Badger Campaign

 Badgering DEFRA - March 2004

It’s ludicrous that, at present, the police can only invite suspects to attend an interview by which time they will have agreed their alibis of course! To further hamper police investigations, suspects can even refuse to be interviewed!
 

Offences under the Protection of Badgers Act are not supported by a power of arrest

This effectively prevents the police from arresting suspected offenders at the scene of the crime and are therefore unable to take them for questioning. The Police have no powers to access property and land. How can the police be expected to investigate alleged offences properly if access to property and land is denied.
 

Frequently, the landowner is involved or knows the suspects. Access is denied which prevents the police carrying out investigations. End of story!

There is no provision for the obtaining of search warrants

Within a rural environment it is virtually impossible to be pro-active against known badger persecutors who indulge in digging or baiting. A provision to allow for the granting of search warrants would enable Police officers to be far more pro-active in dealing with badger offences by targeting known offenders and gathering forensic evidence.
 

No provision for the obtaining of search warrants. Unbelievable!

Offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 have to be commenced within six months of an offence taking place

Often offences are not detected until the time limit is close to expiration or has already expired. On the extremely rare occasions when a prosecution is successful, the penalties handed down by magistrates are minimal and most certainly do not act as a real deterrent. Although the maximum penalty is up to six months imprisonment or a fine at level 5 (£5,000), or both, in practice penalties handed down are minimal. In addition, although magistrates have the power to confiscate any weapon or article used (including vehicles), confiscate dogs and impose a ban on keeping dogs, these powers are hardly ever used. (Can also seize any badger or skin relating to the offence and, if necessary, order that a dog be destroyed.)
 

Sadly, I have to report that replies to our letters to Mr Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries, have been extremely disappointing. For example, Mr Bradshaw says, “While there may well be scope for improvements in the law, I must stress that there is currently enormous pressure on the legislative programme and I don’t foresee an early opportunity to revise the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.”

So Mr Bradshaw expects 264 Members of Parliament, Police Wildlife Crime Officers, leading Animal Welfare Organisations, more than 30 celebrities, thousands of members of the public and ourselves to accept that a legislative bottleneck is good enough reason to allow criminals to continue to partake in beating and torturing badgers with little risk of prosecution. I think not! The views of so many simply cannot be allowed to be dismissed when an estimated 10,000* badgers are barbarically killed each year by sadistic individuals who are fully aware that the low priority currently given to this type of crime means the chances of being detected and prosecuted are very slim indeed. *source: research carried out by Prof. Stephen Harris, Bristol University, together with Penny Creswell and Don Jefferies of the Nature Conservancy Council)
 

Mr Bradshaw expects us to accept that a legislative bottleneck is a good enough reason to allow 10,000 badgers to be tortured each year! As the saying goes, where there’s a will there’s a way.
 

However, in February we met with DEFRA officials in Bristol where we discussed in detail the Naturewatch proposals for amendments to the enforcement provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Although a very interesting meeting in many ways, we were nonetheless faced by the overall reluctance of the officers whose main concern appeared to be the increased workload that would be placed upon them despite acknowledging that the Act does have serious weaknesses. On a more positive note, DEFRA has agreed to investigate the possibility of using another legislative vehicle in order to introduce our proposed amendments rather than requiring primary legislation.
 

To rub salt into the wound, the ‘Labour Animal Welfare Society’ website has a flashing banner that reads, “We’re disgusted by Badger Baiting”.

Actions speak louder than words Mr Bradshaw

Our serious concerns are well justified as Home Office representatives agreed during our meeting with Hazel Blears last September. Hazel Blears has agreed to meet with Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable North Wales, to discuss our concerns and agree a way this matter can be taken forward as quickly as possible. (Mr Brunstrom also holds the Wildlife Crime Portfolio for ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and is co-chair of PAW (Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.)

We believe the facts speak for themselves, at present the police have their hands tied behind their backs before they can even begin an investigation. It is absolutely vital that the enforcement of the Protection of Badgers Act is strengthened to enable proactive measures to be taken against those suspected of offences. Making the amendments we are suggesting cannot fail to increase the number of successful prosecutions each year.

Within the next few weeks Naturewatch will also be meeting with Mr Richard Brunstrom. We will report back to you following this meeting in the next edition of Naturewatch News. At this point we will also be reconsidering our strategy in order to take this campaign forward.

Caroline Barker
Naturewatch

Back to the Wildlife / Badger Campaign index