explore how much the data remains in looking at trends. For example, if you look at some of the incidents of wildlife crime regarding illegal pearl mussels, the fact that a river watcher started watching the river, they started to find out that there were more crimes than was thought before. In 2012, there were two regarding pearl mussel crimes and there were eight in 2013, but six of those were discovered by the river watcher through the survey, which did not happen before, similar with other animals too. In fact, the Scottish Raptor study group considers that we only know about the tip of the iceberg regarding raptor crime, so it would be interesting to find out from yourself whether you have any estimate of the proportion of different types of wildlife crimes that go and are detected. If those are low, which they probably are, is it meaningful to look at trends from year to year when the research is changing year on year? I don't want to get myself muddled up with known unknowns and known unknowns analogies, but it's safe to say that there are quite a number of known unknowns in the world of wildlife crime investigation, as there are in relation to quite a large number of other crimes reported to the police or crimes that we have to proactively seek. Wildlife crime falls into both of those categories, so some of them will only be found by the police or indeed other agencies proactively seeking them, but a number are recorded as a result of being reported to us by a member of the public and then further inquiry takes place. The known unknown is that there is a reasonable proportion of wildlife crime that will go unreported to the police and we accept that. Therefore, some interpretation that can be put on the figures is to say that an increase in reporting can be seen as an improvement in our ability to detect that the crimes are happening. It's always very difficult to get beneath that and say what proportion of any increase is down to improve scrutiny or monitoring and you need to look at cases often individually or in groups as they occur, as you've referred to, where you can perhaps attribute a specific finding to a specific bit of activity in one particular area and we have got some examples where that has happened across the piece. I think the other thing to say is that the numbers of reported crimes, a new use-determined tip of the iceberg, I can only put a feel on that from everything that we're getting from all of the intelligence sources that the police would use and indeed the information that we get from the other groups that we work with. It doesn't give me a sense that we are dealing with the tip of the iceberg. It does give me a sense that there's undoubtedly crimes that are unreported to the police and therefore go unrecorded. At what level that's at, I couldn't put a judgment on but it doesn't feel like we're only getting the tip of the iceberg. Therefore, I think that the final important point is that, because the numbers are so small of many of the recorded crime categories, I think it is very difficult to, with any validity, look at trend analysis. If you're looking at numbers that are in some cases for certain crime types against particular animals, for instance, as few as five, 10, 15, 20, doing a year-on-year comparison and trying to put any validity behind that, given that much of what we're speaking about may be unknown, I think is very difficult. Therefore, the trend analysis does have to come with some caveats, I think. Okay. Just to pull up on that, if I may convene it. That's interesting. I'm glad you're saying that you don't feel—and I realise that it's just a feeling—but you're in a perfect position to get that feel that it's not the tip of the iceberg. That is quite reassuring in some respects. It would be interesting to explore where you think we can improve our information, whether it's using amateur naturalist experiences, perhaps some scientific studies of wildlife populations, et cetera. Is that happening at the moment? Can that happen more? I'm sure that this isn't the case, but is it purely reactionary to when somebody reports you go out and look, or is there some proactivity where you actually work with some of these groups already? Absolutely. We'll work proactively with as many partners as we can bring on board to paint that picture for us. I think that, going forward, one of the big things that we do is raising awareness and making sure that what is out there to be reported to us does come to us. Do we look at modern technology around about the use of apps and things like that for people who come across wildlife crime out there? Very much, we attend all the various groups and study groups in Lincoln, but we just understand what that whole picture looks like so that it does start to inform us what we lay that across is the intelligence that we are receiving, the different reports that come into us just to try and paint that full picture, but I would agree that our assessment at the moment is not the tip of the iceberg. I think that we're getting a fair flavour of the wildlife crime that's out there, but there's undoubtedly an unreported number within that. No, that's okay. Okay, I'm okay. Thank you, Mr Allen. I'm just wondering if I can pick up on that. I feel like I'm the wrong generation for this app thing, but if I were to take a walk through the countryside, which I do very often, find myself looking at something suspicious, and I wouldn't actually even know what suspicious is, but maybe you could educate me on that. Would I be in a position to... Would I be in a special seminar? Would I be in a position to download an app that would enable me to take a photograph, send it to the right place, maybe even get back the right questions that I should then be asking myself to observe? Yeah, we've started a bit of work on that, and it would be, hopefully, a photograph, and also what it would do is it would locate you at the time that you're taking it, and that's the most important part of that. So, if there was a dead animal, for instance, found that there was any suspicion around about how that animal had died, that would be the perfect way of reporting that. It's instant, it's coming straight to us. We can start to put the appropriate measures on at the back of that, so I think we need to really start embracing modern technology and using that sort of technology to get that reports in and make it as easy as possible for members of the public or anyone to make the reports to us. Okay, thank you. Wildlife crime reports and proceedings, Graham Day. Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen. Maybe now deal with what we do know or appear to know. According to table 1A in the report, there were 1,554 wildlife crimes recorded in the period 2008 to 2013. According to table 9, there were proceedings taken in only around 19 per cent of those instances over that period. I think that the figure for 2012-13 is about 23 per cent. If those figures are accurate, what message does that send to perpetrators of wildlife crime? Because it appears the message is that even if you're caught, there's a three and four chance you're not going to be proceeded against. Excuse me. I think one point to be clear on with the data that appears in the report is that there is a use of different terminology throughout it and that you'll see, for example, that there is reference to incidents being reported, for example, being reported to the police. Not every incident that is reported will, on further investigation, cause suspicion amongst the police. Insofar as the police have a suspicion, it's not always the case that they will be in a position to have a case which, with corroborated evidence, they feel that they can actually report to the Procurator Fiscal. If they pass that hurdle, the Procurator Fiscal themselves may not feel that the evidence is strong enough to actually take into court. Finally, when a case does go into court, cases are sometimes the due result in acquittals. That's the first thing that I would say about the data. Because of the nature of it, because it comes from various different bodies, that has to be borne in mind that we're not always looking at exactly the same thing when we talk about cases, crimes or incidents. The other thing that I would say is that wildlife crime does present certain special issues that don't appear in other forms of crime. I think that this has been recognised for some time now. In 2008, I think that there was a joint inquiry that was led by the police inspectorate and by the Crown Inspectorate of Prosecution. One of the issues that was identified, first of all, was the legislation that was subsequently addressed significantly by the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act, but another factor that was raised by them was the sheer difficulty, which is raised by crimes that are committed so far out into the countryside, where there is a real problem with gathering evidence. If you compare the experience of crime in urban environments, where there is always, by definition, going to be a much larger supply of potential witnesses, as a result of that, a much greater scope for data gathering, those advantages that the system has in terms of fighting crime don't apply in wildlife crime. There are issues that are presented in wildlife crime that don't appear in other sorts of crime. What I would say is that steps have been proactively taken since the inspectorate report came out to ensure that wildlife crime is tackled and tackled effectively. Within the Crown Office, there is a team of specialised prosecutors who deal, in addition to environmental crime, also with wildlife crime. They are sectioned, they are ring-fenced effectively, from other forms of crime so that they can focus on that and build up a stock of expertise. I agree with you that if the figures are looked at in black and white, and if they are looked at in very bare terms, they give some cause for concern. I certainly would not claim to be complacent, and I do not think that anyone who is dealing with wildlife crime is. One thing that I would say is that the issue is being addressed proactively. It is a high priority for the Crown. I know that it is a high priority for the police, and we have a great deal of assistance from other partners through the pause network. I do not know if that assists. Mr Graham, your view? I would echo in some respects what Patrick has said, that different types of wildlife crime have different levels of success in terms of us detecting who the offenders are. Crimes that are reported to the police at the point where there is an offender present more frequently, such as fish poaching, some of the offences against salmon or trout being unlawfully obtained. I have a far higher solvency rate than some of the crimes that we would either proactively identify or be reported to us such as crimes against wild birds, where it is very rare that those crimes are identified whilst they are taking place. It is very rare that anyone makes a report to the police identifying an offender or giving any clue towards an offender. Our experience is that our ability to detect those crimes is therefore lessened. I would also echo the comments that our commitment but ability technically and through investigative means to detect crimes continues to improve. We have brought to bear a number of techniques to wildlife crime investigation, which have been generated through other types of police investigation into serious crime. We are now deploying those routinely into wildlife crime. We are looking at forensic examinations at the point that we recover any evidence, whether that be a wild animal or a crime scene, and applying the same crime scene forensic protocols that we would apply to other serious crimes has started to yield a different level of evidence than would have been the case in the past. We are looking increasingly at the use of intelligence, which has been very