Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report

Mark Poustie

Research output: Book/ReportCommissioned report

Abstract

The report was commissioned by the Scottish Government to review the penalty levels available for wildlife crimes in Scotland and those actually imposed by the Courts. It was also commissioned to review alternative penalties. As well as doctrinal research into these issues the work involved empirical research with stakeholders. A series of recommendations were made to the Government including increasing maximum available penalties, harmonising the availability of alternative penalties, requiring the use of impact statements where possible and the introduction of Sentencing Guidelines in this field to increase the transparency and consistency of sentencing for wildlife crimes.

Poustie was sole author (which can be confirmed with the SG) and the Review Group acted as a form of peer review panel in relation to the report.
LanguageEnglish
Place of PublicationEdinburgh
Commissioning bodyScottish Government
Number of pages75
ISBN (Electronic)9781785448317
Publication statusPublished - 19 Nov 2015

Fingerprint

penalty
offense
Group
peer review
transparency
empirical research
stakeholder

Keywords

  • wildlife crime
  • penalties
  • wildlife legislation
  • conservation
  • poaching
  • anti-cruelty

Cite this

Poustie, M. (2015). Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report. Edinburgh.
Poustie, Mark. / Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report. Edinburgh, 2015. 75 p.
@book{0b70b35e53b74b5fbd16fc2664986ba1,
title = "Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report",
abstract = "The report was commissioned by the Scottish Government to review the penalty levels available for wildlife crimes in Scotland and those actually imposed by the Courts. It was also commissioned to review alternative penalties. As well as doctrinal research into these issues the work involved empirical research with stakeholders. A series of recommendations were made to the Government including increasing maximum available penalties, harmonising the availability of alternative penalties, requiring the use of impact statements where possible and the introduction of Sentencing Guidelines in this field to increase the transparency and consistency of sentencing for wildlife crimes. Poustie was sole author (which can be confirmed with the SG) and the Review Group acted as a form of peer review panel in relation to the report.",
keywords = "wildlife crime , penalties, wildlife legislation, conservation, poaching, anti-cruelty",
author = "Mark Poustie",
note = "{\circledC} Crown copyright 2015 via OGL v.3.",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "19",
language = "English",

}

Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report. / Poustie, Mark.

Edinburgh, 2015. 75 p.

Research output: Book/ReportCommissioned report

TY - BOOK

T1 - Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report

AU - Poustie, Mark

N1 - © Crown copyright 2015 via OGL v.3.

PY - 2015/11/19

Y1 - 2015/11/19

N2 - The report was commissioned by the Scottish Government to review the penalty levels available for wildlife crimes in Scotland and those actually imposed by the Courts. It was also commissioned to review alternative penalties. As well as doctrinal research into these issues the work involved empirical research with stakeholders. A series of recommendations were made to the Government including increasing maximum available penalties, harmonising the availability of alternative penalties, requiring the use of impact statements where possible and the introduction of Sentencing Guidelines in this field to increase the transparency and consistency of sentencing for wildlife crimes. Poustie was sole author (which can be confirmed with the SG) and the Review Group acted as a form of peer review panel in relation to the report.

AB - The report was commissioned by the Scottish Government to review the penalty levels available for wildlife crimes in Scotland and those actually imposed by the Courts. It was also commissioned to review alternative penalties. As well as doctrinal research into these issues the work involved empirical research with stakeholders. A series of recommendations were made to the Government including increasing maximum available penalties, harmonising the availability of alternative penalties, requiring the use of impact statements where possible and the introduction of Sentencing Guidelines in this field to increase the transparency and consistency of sentencing for wildlife crimes. Poustie was sole author (which can be confirmed with the SG) and the Review Group acted as a form of peer review panel in relation to the report.

KW - wildlife crime

KW - penalties

KW - wildlife legislation

KW - conservation

KW - poaching

KW - anti-cruelty

UR - http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/11/2196

M3 - Commissioned report

BT - Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report

CY - Edinburgh

ER -

Poustie M. Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group Report. Edinburgh, 2015. 75 p.