 Mae y trofyn i ddymaeith caern hanfa o Gareth ym Mwr remewyr Cymru. Felly bywch i'w ddyn nhw i'n ddyn nhw i gwybod â'r newid ystod, ac mae'n adnod iawn yn ei sefydlenoedd. Felly bywch i gyd wedi cyddoedd Alec Rhaeywch ar yr Yn Mwr remewyr Cymru change in land reform committee meeting and invite him to declare any interests he might have that are relevant to the work of the committee. Mr Rowley. Thank you, chair. I have no relevant interest to declare. Okay. Thank you very much. Can I also take this opportunity to thank David Stewart for his very considerable contribution to the committee over the last 18 months? I'm sure I speak for all of the committee in that regard. He now weaves us to join the health and sport committee in a wish and well. We all wish a well in that role. The second item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now move to agenda item 3, which is to hear evidence on the Scottish Government's wildlife crime in Scotland annual report 2016. I welcome Laura Bucking, head of the health and safety division, and Sarah Shaw, head of wildlife and environmental crime at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Good morning. I'm also Sean Scott, Detective Chief Superintendent and Sergeant Andrew Marvin, the Scottish Wildlife Crime Coordinator of Police Scotland. Members, as you can imagine, have a series of questions. We'll kick off by addressing perhaps what has been the biggest wildlife crime-related issue in the period since you were last before the committee, and that is the admissibility of video evidence in relation to alleged incidents. Sarah Shaw, I know that we've had correspondence between the committee and yourself on this issue. Can I ask you to lay out the Crown Office's position on this issue? This is obviously covertly obtained video evidence. I think that your mic is not on. I should have said that it works automatically. That's fine. The Crown Office's position is very much as set out in the letter that I sent at the end of May 2017. That is a good summary of the Crown Office's position. I don't know if there are specific questions that you have over and above what's in that letter. We do indeed. To kick that off, and I know that colleagues will want to come in. Have there been any cases to your knowledge where covertly obtained video evidence of the kind that was noted at the time has been used in the prosecutions of wildlife crime? I understand that there is a degree of flexibility here for the Crown Office in this regard. There can be exceptional circumstances. There have been cases where video evidence that has been obtained covertly has been used in evidence and there have been convictions. It's important to highlight that each case must be considered on its own facts and circumstances. The law on admissibility of evidence must be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case and its individual considerations. There have been examples of covertly obtained video evidence being used successfully in a prosecution, however that is not to say that it would be possible for that type of evidence to be used in every case. To develop my understanding of that, is a determining or the determining factor the purpose or the intent for the covert surveillance having been deployed? Is that fundamentally at the heart of that? I don't know that it's possible to say that that's the fundamental issue. I think that there are a number of different considerations in each instance, and the facts and circumstances of each case are entirely relevant, as are the facts and circumstances surrounding the obtaining of the video evidence. The circumstances in which video evidence is obtained in any case will vary in every case. Some of the facts and circumstances that must be taken into account as well as the wider facts and circumstances of any case in determining whether evidence is or considering whether evidence is likely to be admissible or not. Perhaps it would be useful to get that on the record. What are the broad brush rules that are at play here about video evidence and its admissibility in layman's terms, as far as you can provide that? Perhaps if I could come in at this stage. I think that, as Sarah has set out in our letter where she set out the laws on the mission of evidence, I don't know whether it would help for me to read out part of that for the committee. As with many areas of law, although the covert video evidence is applicable in wildlife crime and we've seen a number of cases where that has been used, it does come into play in all different spheres of law. When we are looking to consider that type of evidence, we need to think about how that is properly applied and how that implications of how that law is applied could then affect other types of crime and the way in which cases could progress. The way that we apply is still in line with the case law of Laurie v Muir. In that case, the full-bunt bench concluded that an irregularity in the obtaining of evidence does not necessarily mean that the evidence is inadmissible. However, the prosecutor acting in the public interest does have to look at that and perform a balancing act when considering that. Whether that irregularity can be excused speaks about the nature of the regularity and the circumstances in which it is committed. Earlier, you spoke about the Crown having some flexibility. I'm not sure that the correct term is flexibility, but we look at the circumstances of each case along with the law that we are following and apply that and determine whether we think in those circumstances if there was an irregularity and whether that irregularity is such that it means that everything that flows from that is therefore inadmissible. Those are the various tests that we apply when we are considering the cases. I know that we often and regularly say that cases turn on their own facts and circumstances, but that is very much the case. We take the prosecution of wildlife crime and, in particular, raptor persecution as a priority. If we have a case that we think that there is sufficient evidence and that we can take to court, then we will do, but we have a duty as public prosecutors to make quite difficult decisions and unpopular decisions. What we would like to reassure the committee and the public is that there is a high degree of scrutiny and consideration that we go into when we look at those cases, that the specialist prosecutors in the team know the case law, they know the framework in which they are working in and they have the expertise to consider that. There will often be disagreements within the team speaking amongst lawyers about how best to apply it, and we then do not stop there often when we have cases of this magnitude and decisions of this magnitude. They are reports prepared to our senior advocate deputies within Crown Office to make a final decision as to whether cases should proceed or whether, in some instances, we should no longer proceed when we are giving evidence. I do not know whether that is helpful or if there is anything that I can expand on there. I think that it is an allowable call to come in, but I think that this is an opportunity to perhaps address some of the wider public's concerns about this, assuming to explain to that audience what sort of things you have to take into account. I hope that those questions come along, and we can tease that out. Stuart Stevenson will be followed by John Scott. Thank you, and this may end up being one that the police wish to answer. The video evidence will, of the type that we are talking about, start as being information and not necessarily evidence, would be the question. In other words, although it might be apparent right at the outset that what has come and been presented to the police or to the COPFS is not going to be suitable as evidence in a criminal prosecution, it nonetheless can direct the police into an area of investigation. I just want to test whether that is a fair observation on my part and perhaps that is a police question in the first instance, rather than the fiscal one. Okay, thank you for the opportunity. Good morning, everyone. I suppose the point at which it gets to the Crown Office will be the point that we have already investigated, and we have that video evidence, and the admissibility of that is then something obviously that the Crown Office will decide upon. So, and obviously we explore every single opportunity we can to get evidence in wildlife crime because, as I have made mention at previous committees, it is very difficult sometimes to evidence it because of the nature of where it occurs, and the crime itself. So any video evidence we will present and clearly discuss with the Crown Office about how that comes about. I suppose the other part that is worth pointing out is that our operational activity in terms of deployment at cameras and directed surveillance is clearly bound by strict legislation. So any activity that we might want to do in relation to any type of crime, not just wildlife crime, is bound by that legislation, and in terms of serious crime tests, what have the three-year sentences had to be applicable, so there are a number of factors before we can even consider deploying cameras in an investigation, if you like. But when it comes to the point that we are looking at here in terms of evidence that might come from a third party, from an NGO or a charity that is engaged in work, then we will take it, everything that we have, and discuss that with the Crown Office. But just to close it off briefly, something that is apparent doesn't have the evidential chain from source through all the way that would enable you to take it through as prosecution evidence, ultimately. Nonetheless, it could trigger, if presented to you an investigation, even though the video evidence itself would not form part of any subsequent prosecution and you know that at the outset. So in other words, there is a value in the video or other similar information, it might be still photographs or whatever, but nonetheless they are a value to the police in alerting the police to potential criminality in relation to wildlife. Well, yeah, I mean, you know that evidence or that material itself, whether it becomes evidence or not, it's clearly intelligence as well. So it gives us an indication that, whilst it might not fit the test and therefore be able to be prosecuted, we have some intelligence that may be suspicious activity in a certain area by