successful in detecting other serious or organised crime. Again, we hope that that will yield some improvement in our ability to detect offenders, which I think is the point that you are making. Finally, we are looking at any other technical means that we can use legitimately to identify offenders and, indeed, to identify crimes so that we can hope that the number of detections and perhaps relating back to the first question, the number of crimes that will identify if, indeed, those crimes are happening and they are not being recorded, would increase. Can we be optimistic that, in the years to come, as the wildlife reports come forward, we are going to see an improvement in those figures? I think that that goes back to the previous questions. It depends on what an improvement means. I think that we will certainly see an improvement in the quality of the data, because, as I said in relation to the first question, I think that we have some way to go in terms of the comparability and the consistency of the data that has been provided by different organisations. As has already been referred to, we have put some plans in place to make sure that we do that in good time for next year's reporting period. In terms of improving figures, if that means a reduction in crimes recorded or an increase in crimes recorded, we would need to be more specific in the different crime types. I think that we would need to specify some of the areas where perhaps we think that it is most likely that crimes are being under-recorded. I think that those are the areas where we would have to either proactively go out and seek them or other organisations or more likely to put more resource towards proactively finding out about crimes. Those figures are likely to go up perhaps, but there are quite a number of other areas where that will not be the case and they are perhaps likely to be consistent. I think that I was more referring to the figures that I highlighted at the start, because, while accepting all the caveats that both of you have put to those figures, the fact is that, in a lot of other areas of recorded crime, essentially a precedence percentage rate of 23 per cent would not be regarded as being very successful. What I am getting at is, can we look forward to seeing some evidence in years to come where it would appear that there is a greater success in detecting wildlife crime, except in all the difficulties that you face with that, and a message being sent out that, if it is detected, it is going to be punished and punished hard? I am optimistic that, over the course of the next years, there will be an improvement across the board in terms of the detection of crime and in terms of the prosecution of crime. One thing that I would say is that, as I say, it is a high priority. The prosecutors who are dealing with this crime are specialists. All of them have years of experience. They participate in training courses. This is, apart from environmental crime, which has a certain, to some extent an overlap with it. This is the only kind of work that they do. They have built up an expertise in it and they do get good results in court. I appreciate that more cases, I would expect to see more cases being taken up, and I would expect to see more convictions being secured, but I think that I should add one caveat to that, which is that, from the Crown's point of view, an acquittal is not seen as a loss. The Crown does not consider itself as winning cases or losing cases. We put evidence into court because we believe that there is a justified basis for seeking a conviction. We put the evidence into court and we tried to persuade the court that that is in the public interest. But all any conviction in this country has to be returned because the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some cases that go into court where the court quite simply is not satisfied of that. That is not necessarily the wrong answer. To be candid, evidence can look very persuasive in one direction at the start of a case when it is in black and white and it is on paper. When a person is actually in court and is being asked, are you sure about that? Are you sure about that? Sometimes people make mistakes. I appreciate what you are saying, that you want to see a more evidence base for success in those matters. I would agree with that, and I am optimistic that that will be shown in upcoming years. I simply wanted to make clear that the simple fact that an acquittal is recorded in a case from that point of view would not be seen as necessarily a negative outcome. Thank you, convener, and just a very quick one. I know that you are all busy people. The police service is busy, the procurator fiscal service is busy and so on. I have had some experience myself in the past. I spent many years as a trading standards officer and I have had experience of cases going in that were very sound cases and were sent back to a smart no proceedings. I suspect some of the reasons for that were that they were often very complicated cases. Also, with the PF service in particular being so busy, it was sometimes, I believe, maybe easier for these things to be pushed aside because there is huge pressure on your fiscals across the country. You have partly answered the question, Mr Hughes mentioned that it was a high-priority crime. Mr Graham classified it along with other serious crimes when you were speaking. However, those crimes are very difficult to detect and very difficult to prove. Therefore, I would just wonder, does that warrant you take a more positive view generally when those cases come before you, either from the police's reporting point of view or, indeed, when it gets to the procurator fiscal, that they are not just looked at in the round but recognised that, because of the difficulty of detecting those crimes and proving them, an extra effort should be made to ensure that they come before the court. If I can answer that really in two phases, first, I do want to stress that those crimes, they are treated as a priority. The prosecutors who deal with them are passionate about securing outcomes that are in the public interest. I'm not sure, frankly, what previous experience you may have had with cases that perhaps ought to have been taken up but weren't. One thing I can assure this committee of is that there is no question of cases being discontinued or not being taken up because of the lack of prosecutorial resources. That simply doesn't happen. Those cases where they can be taken up, then they are, and where that case can be pursued to a final outcome in the court, then that does happen. I would like to be very clear on that. In terms of the other question that you asked, are we conscious of an extra effort that can be made? I think that extra effort actually is already being made and I do think that there is great value that comes to us and to the police as well from our participation in the partnership against wildlife crime in Scotland. We are busy, as you say, and there is a temptation to focus on the things that have come through the door and that have landed on your desk, but the task for us, as a unit and as a justice system, is to keep the bigger picture in focus. One thing that we benefit from in going along to the pause meetings is that we engage with other stakeholders in this field who convey to us what interests they have and what things they think should be a matter of priority for us. I am conscious of one particular area where there is real concern to make sure that the criminal law is apt to deal with it, and that was conveyed through pause. Again, through pause, we have learned that we can make better use of forensic techniques and ensuring that issues with cases that we have had in the past do not arise in the future. I would say that the extra effort is already being made and is producing results. From an investigator and a police officer, some of the experiences that you have had, I have probably had as well, during my police service, what I would say is that the difference with wildlife crime is now that we have one dedicated unit within Crown that the wildlife crime investigators throughout Scotland have got one place that they can go to for advice, for consultation, for support. That is allowing us to meet together as an enforcement group as well, and it allows us to share the good practice to ensure that how a case is built in relation to certain types of offences, what worked in that area, what worked in that area, and you are always getting a consistent voice back. You are not getting different procate of fiscals with different interpretations sometimes or one with a bigger workload than another. What you have now started to get is this consistency. Hopefully, it will be a consistency of investigation and as we improve those investigations as we go, and a consistent message coming back from the Crown in relation to what it is they are looking for to secure those convictions that we are looking for. I think that you used the term could we take a more positive view. I think that we take a very positive view towards the status of the investigations within the context of a wide range of priorities that the police are responsible for across Scotland. Therefore, we do take specific measures. It is not to say that wildlife crime investigation is a priority that outstrips all others. That would not be the case at all. However, there are very specific structures and there is a specific focus on the wild crime inquiry, which has had good results. I am happy to share some of the figures that I brought along in terms of people who are detected. I think that it is important that, although we seek to report people to the Crown with a view to their being a prosecution, there are other things that can result from us identifying who the perpetrators are in terms of prevention efforts and the wider prevention work that we are trying to carry out to try to reduce the overall number of those crimes happening. The five-year average for up until 2013-14 of overall wildlife crimes being detected is 58 per cent, which, in comparison with many other crime types, is very high. For this year to date, that is sitting at 66 per cent. That is a fairly high overall detection rate when compared against a large number of other crimes in Scotland. Although, clearly, we could do more, I think that it is a positive endorsement of all the efforts that we are taking to identify who is committing these crimes. That is very encouraging. Thank you, convener. It is encouraging. It is very reassuring to get those responses to Mr Thompson's question, which, if he likes to look ahead in his papers, he might realise that he would have been asked by me a little bit later. You often do, Mr Thompson. That is by the bike. My question is, given that very reassuring evidence and the answers that you have just given, why, and it is to the Crown Office Procurate Fiscal Service, why, therefore, in the past two years, are around a fifth of the cases that are reported by Police Scotland marked for no further action? I am particularly reassured by the fact that you are not interested in just getting convictions. You know that it is not some league table or percentages of gains against losses, so that almost increases the validity of my question. Can you expand on that? Why is it 20 per cent marked for no further action? Essentially, cases can be marked for no further action for a number of different reasons. The table that was produced this year and also the one that was produced last year—they are both in the same format—you will see that there are figures for cases that were marked for no further proceedings or no proceedings more accurately. Then there is a figure in brackets next to that, which represents the cases where there was no prosecutorial discretion in that matter. I think that this year there are, in fact, fewer cases where prosecutorial discretion was exercised in terms of not taking up the matter. There