One of the major problems with wildlife crime in any jurisdiction is prosecution. Whilst catching possible offenders is difficult actually gathering the evidence to bring them to court and obtain a conviction can be fraught with huge problems.
This is particularly the case when dealing with possible offences where hunts or land managers are suspected. For an offence to be successfully prosecuted it is necessary to identify an individual who is responsible. In the flurry and confusion of a hunt or where a number of land managers are responsible for a particular area of ground it can be virtually impossible to identify which individual is responsible. Perfectly legally suspects are likely to give ‘no comment’ answers when interviewed and this can stonewall an enquiry at an early stage. For this reason it is often the case that whilst investigators are sure an offence has occurred and that the perpetrator is one of a small number of individuals it is not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt which one is actually guilty. This leaves the frustrating situation that it is impossible to bring anyone to justice and cases are abandoned.
A criminal justice system needs to be fair to both the accused and the victim and breaking the wall of silence can be extremely difficult. This difficulty is enhanced by the fact that many of the suspects do not feel that they are committing an offence at all.
The use of omerta, a wall of silence by suspects, enables organisations to claim that there have been no convictions in situations where there is clear evidence of an offence. In the absence of a clear policy of adherence to the law and cooperation with investigators, regardless of whether or not the individual agrees with it, resolution is extremely difficult. Whilst this situation of denial continues it leads inevitably to calls for particular activities to be licensed or banned altogether. Those who support lawful trail hunting and legitimate game shooting need to speak out if they do not wish to see their ‘sports’ disappear.