certain people, and then obviously we can keep that in mind and potentially use that in the future to further investigation if that's applicable. Can I ask before John Cymru, are there any circumstances in which you're aware that Police Scotland has worked with a third party to obtain footage of that nature knowingly worked with them? In terms of the deployment of cameras against, we couldn't do that. You can't do that? No, we were unable by law to do that. So, as I say, if we, because of the level of intelligence or sufficient intelligence, have suspicion that we could apply to deploy a camera, it has to fit a test. And it's yourselves that would arrange the deployment, not through a third? For one of our investigations, for other third parties, what they do with cameras and their raison d'etre, and that's obviously for them. Okay, thank you. John Cymru. Well, my question, thank you. Good morning, gentlemen, ladies. Well, it's essentially around that as well. And the importance, which hasn't really much been discussed about the importance of authorisation and permissions, the proper authorisations and permissions being put in place as for any covert operation. And indeed, if you would like to expand into the area of ECHR compliance in that regard for any of you to pick up on, please. So, the question is— The importance of authorisation is being in place— Oh, absolutely critical. Without the appropriate level of authorisation, that we can't proceed. So, even as an investigator, I wanted to do it, unless it's authorised from the appropriate level rank within our service, Detective Superintendent, then we can't progress. It goes back to the very heart of evidence taking and admissibility. So, whilst we might not even be thinking about RIPSA when we're looking at all ways in which evidence is obtained, so if a search warrant isn't properly granted or the police obtain evidence without a search warrant, then that evidence falls because of that regularity. Going back to Stewart Stevenson's point, what I would say in relation to the video evidence, it is the intelligence that can be used and the successes that we've seen in terms of the close working partnerships in relation to which the police have with NGOs and working together to identify where there is crime and how then that crime can be targeted in the most appropriate way to ensure a successful conviction. Just to reassure the committee, we've tried to look at the creative use of existing legislation to see if there's something that we could do within the current statutory framework to allow the deployment of cameras. So, for example, last year, I commissioned a bit of work in conjunction with the Office of Surveillance Commissioner to look at the legislation, see where is there anything that we can do with it just now. Unfortunately, we're bound by the fact that there is a serious crime test in terms of the deployment of cameras for any crime, effectively. So, at the moment, clearly, if there was to be a wider scope for the deployment of cameras by, for example, the police and other organisations, legislation would need to change, there's no question about that. Indeed, and this has been well understood for a number of years this need for authorisation and permissions, and it's not a revelation to anyone particularly. It's inflexible, I'm saying so. Indeed. Thank you, that was the point. Can I ask about the wider use of the photographic and video evidence in order to alert the public to potential cases of wildlife crime and indeed to then gather more evidence on the back of that? We've seen, for example, in the last year a number of incidents where photographic evidence has been brought forward. I think that it was an example of a case in Moe where two masked gunmen were seen with a weapon at the foot of a tree of a nesting site, and yet that photographic evidence was not released to the public for, I think, the best part of 10 months. There's other examples of alleged wildlife crimes where there's photographic evidence that hasn't been brought forward. What's your thinking about how you use that? Clearly, alerting the public to the potential for crimes that have been committed in those areas could bring in more additional evidence. In that case, the one that you mentioned there, but I think Andy probably has some specific details on that, I can share. I mean, going into that specific case, obviously that evidence didn't become available for at least three weeks, or three weeks, approximately after the incident occurred. Extremely poor picture photograph, one person possibly with a firearm at the time, and it was brought to the attention of the partners who, I think it was the Highland Poor group at the time, that's who it came via. We obviously investigated that, but by the time that it was a grainy picture without clear ability to identify anybody, and you couldn't, as we can infer what they were doing, and I think everybody probably knows why the people were there, actually, there's no wildlife crime committed on that occasion, so you know, we could, you know, suggest we could put that out into the public domain, but we would actually, we didn't have anything concrete to actually say there's a wildlife crime here. What photograph shows is two people under a tree, one with a firearm. We've decided in the end. But it took, gather 10 months for you to actually release that picture, and there is a concern. There's no evidential gain to be made from releasing that at the time, and that's the reason that the decision was made. Okay. Can I ask about the length of time, then, that it takes to determine whether evidence is admissible or not, or whether evidence can be circulated to the public or not? There is a concern out there that the length of time that this evidence, whether it's substantial or not, sits there is an issue, particularly when you're trying to gather additional evidence on the back of that with leading to prosecution. There's perhaps an issue for the Crown Office as well. I think that there's two separate issues there, I suppose, in relation to the admissibility of evidence and also about the release of evidence, which is probably the best placed answer. In relation to the admissibility point, prosecutors are under a duty to review evidence and keep up that review throughout the case. I don't think that it's suggested that we hadn't considered the evidence or looked at the evidence, but what we have done in those cases is review that evidence. In some circumstances, further evidence and information has come to light, and, by that means, further information and evidence has been provided to the Crown. With that, we can then re-review all that we have to form a better idea about the admissibility and the means in which evidence was obtained. I don't know if that helps to answer your point in relation to admissibility, and if there's anything else I can add in relation to the release of evidence. The Crown wishes to be as transparent as possible when decision-making, and that is one of the things that we seek to do when making decisions in the public interest. To add to that is the fact that, again, each case is different. Gathering evidence within a wildlife environment, as I mentioned before, is very difficult sometimes. It takes a long period of time to go through what would say standard actions to try and gather evidence. There's a forensic examination that's required as well, which takes time as well. That doesn't happen immediately, so there are a number of factors. If Police Scotland has enough evidence to present to the Crown, we will do it timeously, but sometimes that evidence-gathering process does take quite a long time for a number of reasons. We don't delay, unnecessarily, what we will try to present as and when we can, that there's enough. Of course, while we have investigations on-going, we're in regular dialogue with the Crown Office to say that we have this brewing at the moment, and this is where we are, so we work closely together in terms of that process as well. Finlay Carson will be followed by Claudia Beamish. There's obviously some public frustration when there's evidence available and it's either submissible or not submissible, and you suggested that there can be sometimes creative use of existing legislation. The problem with that is that it could work both ways. It could work in favour of the perpetrator, but it could also impinge on some other human rights. When was it last, the legislation last looked at, and with advances in technology and whatever, is it something that should we really need to seriously take a stand on and look at what technology is available in trying to change the legislation to be fit for purpose? I don't know if you've got anything in terms of wildlife crime investigation legislation. The only one under review just now is the protection of wild mammals act, which is part of the Fox something issue, but in terms of the use of technology, and don't forget that wildlife crime is a crime like any other crime, so reviewing legislation for better use of technology is clearly something that we will feed in as the primary investigator within Scotland to where we see their potential gains to be made, but at the moment, I'll be honest, I'm not aware of any that's a specific target unless you have said it or not. By the use of technology and the creative use of evidence-gathering, when you think about the burgeon on the internet, social media, phones, we gather evidence and I'll present it, and if it's something that hasn't been done before, and I'm trying off the top of my head to think of something recently, but if there's something that hasn't been done before, then clearly that discussion where the crime takes place, and it may be something they either present or then would be tested in court, so I can't think of any legislation at the moment that's specifically being done. Just to clarify this point, isn't the situation here, it's not about a specific piece of legislation, from the letter that you wrote to us, the particular cases that we were talking about involved the Land Reform Act to involve the outdoor access code, and there's been a suggestion to this committee that there's an element here about the data protection act of 1998 as well, so it's really about meeting a series of tests, isn't it, for admissibility? I think that there's the general test in relation to admissibility. I think that what's quite