were two matters in 2013 in which a case could have been taken up, but the Crown exercised its discretion not to do so. Both of those decisions were made in the overall circumstances of the case and also the offenders. In one case, the accused person had significant mental health difficulties and also had other criminal proceedings pending against them, which were going to inevitably result in a much heavier sentence than he was going to receive for this one. In the cases where prosecutorial discretion is exercised not to take up a case, that is done taking into account all the factors and effectively carrying out a balancing exercise. However, you will see that the bulk of cases are cases in which there is no prosecutorial discretion, which is a situation in which, when a case arrives, it is simply not possible for the case to be taken into court. There are a number of reasons for that, and I think that they are listed actually in the report, but the most frequent ones are cases that are time barred. There are strict time bars for proceedings to be put into court, and sometimes those time bars are simply either the case is not received after time bar or it is not received close enough to time bar to competently put it into court. The other issue is insufficient evidence, and one thing I would like to say about that is that the sufficiency of evidence is a difficult question. It is a question which not only the prosecutors and not only the reporting agencies but the courts themselves find quite a difficult one. If you look at the appeal court decisions, you will see that a large number of appeal court decisions are where judges in the lower courts are being assessed. Their assessment of sufficiency is being reassessed by the appeal court, and sometimes it is found that the initial court has mischaracterised sufficiency of evidence. In most wildlife crimes, not all, but in most, there is a requirement for corroboration. Corroboration in its truest sense can come from two sources. One of those sources can be circumstantial evidence. What will constitute corroboration from one case to the next is not always clear. In some cases, you will not actually know until you are in court whether or not the corroboration that you have is what you think you have. It is a big factor with wildlife crimes that the way that they initially look on further investigation, you may think that you have a wildlife crime, but because of the various caveats that surround various forms of wildlife crime, and the various exceptions that apply to them, it may be that on further investigation, it turns out that either there is not a crime at all or, alternatively, that there is insufficient evidence to actually take the case into court. All of those decisions are being made in a relatively short amount of time. The reporting agencies, who are not just the police but also the SSPCA and other agencies, investigate crime and are keen to get the cases to us as quickly as possible. Assessment has to be formed by them at a very early stage, and then it has to be provided to us. That assessment is not always borne out, or even if it initially looks as if it is borne out, further investigation that is done to make sure that the case is as strong as it can be before it goes to court sometimes indicates that there simply isn't a sufficiency of evidence. That would be the explanation for the no take-up rate. I thank you for that detailed explanation. Is that a similar percentage to other forms of crime, or is there some reason for an exception in the case of wildlife crime? The short answer is that I cannot say that I have not conducted an analysis of our statistics against the broader COPFS, and I should add it to the caveat. I can answer that question probably in writing, but not today. The statistics that we have prepared for this annual report are very much unique. No other unit actually does them because of the no other unit, I think, is subject to the same reporting requirements. There won't be an immediate read-over from our statistics to everyone else's, but in terms of the no take-up rate, I think that that is something that can be clarified. I can't say today whether or not it is at the same level greater or lower. If there is a divergence, I would again point out simply that wildlife crime is subject to a large number of exceptions and different characteristics that do not apply in a lot of other criminal law. One of the big things with wildlife crime is that a lot of wildlife activities actually aren't crimes at certain times or if certain conditions are made. If you compare that with crimes against property, crimes of violence, those are always crimes. If you looked at the code of Hammurabi from Babylon, they would have been crimes then, but the wildlife crimes that we have, sometimes acts can come in and out of a criminal category, if you see what I mean, but I'll certainly make a note to provide that information to the committee. That would be useful, yes. Very helpful indeed. Thank you very much. Brief question about the time bar. Just for the purposes of clarity, Mr Hughes, when you talked about time bar quite often being a factor, is the time bar on wildlife crime or, in some instances, a well crime different from other crimes? If it is not, could you explain why it is a factor there and not with others? Wildlife crime is based almost entirely on statute and most statutes have their own time bars. The time bar can vary depending on what statutory offence you are dealing with. Most of the offences that we are dealing with have a six-month time bar, so that means that a citation must be served on the accused within that six-month period that will be deemed to be commencement of the proceedings. One of the most important provisions that we prosecute under is the Wildlife and Countryside Act, particularly in terms of wild birds. In that act, although not in others, there is effectively a saving provision, which will mean that normally the six months run from the date of the offence. With the Wildlife and Countryside Act, because of the nature of wildlife crime, the six-month time bar can be certified to run from the period where the prosecutor considers that he or she has enough evidence. Essentially, that would mean that, for some cases, the case can land with the crown and more than six months will pass, but investigations are still being instructed. Because of that certificate procedure, there is still scope for a case to be followed up. That is particularly useful with DNA cases. I am thinking of one particular case, which is actually not a wildlife crime, but it is animal welfare, which is another matter that our unit deals with, although it is not quite in the same way. DNA analysis has been the case in the past that criminal offences are committed. Initially, for various reasons, there is simply no prospect of a conviction because of a lack of evidence, but subsequently DNA analysis is conducted, which gives you that sufficiency. With the saving provision that features in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, prosecution is still competent. In other statutes, it is not because they have a rigid six-month time bar. To answer your question, there is a general time bar of six months, with a limited exception for the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Good morning to you all. Could I take you back as a panel, if any of you have any further comments on the present status and possible changes to corroboration, which may or may not be appropriate for you in your professional roles to comment on, but particularly in relation to the remoteness of much wildlife crime and whether, in terms of the armory for evidence, any changes might be helpful? I am very happy to offer a view. I caveat it from the start to say that I have spent quite a lot of time discussing this or providing evidence to another committee in the Scottish Parliament going back on a number of occasions in relation to the proposals in the Criminal Justice Scotland bill. I guess that the position of Police Scotland is on record that we would support the changes that were proposed to the law of corroboration. We laid out a large number of cases where we felt that that would provide a more balanced ability to assess evidence and allow access to justice for individuals in certain crime types. Wildlife crime cases were not ones that we used in those particular cases. I have not thought in great detail about the nature of the specific laws around wildlife crime and whether that would or would not be of particular assistance balanced against all of the information that we provided, which I think demonstrated that we understood very carefully the position that there needed to be safeguards in place to ensure that, when evidence was presented to court, it would be viewed in a balanced way, recognising all the rights that people who are accused of crimes have. That is quite a long way of saying that I would probably be reserved in offering a strong view in relation specifically to wildlife offences without having the opportunity of looking in more detail about the essential facts that would be required to be proved for each of those offences and how that is laid out in statute before I would come to a position on that. I would be happy if it was useful to the committee to consider that and write in in due course. Thank you. We are trying to get to grips with something that I think we will be looking at every year, so getting good grounding in this is what you are helping us to do just now, and helping the public to understand this better. Turning to raptor crimes and additional measures that have been brought forward, we know that some changes were proposed in 2013, including the restriction on the use of general licenses, perhaps a review of wildlife crime penalties, establishing if the act has a sufficient deterrent, the encouragement of law enforcement to use all investigative tools for their investigations supported by the Lord Advocate. Do Police Scotland already have evidence of offences that might fall into this category, which have occurred since 1 January 2014, and have you passed that information to Scottish Natural Heritage? I am very much involved in the consultation with Scottish National Heritage about how the process will work around the restrictions on general licenses. The first meeting, we have set up a structure where we are going to meet them on a monthly basis. At that meeting, Police Scotland will inform and notify them of any crimes that fit within the criteria that is set out within the proposal, and they will thereafter take that information and make their assessment on what we give them. The first meeting is the first week in November, and the first one will go back retrospectively to all offences since 1 January, so that process is now in place. Obviously, it is not for the police to determine whether they fit within the criteria that SNH would use for the restriction, but what we do have is a process in place whereby that information and I have signed the information sharing protocol with the SNH in order to allow for that information to go across. I wonder if we can get any further details about the review of wildlife crime penalties, if there has been any discussion about those. Part of that review committee last meeting was last week, and I think that it is at a very early stage in that. There is a report to be with the Minister within certain timescales. It is still very much at consultation phase in a number of measures, a number of aspects of that are being considered at the moment, so it is probably not appropriate to try and pre-empt what is going to come out of that, but it is suffice to say that both ourselves and Crown are very much involved in that process. Thinking about a statement that Police Scotland has made, Police Scotland will use the appropriate investigative tools at their disposal to investigate crime scenes. What