New research into public attitudes and perceptions of sentencing in environmental and wildlife offence cases

Guest blog from Dr Jay Gormley, Lecturer at the University of Glasgow, School of Law and Professor Cyrus Tata, Professor of Law and Criminal Justice at the Law School, University of Strathclyde.

The Scottish Sentencing Council (SSC) commissioned research to explore public perspectives on sentencing for environmental and wildlife offences. The research comprised seven two-hour focus groups with 55 participants, alongside an online survey of 1,053 adults.

What does the public think?

·       High concern, low knowledge: The public views environmental and wildlife crime as an important issue. However, self-reported knowledge of the sentencing for these offences was low.

We asked: ‘In general, how much, if anything, do you feel you know about the sentences given to people convicted of environmental and wildlife crimes in Scotland?’  58% said that they know ‘nothing at all’ about it, and 31% said ‘a little’. Just 9% said that they know ‘a moderate amount’ and 2% ‘a lot’.

This contrasts markedly with the self-reported knowledge about sentencing in general.  In their survey, which was contemporaneous with ours, Ipsos and their academic partners asked the public about sentencing more generally.  Only 13% said they knew ‘nothing at all’. 49% said they know ‘a little’; and 6% said they know ‘a lot’.  

We asked whether sentences for environmental and wildlife offences tend to be too lenient, or ‘about right’. 52% said that they ‘do not know’. 35% said that they tend to be much too lenient or a little too lenient.

By contrast, in answer to the same question about sentencing in general, only 11% of respondents said that they ‘do not know’, with 60% saying sentencing is 'much too lenient’ or ‘a little too lenient’.

Tables 1 and 2 summarise the contrast between public views of environmental and wildlife sentencing and sentencing in general.

·       Aims of sentencing: When discussing what sentences ought to achieve, the overall aspiration was for a fair and effective system. Participants highlighted the importance of meeting several key objectives, including offender rehabilitation, restoring the environment, and deterring future offending.

·       Harm and culpability: The harm caused (or risked) by an offence and the offender's level of culpability were viewed as critical factors at sentencing. For example, focus group participants were keen to know whether offences were committed intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. Some suggested that certain offenders (e.g., large organisations) hold a heightened duty of care, and that breaching this duty could act as an aggravating factor.

·       Wider concerns: Participants tended to refer to wider concerns about sentencing and criminal justice which overshadowed their perceptions of sentencing for environmental and wildlife cases about which many said they know little.

·       Transparency: It was generally felt that sentencing overall was not transparent. In both the survey and focus groups, self-reported knowledge of sentences for environmental and wildlife offences was very low. Additionally, self-reported knowledge of sentencing disposals available for these offences was low in the focus groups. Therefore, work to further communicate how sentencing (e.g. via ancillary orders) may achieve aims such as preventing reoffending may be useful.

·       The need for communication: Participants suggested that clear public communication about environmental and wildlife offences could help potential offenders understand the consequences and harms of their actions - especially where environmental risks might not be immediately obvious.

What are the public’s key concerns?

A primary concern among the public was whether current sentences are sufficient to achieve their intended aims. In part, this stems from a perceived lack of transparency in sentencing.

The use of fines proved to be a complex topic. There was a strong sense that it should not be cheaper to offend than to comply with the law. Accordingly, participants felt that financial penalties should take into account benefits accrued both directly and indirectly from committing an offence. However, it was unclear to participants whether and how existing sentences routinely do this.

Relatedly, concerns were raised that fine amounts, (i.e., how much an individual or company is required to pay), may be too low to have a meaningful and proportionate impact on certain types of offenders. Notably, there was a concern that fine amounts could be set too low, especially for corporate offenders.

Going forward 

While there is a vast range of offences that might fall under the rubric of environmental and wildlife offences, fines are likely to be a key disposal for many of them. Therefore, fine amounts (including maximum fines that may be imposed) and their effectiveness (such as in terms of proportionate punishment, reoffending, repairing harms, etc) seem one possible area the Council may wish to explore. Such an exploration could open new avenues for public communication.

It seems that a key issue facing confidence in sentencing for environmental and wildlife offences is public knowledge and the understanding of them. Thus, public education (PE) may be one avenue to explore. However, the limitations of good-quality available data about patterns of sentencing mean it is, currently, very difficult to address the public’s concerns via public information. If and when good-quality data about the reality of sentencing patterns become available, whether through official data collections and/or dedicated research studies examining specific types of cases, significant advances in public knowledge will become possible. As explained by our recent report to the SSC, the provision of good-quality data about sentencing patterns will allow it to be known whether or not and in what ways public perceptions of sentencing (e.g. perceived leniency) are, in fact, borne out by the reality of actual sentencing patterns.  This information could then be relayed to the public as part of PE. This PE could involve:

·     Bespoke Public Education: Explaining how fines work in practice within the context of environmental and wildlife offences.

·     Case-Study Vignettes: Collating evidence from a sample of real cases to demonstrate how sentencing (including fines and ancillary orders) works to restore the environment or prevent reoffending. If high quality data about sentencing is collected, it will become possible to compare directly the perceptions of the public with actual practices.  This could be a powerful way of helping to inform and correct public perceptions in this and other areas of sentencing.

·     Highlighting Good Practice: Bringing attention to "good news stories" regarding sentence effectiveness - particularly around ancillary orders, which are often overlooked by the public.

Finally, in the future, the SSC’s work on creating guidelines may also provide an opportunity to reflect on sentences (including fines) and their effectiveness in this context. For example, in due course, there will be a public consultation to allow for a range of views, and this may promote a broader debate on the powers of the courts in sentencing certain types of environmental and wildlife offences.