Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-18.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against and (c) convicted of an offence under the provisions of the (i) Game Act 1831, (ii) Deer Act 1991, (iii) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (iv) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (v) Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, (vi) Animal Welfare Act 2006, (vii) Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, (viii) Hunting Act 2004, (ix) Night Poaching Act 1828, (x) Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, (xi) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, (xii) Pests Act 1954 and (xiii) Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in each year since 2009.
Mike Penning
The number of offenders cautioned and defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts for offences (all in England and Wales from 2009 to 2013) under the Game Act 1831 can be viewed in Table 1, under the Deer Act 1991 in Table 2, under the Protection of Badgers act 1992 in Table 3, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Table 4, under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in Table 5, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in Table 6, under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in Table 7, under the Night Poaching Act 1828 in Table 8, under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 in Table 9, under the Hunting Act 2004 in Table 10 and under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in Table 11. The tables can be found in the Library. Data for the Pests Act 1954, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is held as part of a miscellaneous group that cannot be separately analysed.We are very clear that serious offences will always go to court where tough punishments are available to the independent judiciary, who make their sentencing decisions based on the individual facts of the case.