does that mean? Does it specifically include, for example, the admissibility of video evidence in Scotland? There are probably two sides to that question, if I could convene. The first is our overall approach to how we would assess scenes and how we would conduct investigations, which I would ask DCS Allen to provide some detail on the developments that were referred to earlier, trying to bring all the best practice and good practice that we have from other types of crime and some specific measures for wildlife crime. I think that there is a specific issue around the use of video evidence. I will cover that. I think that there has been some discussion on going about video evidence and how it might be obtained. I need to be clear that if the police are going to obtain any video evidence, then if it is going to come from a specific directed camera, that would be covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Scotland Act. As a public authority, Police Scotland is required to take cognisance of the Human Rights Act in terms of the intrusion that any such activity would have into individuals' lives and not just an individual that we might be specifically targeting. That means that the requirements within the European Convention, in terms of individuals' human rights, are codified through that domestic legislation and the police are required to authorise such activity in a way that is later inspected through the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner on a regular basis and scrutinised very heavily. I should say quite rightly so, because those tactics potentially have the ability to intrude into people's private lives and indeed to intrude collaterally into other people where information might be gathered. The test that is used in authorising such techniques from the police is one of proportionality and necessity. That is laid out in law, and the authorisation levels for such activity vary, but that would go from a superintendent as a minimum level for what are deemed to be the least intrusive tactics up to a chief constable or indeed beyond in some circumstances. In those cases, there are very careful considerations around proportionality, looking at the nature of the crime, the impact of that crime, how serious an impact it has, and that is often assessed as an impact on an individual in terms of violence, in terms of the impact it would have on an individual's life. However, there is also an assessment around about economic and social impact, and necessity is a test based on the availability of other means to investigate that crime, and how those other means have perhaps already been used or exhausted in those particular circumstances or in other analogous circumstances. I suppose what I am trying to say is that there are some very stringent tests to be met before such tactics should be deployed. I think that it is quite right that that is the case, and therefore it will not be the case that the police will routinely be deploying this type of tactic to wildlife crime investigations. That is not to say that I would rule it out in any circumstances, but it is less likely that those tests that I have laid out will be met in many of the crimes that we are dealing with. There are circumstances in which other organisations have gathered video evidence, and that has come to our attention. The admissibility of that in court is a matter for the Crown to consider, but I would have a concern if it was to come to our attention that organisations were specifically seeking to use video evidence to capture the identification of perpetrators of wildlife crime, etc. As a public authority, we would not be in a position to endorse that. Of course, there are a whole variety of other reasons why CCTV cameras are set up in relation to monitoring premises or monitoring sites, and from time to time they might capture evidence of crimes that could then be used, and that is the case. I hope that that covers some of the issues around the use of technical evidence. It is about to ask you about the difference between what you have described in CCTV, but we can obviously see that it is far more stringent in relationships, but I want to ask a little more about filming and so on. First of all, Graham Day. Thank you, convener. Just a point of clarity. If a member of the public on the phone filmed an assault, a serious assault on the street, that is obviously something that would assist the police in their inquiries. If a farmer is out on his land and he sees haircorsings taking part, as a people take part in the haircorsings, and filmed it on his camera, is that something that could be used by the police? Is that something that would be used as evidence or considered as evidence by the prosecution service? Yes, absolutely. It is the answer to that. It is a very different set of circumstances than setting out to proactively film covertly either a specific area or a specific individual without their knowledge, and that is why it is deemed to be very different in the law. I do not know if the Crown would wish to offer it. The example that you have just given presents no evidential difficulties at all. The farmer is entirely within his own rights because he is on his own land. He is using a camera to capture something that he himself is seeing, and he can speak to that evidence in due course. A difficulty can arise when people are on someone else's land. As you know, access to land is possible in Scotland, but that is a matter of statutory right. The statute makes quite clear on what basis you can be on someone else's land. It is important that, if you gather evidence or if evidence comes into your possession, it is important that your own position and the basis on which you are on that land should be in accordance with the terms of the statute. If that were not the case, then the answer depends again on the circumstances. Scotslaw does not have a rigid exclusionary principle. You may sometimes hear an expression called the fruit of the poison tree, which is at least an American doctrine whereby if there had been some illegality which produced evidence, then any evidence produced by that would be out completely. There was no possibility of introducing it. Scotslaw has never taken that approach and adopts a balancing exercise again, which will take into account all circumstances. The first question would be, is evidence regularly obtained or is it irregularly obtained? The example that you have just given me would be an example of regularly obtained evidence, and evidence that has been used by the police under Ripsa is regularly obtained. There is no need to justify that. If evidence is irregularly obtained, then it may be that that irregularity can be justified. However, it may be that it cannot. I would join with Malcolm Grant's comments that there cannot be no endorsement of any course of conduct in the manner that he has described of trying to circumvent the provisions of Ripsa. I should be clear as well that Ripsa only applies to public authorities like the police. For our purposes, Ripsa is the only reporting agency that is in a position to use it. Indeed. We are interested, I think, to Claudia Beamish for the question now on resources for Police Scotland and the Crown and the Procurator Fiscal Service. Right. Thank you, convener. The first part of that is some question for the police. If I am right in understanding this, the police did not follow the crime prosecution service in having one unit dealing with wildlife crime, and the wildlife crime officers obviously need to be spread throughout Scotland. Is that correct? Is there a reason for that decision, although there is obviously Police Scotland now? I will ask DCS Allen to provide some detail about the structure that is in place now, and why, but at a very broad level, we do not have a national unit in Scotland. There is a national wildlife crime unit for the UK, which is based in Scotland, which we are a big part of supporting, and the Scottish Government supports very clearly in Scotland, and we work very closely with them. But we have a national structure for Police Scotland, which is led by DCS Allen, but it is deliberately decentralised into local policing divisions because we believe that that is the best way of delivering what we are seeking to achieve in terms of wildlife crime. I will ask DCS Allen to explain the nature of that and how it works. The structure that sits underneath me now is that we have this link directly into each of the divisions, the 14 divisions, and there are two links in one at a management strategic level, the chief inspector, the superintendent level, who is a lead within the division, and then you have a wildlife crime liaison officer within each of the divisions as well, five of which are full-time and others are not full-time, but they still perform that role within the division. What we also have is a national coordinator who sits working for myself as well, so that way we believe that we have that national coordination but we have actually got the solutions being delivered and the investigations being delivered locally, which is where the best place to be undertaken, but those investigators within the divisions have the easy access to some of the more specialist techniques and some of the advice and guidance that they may need some other forms of support outwith their division that can be provided to them very easily, but that overarching governance structure, because of the geography of Scotland, we believe for us to have a closed tight task force or a small unit, I do not think that that would provide us with the coverage and that local accountability and that local focus that needs to be around about some of these crimes, so that is the structure that we believe is the best structure for wildlife crime in Scotland. Thank you, that is a helpful clarification. Of those apart time, would you be able to say or to let us know in writing what proportion of their time is spent as well as crime officers or not, and how does the resourcing at present compare to what it was before the formation of Police Scotland? There would have been a wildlife crime liaison officer in each of the legacy forces, so you would have had eight of them, again not all full time, some part time, some not. We can certainly speak to those that are not full time and establish how much of their time is taken up with their duties around wildlife crime. I would say to you that they do what needs to be done as part of that role. I meet them quarterly, constant communication through the coordinator with them and never has any of them said that they are not in a position to do the work that needs to be done as part of that role, so what I would say is that I am quite happy that what they are having to do is commensurate with their role. On top of that liaison structure, we have 110 officers within Scotland who have received various degrees of training around wildlife crime, and those are the ones that sit in support of the liaison officers in each of the 14 divisions, and those are the ones that we would go to in first instance around some of the wildlife crime investigations. We are going to do a bit of work around putting some structure around the training that they receive as well, and we are at an advanced stage with a training course that will be delivered to those officers that are specifically in place for wildlife crime, and we think that that will help to increase the standards of investigation as well. We have a co-ordination structure, a governing structure, and we have dedicated officers, 110 of them in Scotland, that are the front line in relation to wildlife crime. Can I just add one important point to that as well? I mean, there has been a focus on the structure and understandably so, because a lot of these people are dedicated to either conducting, but in most cases coordinating our ability as an organisation to adequately improve our response to