interesting is that when you look at the law on admissibility, the case that we still follow is Llorian Muir, which is a 1950 case, now to some that would sound archaic, but actually what the law does and what investigators do is evolve in terms of what's facing them, so in terms of the way the law develops when we see the use of social media and we see the use of technology in crime, the law develops with that, and again it just turns on the facts and circumstances and how we can then apply it. There will be instances and cases where there's a novel or a new approach or the first time that social media was used or the first time that a mobile phone evidence was used, but we will push where we can in terms of crime prosecutors to test those types of evidence and to test how the admissibility of the evidence that's obtained in that. I'm not concerned about the lack of legislation if there's a consideration about that around that. I think that our law develops as that progresses. Is there more likely that food banks and prosecutions are going to come about by cases being tested through the courts rather than changes in legislation in regard to video evidence or photographic evidence? I think that it's difficult to say what legislative change would be meaningful in the abstract without a specific goal in mind. It is possible to use video evidence as evidence in a prosecution. The question is what are the full facts and circumstances surrounding the obtaining of that evidence that can impact on the admissibility. I think that it's fair to say from a crime perspective that we've not identified a huge gap in the law before the Scottish Government to consider whether further development of legislation is required to address any concerns surrounding the use of covertly obtained video evidence in the context of wildlife crime. In terms of us applying the law to the facts and circumstances of cases, we are able to use video evidence in cases. It just depends on how that evidence has been obtained and the full story behind each case, as we've already said, is considered on its own facts and circumstances. It's not that we can't use video evidence and photographic evidence, it depends on each case on how that evidence has been obtained. When you look at the number of cases that are brought forward that hinge on greatly on video evidence, there are a frustrating number of cases that you can't take to full prosecution because of the limitations of the current legislation. Is that frustration going to change because of decisions that have been made or would it be better if the legislation was to change to make that easier? I don't know if I'm explaining to myself very properly. Have you got a lot of cases that if they hadn't been tested already, if the legislation was clearer, would there be fewer people get off because of the technicalities of submissible video evidence? In recent times, the proportion of cases in which the admissibility of video evidence has not permitted the prosecution to proceed are relatively small. Can I just pick up and say what I'm saying on the point? Sean Scott will correct me if I'm wrong here. Essentially, what you said earlier, Mr Scott, was that from your perspective, third parties ought to be aware of the legislative and admissibility constraints that are at play here? Is that a fair summary? There are reasons for that. For example, whether it's by RSPB or another body is placing a camera in a certain location, then what is the purpose for that camera being there? If it's for the purpose because they suspect there's criminal activity, then there's an issue there because the legislation doesn't allow for that. If it's there for research and development and academia, then fine, but the purpose of that camera deployment is the key part, as it is for police investigations. All of that said, has there been any follow-up dialogue on the part of the Crown Office and or Police Scotland with multiple third-party organisations that might be inclined to do that to make it much clearer to them if that were necessary about the dos and don'ts? Actually, I have the raptor priority group, and that's been a discussion group meetings over the last year. I've explained to them exactly why the law is as it is and the constraints that that then brings. Obviously, the laws there for a reason, for human rights, have been mentioned as well, but the purpose for them, the deploying camera, is quite clear. Certainly, the group that I've been involved in about what the constraints are, and I've also explained to them as well about how I was trying to look at existing legislation and see if there was a more creative use that we could make, but there are limitations, so there are limitations, I should say so. Okay, there's a number of questions that colleagues want to get in here to wrap up this section, so very briefly, John Scott followed by Claudia Beamish. Just to pursue that point, at what point does it become an infringement of a landowner's human rights when cameras are placed covertly and knowingly flouting the law by organisations such as RSBB that appear? Well, I mean, the landowners, Andy, you probably know a bit more about that. I think, I mean, that's obviously not a question for us to answer, so that's a question for the RSBB and to look at what the Land Reform Act allows you to enter land for. Well, the Land Reform Act clearly does not allow. And that's part of the discussions we regularly have with some of our partner organisations. And I think that's probably the answer that you're looking for. Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. It's obviously a very complex issue this, and I'm just wondering particularly, Mr Scott, I think you said that any change in legislation, correct me if I got this wrong, but any change in legislation would be a broad issue around video evidence or whatever. My question is quite specific, but the other questions I had have actually been answered, whether I feel positive about the answers or not, I understand the reasons for them. Would it be useful to police inquiries if there was specific change to legislation, if this was possible, in order to enable partner groups to, with permission, and I use that word advisedly, to actually have video set up covertly in that these are often in very, very remote areas of Scotland, such as in South Scotland, near Lethills, not in Lethills, I stress, where there was an alarming situation, which is alarming for the public as well, to see somebody in a balaclava jumping on to a quad and driving away with or without a weapon, and there may well be debate about that. I'll get to the point that I think I've made already, but is there the opportunity to look specifically at this part of wildlife crime and see whether there is a need to change legislation? I stress on the back of John Scott's question that, while there may be complications in relation to ECHR, a definition of privacy in those circumstances would be possibly very relevant, because what privacy is being infringed by filming somewhere that doesn't film into someone's window or someone's car to see if a criminal is going to come along and vandalise it again or whatever. I'm very interested to know whether there is an opportunity that would help with your investigations and with better protection for wildlife along those lines. I suppose that, simplistically, if there were more cameras in remote places where we think there may be a wildlife crime being committed, then it's obvious that that might benefit. I think that the complexity of the issues that underpin all that are, as you rightly pointed out, the main challenge and the definition of privacy. In part of the debate that we've had previously, somebody walking in a remote area, do they have an expectation that they're being private there or the fact that they're out in the open and therefore exposed to anyone looking, then there's no expectation of privacy. It is a fundamental part, I don't think that there's any doubt. Simplistically, more cameras might mean more evidence—might not, but it might mean—but I think that the complexity is around that, and it almost feels like it's a public debate regarding that. It's something for me, or even a legislator, to decide arbitrarily, but it's a very difficult subject. I think that it was touched on right at the very beginning, though it's the impact that this was having on wider legislation away from wildlife crime. That's what you've always got to remember in the background here, so if you were to allow that in a wildlife crime situation, what's the next step? That's why I asked whether there was any grounds for specific use in the park. Just to sum up the position in terms of the law, you have the common law rules, you have article 6 of the convention, you have RIPSA, and I think that the general position is—please disagree with me if this is wrong—that you judge each case on its facts and you look at the irregularity in obtaining evidence. You don't necessarily exclude it, but if there is no warrant, for example, you probably would. If there is a warrant but you go beyond the warrant, in terms of the warrant, you probably would. There's the old fruit of the poison tree argument, et cetera, and in particular in this case you have covert cameras that perhaps are not authorised. With all that in mind—and I think that the number of the issue is this—is there anything in wildlife crime, given the difficulties that we all appreciate in reaching successful prosecutions? Is there anything that justifies treating it differently to other forms of crime? Can you see a situation where we can make an exception and treat it differently, or are we at the general position? There are other examples of crime committed in remote areas where there are the same challenges that you face in detecting and gathering sufficient evidence of a wildlife crime. I don't think that the challenge is necessarily unique to wildlife crime, so, on that basis, I'm not sure that there is a basis for treating wildlife crime differently to other forms of crime. I mean one, you talked about—I think that Laura Buck and you talked about Laurie versus Muir, and it's applicability even now. Interestingly, in that case, I think that there were private inspectors, so it was analogous to the situation of a third party, so it's directly in point. I think that my question around third parties is this. How—if, say, the RSPB obtain