Prosecuting Wildlife Crime

Abstract

The effective implementation of sanctions and processing of offenders through justice systems are key to successful wildlife law enforcement. Akella and Allan argue that ‘investments in patrols, intelligence-led enforcement and multi-agency enforcement task forces will be ineffective in deterring wildlife crime, and essentially wasted if cases are not successfully prosecuted’ (2012: 11). As earlier chapters have indicated, effective enforcement of wildlife laws is intended to prevent and reduce wildlife crime. However, the reality is that much enforcement is reactive, taking place after offences have been committed, and is intended to deter future offending primarily by apprehending and punishing offenders. However, the perception remains that many countries’ sanctions for wildlife crimes are ‘insufficient to act as a deterrent, and do not reflect the seriousness of offences’ (St John et al., 2012: 1). The manner in which sentences are applied and offenders punished is integral to effective wildlife law enforcement yet the implementation of wildlife sanctions can be inconsistent even where cases make it to the courts. This chapter discusses the prosecution of wildlife crimes and sentencing policy using examples from several jurisdictions to discuss key concepts in prosecutorial approach. It considers global regulations such as CITES (see also Chapter 2) and considers the prosecution of offences in different countries by way of discussing different perspectives on prosecution and sentencing.