investigating and preventing wildlife crime. The important part is that we are not focusing all of our attention on, even if you added up, everyone that has just been spoken about, 150 odd people. We have got over 17,234 police officers in Scotland, as members of the committee will be well aware. The vast majority of the wildlife crimes that are reported, perhaps around 300 year, will be investigated by front line police officers who are on duty at the time that the crimes are reported to them. In some cases, those inquiries will remain with those officers. In other cases, they will be allocated to detective officers to investigate, as with other more complex or serious cases. Therefore, I would emphasise that our approach is not to deem the officers who are either dedicated or in a part-time role. My experience is a substantial proportion of the role that they are putting towards the wildlife crime liaison officer role, but we do not deem that our approach is based only on them. We would deem that every front-line officer who responds to reports of crime needs to be aware and able to deal with those reports and investigate them thoroughly. That is an important issue when you look at the spread of crime across the country. Can I briefly ask you whether that would be urban as well as rural, because we have not talked about urban wildlife crime? Absolutely, and indeed— Do you sense officers? Yes. Although we have not been explicit, I have not specifically spoken about rural. I have taken it as meaning that we are talking about urban and rural. There are different types of wildlife crime in all the divisions across Police Scotland. Many of the local policing divisions have both urban and rural areas within them, and indeed there are some types of wildlife crime that are perhaps more likely to be detected or to occur within urban areas, and the officers in those areas are more attuned to that. First of all, Graham Day, then Nigel Dawn. I might expand on that point. I guess that the role of community police officers will be hugely important. Not just those who are based in rural areas but those who are in urban areas, because very often rural crime is committed by people who live in urban areas. I suspect that the development of the relationships in the communities that lead to the environment where intelligence is coming forward is quite useful. I say that by representing Angus, part of the old eastern division. I have grown back from that a little bit. I spent a day with a wildlife crime officer in that area, which was hugely informative, in coming to terms with the difficulties that you face in detecting crime. I wonder that, with the creation of Police Scotland, what effort went in to taking that experience in best practice in areas such as Angus and ensuring that that was shared across the whole of Scotland, and also from other areas. That was the real focus for the co-ordinator role, the dedicated one that sits underneath myself within the central national structure. We basically take on not just from Angus, and I know some of the instances that you are talking about, but from all the previous legacy arrangements that one plays, partnerships that have been set up, all the different work arrangements, and we are trying to pull all those together. Obviously, one size does not fit all, but there is absolutely merit in finding out what some of the other wildlife liaison officers, wildlife crime officers have done in various areas, picking the good bits and saying that that actually works for me. I can do that in my area. I have a similar group that I can interact with, and some of that stuff can be done locally. With my role, I can then do that national interaction in that engagement at a more strategic level, but those local arrangements are absolutely paramount to what we are trying to do, and we can share that through the national co-ordinator role and through the meetings that I have with the wildlife crime liaison officers on a quarterly basis. We are definitely picking the best of what is out there. Thank you, convener, and if I can just move fractionally north in Angus, and actually Graham Day has the western glens, and I have the northern glens in Angus. It seems to me that you have spoken a lot about intelligence. I suspect that if we really want to know what is happening in those areas, which concern both of Graham Day and myself, you would need to have police officers on the ground talking to the community on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis. It seems to me that is actually a tremendously difficult thing to do, not because it is difficult to talk to people, but because it is very time-consuming. Do you really have the resources in those kind of areas to actually get out there and find out what is going on, rather than responding? I think that you are right. It is not a tremendously difficult thing to do to get police officers to go out and speak to people, but quite clearly we can be doing it everywhere at the same time. There are people out there doing that in your communities. I know for a fact that there are people doing it in the community that you represent, because we have done a specific piece of work around some intelligence that we did receive in circumstances that in the past have been quite high-profile. Much of that was received from officers on the ground speaking to those who are working on the land and feeding that back through, so that we can support that. It is happening on the ground. Would it happen more if we had more people? Yes, it would, as the honest answer to that question, but, as we covered earlier in the session, Police Scotland has got a wide number of priorities to both focus upon and respond to, and wildlife crime sits among them. It is a proportionate response that we put in place to ensure that officers in any area are directed towards that type of activity. Just a little tie-up question from Angus Macdonald us now with regard to statistics, and then, Dave Thomson. Before we move on to other aspects of the report, I am keen to briefly explore penalties for wildlife crime. Taking on board the fact that we are discussing a Scottish Government report, why does the report not include any information on the penalties for wildlife crime, and is that information freely available and could it be included in future reports? I think that the short answer is that I am not personally entirely clear why that data is not in the report. I think that the data probably can be ascertained from Scottish Government justice analysts. I am afraid that that probably does not assess too much. I do not know why it is not in the report, but I think that it can be obtained. If the committee expressed a desire that it should be obtained, that can be provided. It is certainly an issue that we can raise with the minister next week, and I press him to ensure that it is included in future reports. I was interested when Mr Hughes mentioned that animal welfare was also one of the responsibilities of his unit. When I was in local government, I was responsible for animal health issues in the Highland regional area. It was heavily involved back in 2000 and 2001, whereby there was a foot and mouth outbreak, for instance. I am just wondering how much co-operation there is between police and local authority animal health officers. I know that not all councils appoint dedicated animal health officers. Some of them designate their trading standards as well as animal health officers. However, there are a number of dedicated animal health inspectors. We had a couple in Highland, for instance, and whether the dual responsibility in relation to the animal health act, every constable is authorised. Constables are mentioned in the act, so constables can enforce anything there. However, the responsibility of the local authorities, the responsibility of the police, what is the current co-operation? Would there be any merit in having a look at all of that and looking at the responsibilities and possibly consolidating some of those responsibilities? Would it be useful if Police Scotland had the full responsibility for those issues? There is an additional resource of animal health officers dedicated across Scotland that could fit in fairly well, I would have thought, with what you are doing generally. I just wondered if there had been any thought about this, any discussion about this, or if there is any merit in having a look at it, if not. I have to say, to be perfectly honest, that it is not something that I had considered before coming here today. The cases that we see are generally reported to us either by Police Scotland—in fact, the majority of them come from the police—some of them come from another reporting agency, which is the SSPCA. The involvement of the animal health inspectors at the local authority takes place at a stage prior to us really becoming involved. Our experience is that they generally assist the police and provide evidence and then effectively become witnesses in the case. As to whether or not there is scope for combining the role—I would like to give that more thought, is the short answer. I am conscious that, if I was expressing my opinion about that, it would really be on the hoof. I do not want to commit any other organisations that may or may not agree with that. It is not just about welfare issues, it is about the broader animal disease issues. You know that they come into this as well. I would welcome you giving some thought to this. I do not know whether the police have any of that. Likewise, I am aware that we are involved in any discussions around it. I am sure that it would be worthy of looking at it without wishing to jump into expressing a view on it. I would be happy for that to happen. Perhaps it is something that we could do through the network that we have, the PAW network, which we have heard about already. As a general principle, we will work closely with any agency or organisation that is going to support the aims of the organisation. If that was the case, we would be happy to do that. Thank you. So, whether it is paws, hoofs or wing, we are turning to wildlife crime incidents in 2014. Dave Thompson. The particular incident that I am interested in, obviously, is the Rossshire incidents where red kites and buzzards and so on were killed. I am particularly interested in the fact that, just at the weekend there, there were a number of media reports following a press statement by Police Scotland stating that it did not appear that this was deliberate that it had been accidental. Obviously, you will be well aware that it has caused a lot of consternation, not just in my constituency and Rob's, but all over Scotland and more widely. I wonder if you could give us any further information on the statement that was made at the weekend and elaborate on that a wee bit. I would welcome that opportunity if I could perhaps provide a bit of clarification and then I will ask DCS Allen to provide a bit more detail about what has gone into conducting that investigation. I think that you said that the birds had not been targeted, but it had been accidental. That certainly was not the nature of the press release that we put out. We are very careful to say that the assessment was that the birds had not been deliberately targeted that had died. That did not infer that it was necessarily an accident, which would, in my view, take away any investigation around a criminal act, which is not the case. What we were trying to do, given the large amount of speculation—much of which is not helpful to progressing the investigation—was to try to put out some more information into the public domain, which was going to clarify what we thought our best assessment was, lay behind the intent of the acts that we were investigating. From everything that we have done, in combination with a number of other agencies who are very active in this field and who supported the press release that we put out, we wanted