evidence that because it's not authorised is not admissible, is there an opportunity for the police to obtain evidence like that, which would be admissible? Is that a situation that you can envisage? I mean what we have spoken about is partnership working, and if the RSPB become aware of a crime or have evidence of a crime or the potential for a crime to be committed, then they should contact Police Scotland to work together in terms of looking at the best way and means of obtaining evidence to evidence that crime. It is difficult because a lot of those questions will come down to intent in terms of the purpose of putting the cameras in the place, and we have routinely and regularly said that in relation to wildlife crime, by the very nature of the types of crimes that are committed, it's difficult to first identify the crime, then to identify a perpetrator. We are live to those issues too when we're looking to consider the law and the applicability of whether evidence can be properly used. I was just going to follow up on a further point in relation to our partner agencies, in relation to a number of cases that we've discussed this morning and after some decisions to not continue. Our Crown agent did meet with RSPB, along with the head of wildlife environmental crime, to discuss those cases and to put steps in place for future in terms of better communication and dialogue and debriefing in relation to instances where that arises again. Again, that's all about education and thinking about how perhaps we can best work together to get the evidence needed for successful prosecutions. Okay, thank you for that. Stuart Stevenson that you've followed by Alec Rowan. I think that that will wrap up this part there. Vicarious liability. In the countryside it already exists, for example, in relation to dumping. In other words, if a third party dumps something on your land that's polluting, SEPA will come after the landowner even though the landowner is entirely innocent of the original crime. For example, I also believe—and I may be corrected on this—did we not legislate for a small bit of vicarious liability in relation to landowners becoming liable in wildlife crime for the actions of—yes, I'm getting nodding heads so my recollection is correct—is that working and is the scope for limited extension of vicarious liability? You could go to the ultimate extreme. I'm not proposing this. I don't think you could do it, but you could make landowners responsible for everything that happens in the land whoever does it. I just don't see how you could go there, but in theory you could go there. Is there an incremental change you could make in relation to vicarious liability, which has been part of English law at least for 100 years? There are circumstances where we can look to prosecute people in relation to vicarious liability. I understand that last year there was some discussion in relation to the application of vicarious liability and how we can successfully prosecute it. Like much of wildlife crime, it's not straightforward and it's difficult sometimes to identify who owns the land, who has the beneficial rights in relation to the land in terms of what goes on the land. In order to prosecute successfully, we then have to ensure that—or look at all the evidence again—the landowner may have some defence in terms of the due diligence that they had carried out, what their knowledge was in terms of what was being carried out on the land also. The police and investigators and we as prosecutors just have to follow that trail. Quite often we start with the prosecution of, say, a gamekeeper and we then follow that back to see whether we can then mount a successful investigation and then prosecution in terms of the landowner. Again, we will if we can do and if there is sufficient evidence for us to mount such a prosecution. I would regard gamekeepers as one of the front line of protecting our environment, mostly just to be clear about that. Sorry, there was an example in terms of how to use the case. Alec Rowley, finally. I come back to the point that Detective Chief Superintendent Scott made, that example of the RSPB believing that there is criminal activity and sticking a camera up and then it's not being admissible. I think that you touched on it as well. What is the work in relationships because you would assume that if the RSPB believed that there was strong grounds to believe that there was criminal activity, they would be working with Police Scotland, who take this level of crime as serious as a rather crime, and that the police would then be able to put a camera in place if they believed that there was a strong case for criminal activity. What is that relationship and is the resources there to be able to do that? Just like if you were in a community and there was a hotspot identified where there was some kind of behaviour, then the police can stick a camera up that will often deter every bit as much as catching someone. If anyone, whether it's RSPB or unsuspect, there's criminal activity, then we need to know about it as soon as possible and then we can assess it and then we can decide on the investigative strategy for that. If RSPB—I'm not going to speak for them here—we work closely with them. Andy and I had a meeting with their head of investigations and others looking at the development of our work in relationship, which is great, but we still have enough suspicion to then take on an investigation. That would not, on our side, involve the position of a camera because it doesn't fit the legislative or the legal requirement because wildlife crime in itself doesn't fit that direct surveillance threshold. If RSPB is going to deploy a camera, as I mentioned earlier on, then it's for their reason only. They couldn't come to us and say, we suspect criminal activity, so we're going to put a camera in and therefore you can then use evidence. That can't happen and it's never happened. If RSPB has deployed a camera for whatever reason it even fit and then they come and tell us later, oh, by the way, we now have footage, then clearly we can assess that footage in terms of its importance and investigation, whether it's criminal or not. If it is part of the criminal investigation, then we will report it. We can't be involved in a decision to deploy a camera based on suspicion of criminal activity because we would be breaking the law of doing that. Sorry, just to repeat, their deployment of a camera is a decision for them and if they think that there's a criminal activity, they should be telling us first and then we can think about what's the best approach to this. If they have a camera deployed for research and then it uncovers criminal activity or suspected, then they need to tell us about it as soon as possible and then thereafter we'll have a discussion with Crown about admissibility. We are not complicit or involved in any decision making about deploying cameras by anyone other than ourselves. Given the, as we said earlier, advancements in technology, given that one of the methods it would seem to be able to catch criminals committing a wildlife crime and given the intelligence that RSPB and others come up, do we not need a change in legislation that allows the police to be able to deploy cameras where they believe that there is evidence of criminal activity taking place? Exactly, that's what I mentioned before. We could not do it unless there was a change in legislation, the threshold was reduced or the authorization led. There's a whole complex suite of issues here and that we're coming back to the point made by a colleague over there is that why would it just be for wildlife crime? It would be for crime in general because direct surveillance is an issue of a public concern, human rights, so the legislation would have to change, but it would have to change probably across the whole criminal landscape, I would suggest. The NGOs and charities that have cameras and use them are entirely up to them, but they know what the law is in terms of admissibility, as it can be described by Ciaran. One of the things that you have to hit in terms of deploying surveillance is about the expected sentence. We have spoken with Sentencing Council about wildlife crime and expressed the view that the level of sentences available in terms of wildlife crime legislation obviously don't meet the threshold often for the deployment of cameras, so there's possibly one step that you could take down that line, but obviously the wider impact in terms of just deploying cameras in wildlife crime situation has to be taken in the whole context. I mentioned that before, but the Ciaran threshold, the three-year sentence, there's also a level of violence that's expected within there that determines whether we can deploy cameras, so it's complex. We've clarified that, hopefully quite effectively. I'm going to move on and deal with the wider issue of wrapped up persecution in micro-school. If you could look specifically at the figures that are in the report, on the face of it it appears that prosecution rates are going down, not up, so why is that the case? Or are there issues to do with the accuracy of the figures and which this is based on? Is your question in relation to wrapped up persecution? So we've got a 19% decrease in offences, however there's been a 39% increase in cases, and that also doesn't take into consideration the tagged golden eagles as well, which presumably might even push that number of cases up, so there does seem to be a trend of decreasing successful prosecution, so what are the underlying reasons for that? I'm not sure it's possible to comment specifically in relation to wrapped up persecution based on the stats in the report, but— Is that an issue in itself? Possibly. Sticking to your main question to begin with, there were slightly less cases reported in 2015-16 compared to 2014-15, and there were slightly less cases prosecuted. However, the same conviction rate was maintained in respect of the overall number of cases prosecuted. There was a 70% of cases prosecuted. There was a conviction, and that was the same in 2014-15, so there's not been a percentage drop in the number of convictions. In that sense, obviously a court has to take into account the evidence in a case, and our job as the crown is to present the evidence to the court. I'm not sure that based on the information in the report, we can see that there's been a reduction in conviction for