to say that it did not appear that the activity had sought to deliberately target the birds that had been killed. That does not mean that there is not a criminal act that lies behind what has happened. Follow-up, convener. That is very interesting. In essence, what you are saying is that they were collateral damage. What evidence do you have in relation to what was targeted? If press control measures were applied and they would have been targeted at something, what you are saying is that it would not be the birds, what were the targets? What evidence is there that the targets were actually hit? I am not aware that there was much evidence of other birds and other species being found in any great numbers anyway, dead. It is a combination of all the circumstances. I think that we are doing our best to try and put out into the public domain as much information as we can about what the findings are. I am sure that members will be aware that it is a very important live investigation, and therefore we need to be cautious about the amount of information that we reveal about the findings that we have gathered as a result of that investigation to date. That is why we arrived at the situation where we released the statement that we did. I am not able to go into precise detail about all the other findings, because I would hope that, in the future, that could still be a part of a case where we could identify the perpetrator or perpetrators and the circumstances. I would not want anything that I would say now on public record to potentially, in some way, work against that in later proceedings. I hope that it has been helpful as much as we have been able to put out, and I ask DCS Allen to cover in a bit more detail some of the rigor and scrutiny that has gone into the nature of the investigation, which would not prejudice any future proceedings, but we will hopefully give some reassurance about how seriously that incident has been treated. As Assistant Chief Constable said, we tried to provide as much information as we can to the public, because it is such a high-profile inquiry. There had been consistent clamours for more and more information, and unfortunately there had been a lot of unhelpful speculation as well. What I would say in relation to that is that, throughout that statement, we still reiterated that this is an active criminal investigation. Our previous press releases outlined that it was an illegal poison that had been used in this. All we were trying to do was give the public, give everyone concerns, some sort of understanding of what the assessment was of what had happened in this occasion. What I would say about that inquiry is that, on at least two separate occasions, I have been up-numbered myself. We have undertaken a full review of that inquiry, and my background is very much from an investigative point of view, not always wildlife crime. As Mr Graham had previously talked about, some of the tactics that we are taking from other investigations across into wildlife crime adopted some of those within the Black Isle inquiry. We undertook a full review of that inquiry, and we basically stripped it bare, went through every aspect of the investigative strategy, the media strategy, the forensic strategy, that lay underneath that investigation that was being adopted by the senior investigating officer. We were also involved in that process where partners—RSPB, SSPCA—were at that process where we stripped it right back and ensured that we were absolutely attempting to exploit every evidential opportunity that was available to us. Thereafter, focus and identify the priorities for that investigation going forward, that is still an on-going process. That constant review, that constant update, depending on available evidence, available witness statements, available intelligence, still continues as of now. I have still got that oversight of that investigation going forward, because it has obviously been the highest profile one that we have had in 2014. It has been going on for quite some time now, and as time goes on, it becomes more difficult, I suppose, in many ways for you to get the evidence that you need or prove the case or whatever. There are lots of concerns locally. As you say, there are lots of stories going about, and there are different rumours about what may have happened. Real concerns about the time that it took, for instance, to decide to enter premises looking for evidence and so on, and the particular places that were targeted. I do not know if you can say anything more about that today. It is important to listen to specifics. What I would say is that, again, as per an investigation, we need to operate under the rules of law. We need to be absolutely certain in our facts and what we are doing, and that, thereafter, dictates our activity and our investigative strategy, particularly around searches and so on. The timescale does not matter whether it is now or back at the time that happened. It was always going with difficult inquiry. The circumstances around it made it very difficult, as do a number of that type of inquiry. What I am comfortable with is that everything that we could have done in relation to that we have done. The bottom line is that we did not have a series of witnesses standing watching that crime happen. What we have is a tragic set of circumstances where 16 birds have been poisoned up in that area, and we are trying to secure some evidence to find out who was responsible. We have had a great support from all our partners in relation to that. There is a significant reward in place in relation to that, to try to get that information, that last piece of the jigsaw that we might need just to pull that case together. So far, we are as frustrated as anyone that we have not been able to do that. Also, we are as frustrated as anyone around the rumour and speculation, which there is not a lot that we can do about that. Unfortunately, the nature of it is that if we put out press releases, there is rumour and speculation. If we do not put out press releases, there is rumour and speculation. That is just where we are at the moment, unfortunately. I will press you a little further, because I think that press release makes it more difficult for us to actually see what is going on here. Because you have said that these 12 red kites and four buzzers were most likely not targeted deliberately, but instead were victims of pest control measures. Can you elaborate on the phrase pest control measures? What I would say is that what we believe or the assessment is is that illegal poison was placed in that area and resulted in the death of those birds. What we do not believe is that that poison was put there to kill those birds. If I may repeat the question that Dave Thompson asked, why were there no crows and other birds found? Again, that is part of the expert assessment that we have had from some of our partners. To say that when we got to that scene, it was exactly the same as it was the day before or the day before that, that scene changed over a period of time. That is not to say that I am speculating here that there has been some activity in that scene that we are not aware of, but on all the circumstances and everything that we have had and we have assessed along with our partners, the assessment was that it was not the birds that were targeted on that occasion. Is there a weighted matter? I do really value the police's opinion on this. The Government is talking about introducing a pesticide disposal scheme, essentially an amnesty for that polling poison card with urine. From your experience, how much of an assistance to you in doing your job and dealing with wildlife crime would having an opportunity for people to dispose of this terrible poison be? Absolutely, and probably that is what the Black Isle does show, is that very small amounts of any of those types of illegal poisons have absolutely catastrophic consequences, so anything that we can do to get rid of those, which have been illegal for so long, we just need to get them out of our society. They should not be there, so we are fully supportive, I am aware of the discussions and the proposals around that, and very much Police Scotland are very much onside with that. There is a practical effect, because we know that in cases where we find illegal poisons, because of the volume of poisons that are still being stored, i.e. that have not been disposed of, it is difficult for us to draw a conclusion that would match that to any particular criminal act. We cannot necessarily draw evidence from that, so there is a practical effect in trying to reduce the amount of the poison that there is out there. Importantly, there is a very strong message that is sent to people to say that you have an opportunity to come forward in a way that has not been made available to you since the legislation changed and it changed for all the different poisons through different pieces of legislation through time, but some of it is, in some people's eyes, relatively recent. I think that we are going back to acts in 2006-2007, and that poison has lain not being disposed of. This is the big opportunity that people will have, and then thereafter we are in an even stronger position to redouble our efforts in terms of any consequence that would come and any conclusion that can be drawn from people who would have chosen not to take part in that exercise, which we would be very supportive of. To come back to the question about you working with your partners, as you say in the press release, where do you consider the NFUS and the Scottish land and estates in terms of your partners? I think that they are key partners in terms of the work that we do on a day-to-day basis in local policing. I know that they have both spoken publicly and supportively of the efforts that we have made in, for instance, the inquiry that we have just discussed. I know that that they are interests, albeit that the Farmer's Union is not specifically represented in the main Pog group. Their interests are represented within the formal governance and co-ordination structures that we sit upon. Clearly, there are a number of groups that at times appear to come with competing interests and sometimes differences of opinion, and the police are a part of that. We are not the people that, in any sense, sit over that. We sit alongside that in terms of co-ordination. What we would seek to do is to find areas of common interests where we can work together, because largely the prevention of wildlife crime and the identification of those who commit it is a shared interest that all of those groups have, and everybody has publicly stated that. Jim Hume. I am going back to the press release and press article 25 of October in the press. In general, the paper itself says that the police found that the 16 raptors had been killed by banned poisons. The police spokeswoman, as you rightly stated, said that it was most likely not targeted deliberately but instead were the victims of pest control measures. If it is a pest control measure and it is a banned poison, that is an illegal action. Is the press and journals article correct saying that it was a banned poison and that it was actually a different pest control measure? What relevance is that? If a person went out and shot an eagle, for example, and said, that was not my target, I thought that it was a big crow or something like that, what is the relevance of that? I share the convener's concerns that we are muddying the waters even more with the release that has went out and perhaps the way that it has been reported. Let me provide some clarification on two points. The first is that we are not in any sense trying to de-esculate the seriousness of the criminal acts by trying to provide some information into the public domain that we believe will helpfully avoid the range of speculation that has centered on a number of different bodies and individuals within that area and more widely, which, as members will know if you have heard them, most certainly cannot all be true. It is not unusual in a set of circumstances where there is a level of public interest and therefore media reporting that there are a large number of rumours and pieces of information, all of which I am very clear that the police will be aware of and all of which we will take seriously and attempt to investigate with the purpose of either establishing if they are true or if they are not, establishing that they are not true, and that can assist with the investigation as well. That was the reason behind putting the press statement out, because our belief was that it would provide some clarification and it would hold some weight in the public domain to steer away from some of the most unhelpful speculation that was directing people towards specific causes of the act. It was not in any sense trying to make out that it was a less serious or a non-criminal act and I think that we were quite specific about it remaining a criminal investigation and if the sense of that has been to, in some way, de-prioritise or de-esculate the seriousness, then that absolutely was not intended and our efforts to resolve the circumstances and identify what has happened and by whom we continue. I do not think that the question has been fully answered. Specifically, was it that because this is a press in general that has taken this and not yourself in the release that I can see, perhaps? Was it an actually a banned poison? That is the one point that I would still like to clarify. Maybe from the procuratorate official, what is the difference if it was a banned poison and therefore it is an illegal act, no matter what the target is? What difference does that make, then, if the actual target was perhaps a less protected animal, I do not know. So, it is a clarification on those two points from my previous question. Absolutely, it was an illegal poison and that was part of our previous media strategy, confirm that. How that plays out in relation to any future prosecution would be very much down to the crown. To answer your question, I agree entirely with what the police have said. There is no question of the criminality of this incident being reduced or being affected by the nature of the release, which has been put out, which gives the police assessment of the evidence available to them at this time. The answer to your question is that it will definitely be a criminal act and it will be the same form of criminal act that was previously understood to be. The difference will be that every criminal act is essentially composed of two parts. There is the physical act, the committing of the crime and then there is what is going through the mental element, what is going through the mind of the accused person at the time that they commit the criminal act. Now, the mental element for this sort of crime can either be intention or it can be recklessness. The nature of the press release indicates that a conviction would be likely to be sought on the basis of recklessness rather than intention. I just have to follow up on that point, please, convener, if I may. That very clearly says to all of us then that both yourselves and Police Scotland have satisfied yourselves absolutely that it wasn't a malicious act. Some of the rumours going about, you know, are suggesting that it was something that was done maliciously to try and malign other people. So, you very clearly, I think, said today that you are ruling out, you have satisfied yourselves, you have got enough evidence to show that it wasn't done maliciously that it was something that was reckless and accidental and reckless, I suppose. Would that be a fair summation of what you have said or do you want to clarify that problem? I don't think that we have satisfied ourselves beyond all doubt and I don't have the wording of the press release in front of me, but we were very careful in the language that we used. It would appear that members do. I think that the language that we used was very clear and that it was our assessment. I don't know if you can remember the exact words Robbie used. We said most likely. So, again, it was a press release to inform them. It's not, it may mean that this press release, that this wasn't to us going into court, a law to provide evidence. This was to try and inform the public in general as to the progress of the inquiry. The one thing that we have never, I know that you've mentioned the word accidental a few times, I would, that's the one that I would take issue with, that we've never gone down the line of saying it's accidental. This is a criminal act and, as a Crown have quite clearly pointed out, when we find who's responsible for this, that second element of it will be the only bit that's then up for debate. This is a criminal act and it's been investigated the same now as it was in day one and we will continue to apply as much resource and commitment as we can to that in order to try and find out who's responsible. I think that the word is most likely for an accurate assessment of where we find ourselves, so it is not that we've satisfied ourselves beyond all doubt and the investigation does continue. I just perhaps thank you very much for that explanation, which are very helpful to people out there, especially in the local area who have great concerns. Because of the known death rate of red kites in the Black Isle area since the reintroduction, do you have historic information about where carcasses were found? In other words, a mapping exercise. I believe that the figure was something like 160 or so red kites, which died in one form or another between 1999 and 2006. Following on from that, we must have a map of where the carcasses were found in those incidents. Is that publicly available? For every dead red kite, Police Scotland will not have that sort of information. I know a number of our partners and certainly within the Paul Raptor group that there is a process on going round about that mapping of the various carcasses. Yes, it is part of the Paul Raptor subgroup. Yes, it will be, but as far as the police chatting or mapping every carcass know what we would be doing is it is focusing on those that have been confirmed, has been poisoned or shot, those that have been killed illegally. I think that it is important to put that on the record at the moment because I am sure that something will be interested in following up in due course when more of that information becomes available. Some questions now about one of your partners, the SSPCA. Claudia Beamish wants to ask anything about that just now. Anyone else want to take a lead on this one? Generally about partnerships, I just want to ask first about in the report, it is actually on page 8 that it states that there is some difficulty with poor Scotland and their work because of the I quote in the first paragraph, finding it increasingly difficult to attend the variety of meetings held throughout the year. I am just wondering about whether the communication is obviously a challenge without wanting to put words in anyone's mouths, but just in terms of those connections and communication for very important issues, whether that is a difficulty? Of the eight Paw groups that we have represented on them, we chaired two previously. I have just recently taken over the chair of the Paw Raptor group. From a Police Scotland perspective, we are absolutely fully engaged with that Paw structure, with that committee structure, and we are active participants in all aspects of Paw. I thank you convener just to follow in broadly in relation to the SSPCA being given powers. I notice that Police Scotland have in your submission expressed some concerns about that and raised issues like perceived conflicts of interest. I am just wondering, given that resources are scarce overall, it would appear that it might be useful to have them authorised to do what they need to do to help you, but it also raises for me a sort of related issue, and that is water billiffs. My experience of water billiffs back in the 70s, quite some time ago, I would have to say, is that in Lewis, where I was living at the time, there was a lot of ructions over water billiffs who had been appointed by estates, and they have very extensive powers, these water billiffs, as you will all appreciate, and there was a lot of conflict locally. I mean, those folk, I think, could best be described as, or some of them at least at that time, nothing more than thugs appointed out with the Highlands from the Central Belt and from London. There was a lot of intimidation of local people went on at the time, and of course there was retaliation as well. If you want to read about it, just have a look at the West Highland Free Press and the Stornoway Gazette at the time. We have a situation where we have water billiffs appointed by private people, basically, with extensive powers to deal with matters, and indeed we see from the evidence that there are more crimes detected in relation to salmon and deer and so on than a lot of the other wildlife areas. I am just wondering what is the difference between giving a respectable organisation like the SSPCA additional powers and strengths to help you compared to what is already there in relation to the powers that water billiffs and estates have? There are a number of points raised in that, which I will try to cover in turn. I think that the principle is that we are very keen to work with the SSPCA as partners who bring a lot of expertise and resource to wildlife crime investigation currently. We have made some suggestions where we think that their powers could be enhanced, but I think that, as you have highlighted by perhaps the anecdote in relation to water billiffs from your experience, we would have concerns that the SSPCA is not well equipped as an organisation to take on the nature and strength of the powers that are proposed within the consultation. The world has changed quite dramatically in a short space of years. The police as an investigating agency when we have powers to interfere with people's lives in any way, whether that is through the seizure of property or whether that is through preventing them from going about their business or being at liberty, are under very strong scrutiny measures and an increasing legislative framework which directs the way in which we do that and the rigorous measures that are put in place to capture and record the way in which that is done. I think that the examples that you give of the water billiffs are probably a very good reason why we would not want to move to anything akin to that in any other organisation. I take the point that you are not making a comparison with the SSPCA, but you will see from the written response that Police Scotland has put into the consultation that we would have concerns that the same level of scrutiny, governance and accountability, both in a day-to-day but in an organisational sense that sits over Police Scotland in terms of the use and discretion around our various powers. The independent scrutiny that comes upon us from how those powers are utilised would not be in place for an organisation like the SSPCA, and we would have concerns about that based on all the work that we have done in recent times, whether it is around the way that we conduct ourselves as an organisation, whether it is around people coming into custody or where their liberty is taken from them. They are not free to go about their movements, and we have presented some cases of where that is applicable. The final point is about the overall resource. You made a comparison of some of the crime types that are detected more highly, which can often be not just salmon or sea trout poaching offences but poaching in general, but it is not exclusive to those areas. Those areas are not exclusively more likely to be detected because of the presence of, for instance, water bailiffs. They are offences that are more easily detectable than some of