wrapped up persecution crime. Last year, last time the committee took evidence, we looked at a number of cases that hadn't actually been reported under the wildlife reporting from previous years. I'm just wondering if there are other cases that are not forming part of this picture right now, and I mentioned the tag golden eagles that have been subject to a particular study that should, presumably, result in a case being investigated in relation to their disappearance. How accurate do you think that that data is? We can only consider the cases that are reported to us. As we mentioned earlier, in relation to crimes that come to us, a crime will have been identified, but also the person responsible will have been identified and there will be evidence to support that. There's quite a difference in terms of the figures that we'll get in terms of crimes, and I'm sure that Sean will want to come in on that in terms of what the police will determine as a crime to what ultimately comes to us as a reported case. There will be a difference in terms of the figure, because by the time it gets to us, it will be for us to consider that there will be an accused, as well as charges that are supported by evidence that has been investigated by the police. We touched on that last year also in terms of our system that we use in Crown Office is primarily there to assist in the prosecution of cases and for us to use that system for that purpose. It's not there to be able to pull those figures and stats from, although our team does a huge amount of work into pulling as much accurate information that can from our system. I think that we should say that, year on year, we see an improvement in terms of the clarity of the figures that are before the committee. There will be differences and the inability to reconcile some figures as we move from organisation to organisation. Ultimately, when we get to the courts, they will record crimes in a different fashion. First of all, I think that we're quoting percentages here when we're talking about small levels of figures. Percentages can be quite misleading in terms of the picture of paints, so I think that we have to talk about the figures. However, in terms of the Golden Eagle satellite tag report, yes, that's very concerning, the evidence that was in the report, but we have to also look at the figures and we look at a report of a missing satellite tag deagle and say, is there sufficient there to record a crime? Often, there isn't sufficient evidence to record a crime, and that obviously is an issue. We can't just ignore the fact that there's not sufficient there for us to physically record a crime, according to the crime recording standards that are applicable right across the whole of crime recording, whether it's for assaults, thefts or wildlife crime. What improves the prosecution, the successful prosecution? Is it better quality pictures, last grainy or—? The ability for colleagues in the crime office to prosecute is based on the quality of the case that we can present. As we discussed at previous committees, the evidence-gathering challenges are stark in terms of wildlife crime because of all the reasons that we've rehearsed before. We will do everything we can to get that evidence, but it just sometimes isn't there because of the remoteness, the circumstances and the host of factors, so it can be challenging. We work well together. There's a strong and good working relationship between Police Scotland and ourselves as well as a number of NGOs. Often, we will be discussing cases and discussing potential cases. If we have, for example, cases reported to us where we don't think that there's a sufficiency of evidence, we can go back to the police and discuss that with them, and we can discuss what voids could be filled, what potentially other investigations could be undertaken, and we can keep cases on review. There are means to us when we are looking to target and ensure successful prosecutions that it doesn't end when the case comes to us, that there's an open dialogue, and if there is a means to secure a conviction, we will work towards that with the police or other reporting agency. There's a commitment in this year's report, Welcome Commitment, to use more scientific data as part of the evidence to understand where wildlife crime may be happening. What action have you taken in the last year on the back of that ecological data? Are you now, for example, targeting particular hotspots around driven grass, more shoots, where there may be increased levels of persecution? How are you actually using that data now to target your resources in evidence gathering? Police activity continues. I think it's probably worth pointing out at this point that you'll be well aware of the programme for government and the desire of the Government to invest in wildlife crime. We have an additional support officer starting at the end of this month to work with Andy, Detective Constable. It's an additional resource to support national investigations. We have the start of the dedicated rural and wildlife crime special constables cadre in the Cairngorms national park, which, again, is an area of concern when you think about the satellite targeting report. They'll be dedicated in those areas. We still have the structure within Scotland that's still the envy of other UK police forces in terms of our dedication to wildlife crime investigation, not just through the dedicated wildlife crime leisure sources and part-time ones, but the fact is that the whole organisation is there to investigate crime. I mentioned previously, I've got a single point of contact in criminal investigation departments in every division, who is the go-to person that you'd like to advise on. The quality of investigations is required based on circumstances, and all my detective superintendents in the divisions are well aware of the requirements around wildlife crime. We have the structure there. We have the support intelligence. It's still the lifeblood of any investigation, whether it's wildlife crime or other crime. I hope that, through the structure that we have there and the additions that we can start to generate more intelligence to allow us to then... Okay, but in terms of the intelligence that you have generated around the science and ecology, how are you using that data? That was my question. I appreciate the changes that... I'm not in the structure. The ecology data. How are you using the scientific data to target that resource that you've just described in a way to tackle wildlife crime in hotspots areas? I think really that scientific data probably confirmed what many people suspected in terms of where the areas were around the country. I think that we were aware of where areas were, that birds of prey were disappearing. But there is local engagement. There's constantly been local engagement from the local police with estates, et cetera, in terms of getting a prevention message out there and highlighting the issue that these birds are disappearing. I know this year that Highlands and Islands division, for instance, are actively engaging with estates, especially where there is an indication that birds have disappeared. This is no indication of guilt of an estate, because there are extremely intelligent people out there who would like to point their finger at an estate when it's not necessarily anything to do with that. We're actively engaging with them in terms of getting a message out that we have a full-time wildlife crime liaison officers in those divisions where traditionally the birds of prey have been... persecution has been focused. That sort of work has taken place. That's really the only scientific development that's come out within the last 12 months. In fact, we were discussing this prior to this that there is no significant scientific data in other areas of wildlife crime that's come forward and that we could utilise. I think that that's really the only report that's come out since we had the last discussion. Thank you. Kate Forbes has a question about general recording. I have a brief question about the level and quality of reporting, because obviously it's been discussed previously in this committee and the ECCLR's predecessor committee about being able to identify trends and having the data to be able to identify trends. This is obviously the second year that the report has been presenting data by financial year. In terms of recording and reporting wildlife crimes, what other possibilities are there in terms of how that's presented to be able to identify better trends over longer time periods? Does that make sense? In terms of trends of criminality, if you like. The annual report identified a few difficulties with comparing different sets of statistics and cautioned that care should be taken when interpreting the report. For example, prosecutions may not happen the same year as the crime was reported, timing being an issue, and I could go through the list of other points that the report identified. What are your thoughts on reporting on criminal activity and the level and quality of reporting? How can that be further improved so that we can identify trends? I'm not quite sure, because the quality of the report depends on the nature of the evidence that it contains. Therefore, to improve on successful prosecution, we need to improve probably on the quantity and the quality of evidence, if we can do that. Again, it comes back to all the challenges. I'm not quite sure technically or logistically or resource-wise what we can do any more than we are just now, in a proportionality perspective. For example, let's take current trends. Hair coursing has now started to increase activity, so we've had a number of successful prosecutions in that. That now is going to become more of a priority for us as an investigative body. A lot of proactive activity prevention messages and closely act that particular activity, because they will now see a trend in using dogs for criminal purposes. Maybe that does not lead to the end game in terms of the report, but the fact that we now focus our activity on what is clearly an emerging trend is our priority for the coming year. Both in terms of training, awareness-raising and the public, and our approach as an investigative body. Which presumably is on-going and is improving all the time. Yes, it is on-going. We have monthly information management, which is for internal concerns within the police, which circulates all the divisions through the wildlife crime liaison offices. That identifies, broken down into the division, the types of crime that's occurring. That's how we pick up on the likes of the air course in advancing. Obviously, the report itself has a significant time lag before the information that we're receiving today, for instance, would be reported. Obviously, there's nothing that the police or Crown can do about the way that the report itself is published. We're already picking up on that information management, so we're looking at that and identifying trends as significant as you can. Again, because of the low figures, it's often quite difficult. The air course is a one that we've certainly picked up on. I may men miss this, but the most interesting statistic would be to break these down in terms of the type of crime. For instance, in the year 2016, we see that there were 23 prosecutions. How many of those were raptor prosecutions? How many were traditional poaching prosecutions? Is it possible to delineate what those crimes were? I think that we'd all find that interesting. To some extent, you can see that from the report. That's not to say that we couldn't look at further breakdown. For example, you know that there are 15 cases reported, three of which involved offences against birds of prey, and there are different ways in which we have to categorise the cases for the purposes of the report because there can be several offences reported against several individuals. I think that it comes down to how the information is categorised and possibly we could provide more information. In terms of convictions, in the last year, you had 16 convictions. It would be interesting to know what those were for in terms of the categories of crime. In appendix 2A, there is further breakdown of the convictions for each type of offending. I appreciate Table D who talks about offences relating to birds. It doesn't specifically talk about how many of those are related to raptors. Police Scotland has a system that allows area commanders and divisional commanders on a weekly basis to know how many crimes have been committed across their patch and the sections, the herrings that they would come under. Is the wildlife crime information drawn from that in part or in totality? The wildlife... We record through compliance with the crime recording standard. We record every incident that is clearly a crime. We record that. That is on our crime recording system. Are those stats captured from that system? They are from exactly the same statistics. Analysis and performance units produce the same standard of report that would produce for any other form of crime, so they are drawing from the same statistics. Thank you very much, convener. I should have declared an interest earlier as a farmer and a landowner in my previous questions and I do so now. I regret that. I did not before. I am taking you to the generality of the report but also the detail. In your view, what has contributed to the 8 per cent decrease in recorded wildlife crime in 2015-16? Has there been a genuine decrease in wildlife crime in certain areas that you can tell us about? I suppose that any fluctuation in figures, whether upwards or downwards, can either be through better public awareness. Therefore, people are more inclined to report or it could be genuinely that there is less crime. It is very difficult to put your finger on that and the intelligence that we get in relation to suspected wildlife crime. Again, we can assess from that, but fluctuation is a very difficult touch of pinpoint. Do you make an estimation at all of the number of crimes that occur but are not recorded by Police Scotland? Do you have an estimation of crimes that take place but are not recorded or followed up? If somebody has a public phone in and says that there may be a wildlife crime incident and we respond and it transpires, it is not closed off as a crime. It is a non-crime incident. That clearly is based on the assessment of the circumstances. When our control room staff have training about wildlife crime and what to pass out to the front line, the front line has training as well and they have all the booklets and awareness. That assessment is based on knowledge. If it does not fit the bill, it is not recorded as a crime. False alarm with good intent, sometimes, is written off as for one of the very expression. I suppose to come back to the question on figures. Although we can say that there are 16 cases in which somebody has been convicted or 23 cases in which they have been prosecuted, that does not give measure as to how big or complex that case was. It is difficult to measure. I think that 8 per cent is quite a small figure to be able to put any idea as to whether there is a decrease and it might be that something that we have to look at again next year when we are considering the figures and look at that too. Thank you so much. Although that might not be an entirely reasonable question to ask all of you, but why has there been a 25 per cent drop in monetary fines given that the conviction rate is steady? What other sanctions are being used? I appreciate that that is possibly a question to ask the judiciary, but in their absence and in the ability to answer the questions here. Have you a view on that? Although we can see from the figures that there has been a drop in that aspect, we cannot comment on the sentencing. I would like to highlight that we have had a custodial sentence this year in relation to hair coursing. We have also had a successful prosecution at the first of its kind in relation to a mounted hunt. There are positives that we can take in terms of education, again in terms of deterrent, in being able to publicise that and to how seriously we take those types of crimes. Also, when we are looking at people receiving custodial sentences, it sends a very strong message out to those who would wish to continue to undertake those types of crimes as to how seriously the courts will also take that. Can you tell me whether a lack of police or COPFS resources for wildlife crime impacts on those statistics? Are there other factors relevant to this? I think that you have discussed that. I think that I can say again that in terms of crown office resource, there are five dedicated lawyers who work within the wildlife and environmental crime unit. As a proportion in terms of the amount of cases that are received by crown office, that is a high proportion of legal staff, an experienced legal staff that are dealing with those types of cases. I do not have any concern about the level of resource that is currently being utilised by the crown. Is that a view shared by the police? I mentioned our structure. I think that we have a proportionate dedication into wildlife crime. However, as I said, do not forget that it is not just dedicated wildlife crime staff that deal with these front-line troops, both in terms of first responders and CID and others, are all involved in crime investigation and will become involved as and when they are required. Excellent. Many thanks. I will go away briefly. Do you have a proactive strategy policy of crime prevention? Do you work with other organisations around that? I think that it is probably important to highlight at this point that, again, part of the programme for government was a prevention review that was going to be commissioned. You think about partners against wildlife crime. We have all had prevention campaigns. At the moment, there is an investment in a new one just now. I will be quite frank. Prevention is always part of discussions with all the priority groups, but the government's programme for government mentions a prevention review that quite has not got traction yet. However, we are ready to work with them to look at that and develop that as and when as possible. Part of our three-year strategy within the police has mentioned wildlife crime within that. We are looking at the challenges, looking at what we need to do to continuously improve, not just there but in other areas. Prevention is still well on the agenda. I think that we have touched on the work of Paul, so let us explore that in a bit more detail. Claudia Beamish. Could I ask whoever feels that it is appropriate to answer probably Mr Scott and Mr Marvin a little bit more about Paul? I was concerned to see that the most recent report notes that the executive group met once in 2016. The plenary group did not meet in 2016. You will recall, Mr Scott, that we had some discussion about, to put it at its most polite, lack of communication between some partners within Paul last time with some difficulties in structure and, in view of the remoteness that we were all highlighting earlier and the concerns about partnership working. Could you say a little bit more about what has been happening with Paul and what the plans are for the next year? I do not share the point that the cabinet secretary does that. In terms of the frequency of meetings, that is up for the cabinet secretary to determine. We fully engage with that. Through the priority groups, which we sit in at each and every one, some sharing, some as part, there is definite co-ordination there. I think that it was probably highlighted last time that the media strategy for Paul, and there was one or two elements where there was media releases going out without a prior circulation amongst other Paul members, so they could comment prior to going out. That was addressed. To be honest, it is probably more out of enthusiasm than anything else by individual members. I have no reason to sit here and say that Paul is not working to any extent, but it is work going forward as a single entity. Take away the priority groups, but as a single entity it is clearly something for the cabinet secretary and the Government to lead on. Can I add that some of the more poor priority delivery groups at the lower level are below that, such as the legislation group, the raptor group, Mr Scott Chairs, etc. They have met on a regular basis. It is maybe just that that executive-level group has not met. The other groups have certainly met. On the lower level again, there is more informal discussion, so we meet with Scottish Badgers to discuss various issues, crime recording, etc. Out with the UK Badger priority delivery group as well. That engagement is still taking place with the key partners, whether it is at the priority delivery groups or at an informal