the other crimes that we have been talking about because they tend to happen in specific locations that can be more easily targeted. They tend to come to the attention of members of the public more readily, as well as perhaps people who are specifically focused on that, for instance, water bailiffs. Other types of offences—we have just had a series of discussions about the event round about Conan Bridge—are far less likely to be detected. Indeed, I do not think that giving the SSPCA additional powers would lend any additional support towards those types of offences being either recorded in higher numbers or detected in greater numbers. I think that the SSPCA suggests that it has around 60 officers who it could put to doing this. I do not think that there are 60 officers who are currently under deployed or, indeed, sitting free as additional to this. In the scheme of some of the commitments that Police Scotland is able to make, the numbers of officers that we have, I do not believe that that outweighs some of the counterbalance in terms of the concerns that we would have if those powers were to be brought to the SSPCA. We appreciate that it is a difference of view. That is something that we have to work through with the SSPCA and continue all the good work that we do with it, but it is based on a foundation of principle and our understanding of where we can most constructively and properly work together. I fully agree with you that the issues of accountability and scrutiny are extremely important, and that would obviously have to be something that would need to be looked at very closely if those powers were going to be given to the SSPCA. Did I detect in your answer, however, that you may favour similar accountability and scrutiny being applied to the work of water bailiffs? We have not looked at that in any great degree of detail. What I would say is that our experience is that the powers that water bailiffs have, which I think that, as you have already highlighted from your own experience, were perhaps used in the past are now no longer used routinely. We do not have experience of water bailiffs who think that they are in a position to apprehend people. They understand that both public perceptions and legal perspectives on people being brought into custody detained have changed fairly dramatically, and rightly so I would argue that the scrutiny that needs to be brought to bear when somebody is going to be apprehended and not allowed to go about their business is, quite rightly, far more rigorous than from your experiences in the past. Therefore, our experience is that water bailiffs no longer use those powers. I do not have any experiences of where that has been the case in recent times that have come to my attention. Is modern technologies evolved using mobile phones, that the experience of Police Scotland at the moment is that water bailiffs are much more inclined to contact us and phone us and have the police engaged at a very early stage? Obviously, they are talking about incidents that are happening at water's edge and things like that, so the risk assessment around them becoming involved is maybe they would have done in the past. That is not our experience of what is happening. The powers are there and you may be right, there may be an option to review what those powers look like. Our experience at the moment is that they are not being utilised, they are not using the full breadth of the powers that they have, but that is not to say that they are not still effective in what they are doing because they involve the police at an early stage. That is very interesting to hear that, because, as you say, the powers are still there, but different methodologies may be being applied at the current time. However, that is not to say that if someone did want to use those powers, they would be acting legally. Maybe it is something that we need to look at as a committee, something in the future. I think that we will be looking at this in terms of the wild fisheries review, which has made some recommendations, but it talks about there only being a need for modest reforms. I just looked it up just now in the particular recommendations of Andrew Thin, Jane Hope and Michelle Francis, so we will come to this again. Claudia Beamish on SSPCA. Right, thank you convener. Just to go a bit further forward on that point about the SSPCA in relation to the consultation and the Police Scotland submission. I understand that, in your response, that an alternative was proposed where inspectors could be empowered to seize evidence of wildlife crimes if it was found in the course of their investigations. Do correct me if I have got that wrong, but that was my understanding. Could I ask if that is the case firstly? And also whether at Police Scotland, whether you have any concerns about SSPCA's existing powers in relation to animal health and welfare legislation? Absolutely not. Current powers, when you look at what they are trying to do around about welfare and care of animals, Police Scotland has no concerns around that. Where we looked at, we were trying to be constructive in what we replied as part of the consultation and, obviously, as Mr Graham has outlined, there were points that we believe needed to be made, but that proposal was that there are occasions where the SSPCA finds themselves in a situation where, quite legitimately, they are doing the right thing, they are in, treating welfare, looking at an incident and it turns into something else and it seemed to us very sensible to say, well, as a result of that change in the circumstances, could they then be a bit more pragmatic about what they do about that incident and be able to extend their powers a little bit to actually physically seize evidence, et cetera, at that time? Where it then becomes difficult is that for the forensic examination of that evidence, et cetera, that needs to be us, that needs to come to the police, so we need to become involved in that process. However, if by allowing the SSPCA to take that initial action, that gets that evidence secured at an early stage and it gives us an additional opportunity to exploit forensic evidence from it, that is absolutely the right thing to do. The questions about the SSPCA, just now. If not, then we'll move on to Nigel Dawn, wants to look at vicarious liability. Thank you, convener. I'd like briefly, gentlemen, if I may, to take you to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Act 2011, which may or may not be at the top of your minds, but that introduced a level of vicarious liability. Looking back on Section 24, it seems that it covered both employees and agents and a person providing relevant services. At the very end, it was an attempt to make sure that it didn't matter who actually engaged the person providing those relevant services. All of it designed, of course, to make sure that there weren't ways out for people to say, well, we weren't actually vicariously liable. I'm just wondering, I recognise this is actually relatively recent in prosecutorial terms, but I'm wondering whether you can reflect on what that act provided, whether it seems to have covered the ground that you wanted it to cover, whether, therefore, there might be other things that we should be adding to it, or just how effective it seems to be as an enforcement of prosecutorial level, please. I agree with you that it certainly is early days in terms of the act. There are two matters in terms of this section, which are now in the court system, but both are some way from proceeding to trial. My impression at this stage on the basis of our experience with it so far is that the act is quite comprehensively drafted and, as such, is an effective tool and captures a great deal of what are known as special capacities, people who are acting in the capacity of, for example, an employee or a person who is providing services. I have no particular concerns about the wording of the act just now and I do think that it is fit for purpose. At this stage, I certainly wouldn't propose any amendments to it. In terms of the effect that it is having, that can really willingly be judged fully once cases go to court or resolve the following procedure. I would say that, in contact with other stakeholders in the course of our paw meetings, it has been made very clear to me that it is having a big impact. Amongst people who envisage themselves or who anticipate that this is something that might affect them, it is something that responsible people are very concerned about. I want to stress that this act has been passed in response to a perceived problem. The perceived problem was that crimes were being committed by employees but they were either being winked at or, in fact, instructed by people who were up the chain from them. I think that that problem does exist. I think that the scope of that problem, I certainly would hope that it is relatively limited, but the great virtue of the act is twofold. First of all, it addresses that problem but it also moves the whole question of protecting wildlife up the priority list for everyone else. I mean, I am very conscious that people who run these businesses are very busy people and they have a lot of calls on their time. However, the effect of this act is certainly my impression from contact through paw, is that everyone now is extremely conscious of it. Everyone is very conscious of the fact that they have to be proactive and to take steps to make sure that this will never come to their door. My impression of the act at present is that it is effective. From our point of view, in consultation with the Crown, what we have tried to do is ensure that an investigation about vicarious liability is as robust as it can be. We have had a couple already and we have tried to share that learning linked in with Crown about how best to build that type of case. However, on paw, I think that there is quite a considerable amount of debate going on around it and awareness about it. I think that if it was set out to try and focus the minds of those further up the chain, it is certainly doing that. Supplementary from Graham Day. Today has been a personal perspective hugely instructive in terms of giving myself and I will show other committee members an understanding of the issues concerning detecting wildlife crime and securing convictions, but I wonder if Police Scotland can maybe enhance that understanding further. From the investigations that you carry out into raptor persecution in particular, is there any evidence that in some instances the actions have been perpetrated not by estates or landowners or their employees, but by others, potentially with a view to beswatching the reputation of estates or the wider sector? Does that sort of thing go on in your experience and if so, to what extent? I am acutely aware that there is a view that that does go on. I am not aware that we have ever gathered any evidence that supports that view, but equally we have not been able to say that that does not happen in the cases that we have not resolved. I think that I am right in saying that. There are no cases where we have investigated that as being a hypothesis, where we have been able to demonstrate that that has actually happened. Thank you very much for what has been a really important session for us. I guess future committees and our own, hopefully next year, will have a much better understanding of the processes that we have gone through. Your evidence has been most helpful and the detail that you are going to follow up in writing to us will be an added benefit. I am going to close the meeting at this stage with thanks to you all for coming. Note that the next meeting on Wednesday 5 November, the committee will take evidence from the minister on wildlife crime 2013 annual report and will take evidence on a draft budget from stakeholders on the forestry theme. Thank you very much. I close the meeting completely just now and wish you all a good afternoon.