level. Maybe it is not the case that the executive group has met, although communication still takes pace between individual concerns. Are there particular areas that you would like to highlight to the committee that have come forward from any of the subgroups that are working that we should be aware of, or that you would like to see taken forward over the next year? I think that there is a couple of issues to you in the letter that we submitted recently about venison dealers, licences and things like that, which is all documented in the letter, in terms of the difficulties that we have with that, in which Scottish Natural Heritage has and in which that has been taken forward. I think that we have really highlighted the issues in there. There is nothing specific that we would like to see taken forward. There are issues that we may bring about hair coursing in terms of the difficulties that we face in terms of the retention of dogs and things like that. The legislation does not allow us to do that. That is the type of thing that we look to bring forward over the next 12 months through the delivery groups and then possibly through the POE executive. There is nothing perhaps for this meeting here. Thank you. You touched on badges, so let us move on to badges. There were seven recorded crimes in the Badger area. Only one was reported to COPs, which seems to be a rather low number. I would like to explore that. Has a prosecution been secured in that particular case as yet? I am not quite sure about the prosecution of that case, but in terms of the crimes, often those crimes are not reported when they are in action, as they were. Immediately you have the difficulty of then trying to establish who has committed the crime. There is also a lot. You have to have intent or recklessness for certain elements of the Badger-related prosecution. That creates difficulties in submitting a case to Crown Office. There are a number of reasons why we might not have seven cases, but we have only one case that has been taken forward to Crown Office. Can I explore this a little bit further? I will get the word out anecdotally. It has been suggested to me that there might be other things that potentially play in terms of attitude towards Badger crimes. For example, perhaps if a badge or set has been disturbed or damaged, but the badges are still there, the approach, which I think would be contrary to the act, is that there is not really been a crime committed. I will hold that thought for now. Is there an approach that says that first offenders are being dealt with at an informal caution level? Is there any slackness-cut land managers? Is there a fuel for where that is at the moment? That is quite an important issue. Certainly from the police, I would not say that there is any slackness cut to anybody in terms of the reporting of crime. I am not quite sure how to take that comment. The police have to form adjustment based on the likelihood of that being taken. I was not suggesting any impropriety in any way. I have passed that on to my colleagues. At the end of the day, we cannot afford to be seen to be doing that anyway, so we would need to, if there is a crime to be recorded, we will record the crime. We look at the circumstances. We take into account the direction that occurred from previous cases about what is a set. It is not necessarily the land on top, it is about what is involved in it. It is also about when the crimes reported to us, how far after an incident occurred, what we see, what is present when we get there, is there any evidence of a set in use, are there badges about there? Often the case is that without having a direct look inside a set, you will never know if it has been damaged. There is an issue there, whether you need a ledger to change there to say that, regardless of the strict liability offence, that is a different issue completely. Do you get any guidance from the Crown Office as to where it is likely to be a prosecution would be proceeded? We will often talk to Crown Office on these cases. As I say, the stated case is from south of the border, which defines the set and what is the set at the time. However, we also take from Sheriff Drummond's view or statement about what the indicators are that are sets in use at the time as well. That is widely accepted by ourselves and by NGOs, but when we have the circumstances, we think that there is a case there or possibly a case there, we will speak to Crown Office and I will take this opportunity to say that perhaps in my career, the relationship between Crown Office and the police is probably one of the closest ones there is, because you are able to pick that phone up and you are able to get advice straight away about whether it is sufficient there. It is useful to get that on the record, thank you. Moving on to bats, Finlay Carson. Declare an interest is a bat champion. The bats are named as a priority area, but it would appear that bat crimes are not reported anywhere other than within other wildlife offences. Why would that be? Why would bat crime not be a big part of proceedings relating to offences against bats are included in other wildlife offences, which means that it is difficult to look to see what the number of crimes are and what the conviction rate is? I think that that comes down to the fact that some of the legislation that we are talking about is specific to species of bats, as European protected species, and it is about the regulations, which are not just applicable to bats but applicable to otters and various other animals as well. That is why it is not broken down into specific acts. It is not like the Badger Act, where you can just pull that evidence down and say that is all about badges. It is a piece of legislation that covers a wide variety of animals. Obviously, there is not a huge number of convictions. Is there any barriers to bat crime being reported? Is there an underreporting of bat crime? I mentioned this last year. The numbers are very low. I think that last year there was no convictions at all or recorded crimes. Do you see that there is underreporting of that? Actually, bat crime is very low. I think that bat crime is generally low, but, again, it is difficult to tell because you are talking about small numbers here. I think that we conducted a number of investigations last year well into the 20s in terms of the investigations across Scotland. There is, again, an intentional or recklessness aspect to some of the charges that could be taken forward, but not for all of them. That is something that we are actually in discussion with. I spoke to our crime registrar about it very recently, and we are looking to get clarification on that because there is not necessarily a case of any criminal intent. That is only in certain elements. The level of bat crime, we do get certain incidents reported, whether that is to do with the cutting down of trees, whether it is to do with disturbance in bat roots or developments. It can be in a variety of different areas. It is not significant levels, but, apparently, according to colleagues in the Bat Conservation Trust, we investigate a significant number compared to other forces around the UK. Andy Wightman makes about the offence as well. We are going to take this issue to the technical group for crime recording, the Government's crime board, because, although disturbing a bat colony is an absolute offence, as Andy Wightman said, it is the intent. If it was unintentional, then is it still a crime? In terms of SCRS compliance, we are going to have that discussion at the technical group, but, if there is no intent, then I would never determine what the decision would be, but it is unlikely to be a prosecution if it was. However, we are going to look at that quite closely. Cases that involve bats are one of the things that we look at in terms of severity as to whether it is a corporate commercial or in relation to development. Is it an individual that is perhaps unaware of either the bats being there or the legislation in relation to bats? We have to take all of that into consideration, but we certainly, as bats as priority, take any case where bats are involved. We consider it carefully. Are you suggesting that sometimes it will not come through the police, so there may be a compliance with regards to a bat report that SNH would request if someone was converting an old barn or through planning permission? It shows that there are only two cases last year. Are you suggesting that there are actually more cases coming before you and they are just dealt with in a different way? No, we can only deal with the cases that we get, so if there are only two cases reported, then we will only deal with the two cases that are reported. I was just trying to give some background to the discussion about why and where we get crimes against bats. I think that we engage with SNH in terms of licences. There may be occasions where somebody may just be about to commit a crime, we get notified about it, we will speak to them straight away and they may stop undertaking the action that they are currently taking and then they will then go and get a licence from SNH or there are occasions where we get told about an incident that we investigate and we find that actually there was a licence in place anyway for that action to take place. Is there maybe an argument that there should be some reporting of bat crime, which is not intentional or inadvertent? The crimes that are reported are crimes because they are intentional, but there may be cases where bats are disturbed, but it is not seen as a criminal because it is not with any intent. That is fantastic. Once we have the discussion of the technical board of crime, we can look at that and whether it should be recording or not and then you might get some more information from that. Finlay Carson, do you want to move on to hunting with dogs? Yes, very briefly. You have actually touched on it quite a few times. My interest was hair coursing. There seems to be an increase in hair coursing and I think that it is potentially the highest number of criminal acts that involve actually hair coursing. Is there any reason behind it and what are you actually doing to try and cut it out because we realise that there is a lot of other criminality associated with those involved in hunting with dogs or hair coursing? Hair coursing across the UK in general has been an increasing problem. It has been highlighted on TV recently as well on national programmes. Yes, we have noted it in Scotland increasing. It is very much almost, it can be almost like a hit and run type hints that people can be one place and then they can commit a crime in five minutes, later they are away and three hours later they will appear somewhere else in a completely different division. Now we have undertaken a piece of work with the national wildlife crime unit to look at all the incidents that have come forward, all the crimes that have been recorded and we hope to take that forward in the coming year and look at a bit more targeted action. Again, as I say, although it is an increase for us, it has not been as significant, I would suggest as it has been elsewhere in the UK. I think that it was Lincolnshire last year or the year before we reported 2,000 incidents alone, which when you consider the size of the force down there in comparison to Police Scotland, they are obviously suffering greatly. We have not seen the levels of intimidation that have occurred down south yet. That certainly has not been reported to us, so that is something that we are obviously aware of that has occurred elsewhere. We have had a number of successes and there are still people being reported just recently in East Lothian, and we would like to see that case come to court eventually. We look to take it forward. There are difficulties in retaining dogs. There is obviously significant cost to being incurred and we are not in a position to claim those costs back, even if we have a successful prosecution at the end of that. There are also things like that that we have to consider. Perhaps there is a potential for, again, legislative change there. Again, we discussed the issue, although it is possibly outwith the sentence in the council, but it is about the ability to call back some of those costs if we incur them in kenneling fees, etc., for taking dogs away from people. I have retention notices in England now where there is a requirement on the accused, if you like, to look after the dogs until the end of the criminal justice process, which places a burden on them. If it is an outcome, it is confiscation of the accused. That is one aspect that we could consider. There are cost challenges with that, definitely, as Andy Swinney says. The structures of Police Scotland, as they exist, allow for you guys to take a co-ordinated approach across a few divisions? They hear, of course, an issue. My neck of those other areas has developed considerably. In practice, can you co-ordinate the activity of the wildlife crime officers and others to focus on that issue? That is probably an area where it has occurred more often than in other areas. The full-time wildlife criminal officers, in particular across a number of divisions, will work together so that they are all focused on a high-cost and at the same time partnering up with neighbouring up together so that they can respond to incidents. However, it is certainly something that has occurred in the past and will continue to look at it in the future, as a way to take it forward. It is predominantly on the east coast at the moment, because it is flatter. Obviously, there are better arterial routes for vehicles to make off more quickly. We are conscious of that, so there is analytical work going on just now in conjunction with the national wildlife crime unit to look at that whole picture and to better co-ordinate our response. There has been one or two notable successes. There is a report of a hair coursing here, but that has caught them over here because they have gone to someone else to do it. It is definitely a priority for us this year. Okay, that is useful. Thank you. Can I just add sorry, Grimd? In terms of speaking about notable successes, we spoke earlier about the development of the law and moving along. In fact, the conviction and the imprisonment that we had earlier this year, it was also the first hair coursing case in Scotland where the DNA evidence was significant and we were able to link the DNA evidence from the dog to the coursing. That is a progression in terms of the steps that we can take to target this type of crime also. Okay, thank you very much. Donald Cameron, you wanted to look at poaching. Sorry, can I also refer to my register of interests as a farmer and landowner? I apologise for not doing so until now and also to thank you for pointing me to annex 2A, which contains some of the information that I was asking about. In terms of poaching, this is an issue in the Highlands and Islands, particularly in relation to deer, and always has been for a long time. I was interested in the remark that Mr Marvin made earlier about co-ordination. Deer management groups obviously exist across Scotland and I know that police do, on occasion, attend some of the local deer management groups in my region. Is that a useful model? Do you see, in terms of dealing with poaching in this instance, but also wildlife crime in general, that interaction perhaps being useful in terms of raptor persecution and more generally in terms of wildlife crime, that interface between gamekeepers, estates and other land managers and the police? I think that it is engagement with all partner organisations. I go to the local deer network meetings as well, so I am regularly in contact with them. I have other colleagues who meet with other deer management groups, etc. We do engage whether it is with Scottish gamekeepers, whether it is with BASC or with RSPB. We are engaging with all these people regularly. It has to be that sort of approach. We need eyes. We have talked about it constantly about how the majority and I also want to make it clear that wildlife crime does not just occur in a rural environment, while wildlife crime occurs in urban environments as well, and it is often something that is missed. Particularly in rural environments, we do not have those eyes and ears. For instance, one of the things that we have on-going at the moment is that up in Highlands and Islands, you may be aware or not that the wildlife crime liaison officer goes and speaks to the gamekeeper training course, so new gamekeepers are receiving an input from the wildlife crime liaison officer. Part of that is to tell them about their responsibilities, but it is also about engaging with them so that they will then be in a position to provide us with information, because, as we say to them, we say to Walter Bayliff or the Bayliffs on the rivers etc. Those are people who are out at night and can provide us with information not just about wildlife crime but about all forms of criminality. By building up that relationship with the wildlife crime element, we can also receive information about all sorts of other crime that is occurring in rural environments. I did not know that. I am very pleased to hear it. Can I just, hopefully wrap this up with a final question on an issue that was brought to my attention fairly recently and caused me some surprise? We have talked here about gamekeepers and land managers being held to account by the law, and rightly so, but there has been an issue in the Gwends of Angus, in which legally-cited traps have been sprung maliciously and interfered with. I was quite surprised to learn that that is not a breach of the law in any way. It is very frustrating for the land managers and the gamekeepers, but it is not a breach of the law. Is that actually the case? Is there nothing that could be done about that? There is no legislation about interfering with specific legislation. I think that it was looked at many years ago when legislation was coming in, and I felt that it was felt at a time that there was legislation that covered those type of issues, but in our opinion it does not. It does not seem to do that, but certainly there is nothing in legislation that talks about interfering with the trap. We have raised this, looked at it on a number of occasions, and unfortunately there is nothing specific. However, what I can say is that the incidents that we are not really receiving significant reports about these sort of incidents, some organisations have suggested that it is far greater than the level of reporting that we are getting, basked, undertook a survey a couple of years ago, and that suggested that the levels were not as high as were being made, or were being talked about in the public domain. However, you are obviously cited on the frustration that is felt. Absolutely, and if there is an opportunity for us to investigate and find somebody who is responsible for a criminal offence, then we will take that forward. Can I just ask a question on that related subject of the illegal release of beavers in the take-out issue? What progress have you made with investigating that? It is a question that has been raised many times, but it comes down to proving who is responsible for the illegal release. I do not think that that has ever been able to establish that. Despite much speculation, I do not think that there is any evidence of who may have released the illegal release. Can I thank all of you for your attendance today? It has been useful to explore the statistics for this year and wider issues. I thank you for your time. At its next meeting on 23 January, the committee will hear evidence from various stakeholders on the environmental implications for Scotland of the UK leaving the EU, and it will also consider the electricity works environment impact assessment Scotland amendment regulations 2017, SSI 2017, slash 451. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session, and I ask that the public gallery be queered as the public part of the meeting is now closed. The committee has information. This is my last attendance here, because I have not been asked to go and lead a couple of transformation projects for Police Scotland. The national tactical lead for wildlife crime will be Detective Chief Superintendent David McLaren, who was involved in wildlife crime when he was in the Forth Valley area. He has got good experience. I apologise from ACC Johnson, who was here last year, but the strategic portfolio has now moved to ACC Gillian MacDonald, who, again, because it is a very recent change, was unable to attend, but you will have Mr McLaren here next year. As I said, Andy obviously was here for the first time, but I think that it is an invaluable valuable resource to have for this committee. We look forward to working with them and good luck on your new post.