By David Barnes

Deer Poaching is variously described as “rife” and “endemic”. In some parts of the UK it is undoubtedly widespread, and the susceptibility of deer to lamping will regrettably ensure that the criminal activities of deer poachers will continue for the foreseeable future. The eradication (or even the reduction) of this and other countryside crime requires more resolve and response than is presently allocated. For the time being, the legitimate guardians of the deer population – be they stalkers, deer managers, game keepers or landowners – may benefit from a glance not only at the Deer Act 1991 (“the Act”) which consolidates various offences relating to deer, but also at how it may be employed in practice in the war against poaching.

Section (s) 1 of the Act makes it an offence to enter any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it.

Readers should note that a conviction for poaching does not require the criminal to kill a deer. The Court can convict if it is certain that the Defendant has done all the constituent acts described above. Whilst it will be easier for the prosecution to prove intent if there is “a body” it is not impossible for the Court to convict without one.

However, S. 1(2) of the Act specifically sets out three situations in which an offence is committed. This sub-section states that an offence is committed if without consent any person whilst on any land:-

• Intentionally takes, kills or injures or attempts to take, kill or injure any deer
• Searches for or pursues any deer with the above intent
• Removes the carcass of any deer

S.1 (2) (a) and (b) cover situations in which the offender is caught red handed. Perhaps he is seem to kill the deer or heard to do so and apprehended immediately afterwards. In S. 1(2)(b) he (or more likely “they”) may be seen to pursue a deer with long dogs.

The circumstances in which a conviction could be obtained under S. 1(2) (c) occur when the miscreant is caught removing the carcass of any deer from any land. Whilst an unheard shot may be fired by a poacher from a vehicle, which is immediately driven away from the scene of the crime, the carcass of any deer, but particularly a red or fallow deer takes some handling. Frequently the beast will be left where it has fallen or concealed for later collection.

In their recently published book “Deer: Law and Liabilities” the authors, Charlie Parkes and John Thornley tell a good tale about a successful prosecution for removing a carcass from land under S.1(2) (c). In the context of this article it bears repetition. Briefly a gamekeeper in Derbyshire found a fallow buck hidden in bracken apparently shot with a .22 or a crossbow. The Police were involved and the carcass kept under observation. At dark three men arrived and attempted to remove the beast to a nearby vehicle. After their arrest, they were interviewed separately and told different stories. One said his dog had accidentally chased and killed the deer. Another said it was a mercy killing, as they had found it in a bad way caught in some baler twine. The third man said “What deer?”

There are several lessons to be learned from this incident. First, although a shot from a .22 or crossbow is unlikely to be heard except by chance, the removal of the carcass of a big deer is much more difficult. Legitimate stalkers know this well enough so the inherent problems involved in returning to and covertly removing a large carcass probably in the dark are obvious.

As is shown by the case of the fallow buck above, the discovery of the carcass by or on behalf of the landowner should be exploited as an opportunity to lie up for and ambush the persons who return it remove it.

If the Police are to be involved then their arrival on the scene needs to be covert. To my knowledge there have been poaching cases in which the police arrive on the land to which they have been called in panda cars with flashing blue lights and sirens on full song, which is a gift to all but the deaf and blind poachers.

Provided that the Police involvement is constructive and covert then it will be invaluable and hugely assist in obtaining convictions. Thinking about this point for a little while should make readers realise that liaison of that sort is not going to be set up on the night. It is suggested landowners, game keepers and deer managers should ascertain what countryside watch scheme operates on their patch and join it. If there is no such scheme then setting one up should be considered.

Reverting to the Derbyshire case, other lessons come out of the interviews. First, it was by keeping the three men separate and interviewing them one by one before they could cock up a defence that their three quite different accounts became available for use by the prosecution. There was some intelligent police work done at that stage, which probably secured the convictions.

The last lesson is that deer poachers are criminals and liars. The three defendants in the Derbyshire case now all have criminal records under S. 1(2)(c) of the Act. If that was their first conviction under the Act, then the Court should view a second one that much more seriously. A person convicted of a S. 1(2) (c) offence shall be liable to receive a fine up to £2,500 or three months imprisonment or both. The previously convicted poacher is much more likely to be hit with the thick end of these penalties than the man of previous good character.

It is also worth noting that S.9(2) provides where an offence relates to more than one deer then the maximum fine which may be imposed shall be decided as if the person had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each deer. On this basis the maximum fines that could be imposed would total for dive deer £12,500. The higher the fine that is imposed the more likely is the prospect of non payment. This increases the likelihood of imprisonment not for the offence per se but for failure to pay the fines imposed by the Court.

Fortunately the Court’s powers by no means end here. S.13 of the Act permits the Court to make forfeiture orders against convicted persons. For example any deer or venison in the convicted person’s possession may be forfeited. More importantly the Court may make an Order for the forfeiture of:-

“Any vehicle animal weapon or other things which were used to commit the offence….”

Finally S. 13(1)(b) enables the Court to cancel any Firearm or Shotgun Certificate held by him.

Unless the stalker is prepared, he is unlikely even recognise the deer poacher in action. For example the stalker may arrive at his stalking ground before light to find a strange car waiting there. Whilst the stalker may be planning to change into his boots and head for a high seat before the light comes, the person in the other car may have returned to the scene of the crime to collect a carcass. He may be waiting there until sufficient light comes for him to collect it or for an accomplice. Stalkers need to consider (in advance) how they might deal with such a situation and what they want to achieve from it.

The writer recalls an incident he got completely wrong one pre-dawn autumn morning when he pulled off the road into a discreet parking place on his stalking land. He became aware of some car lights beyond him and then of a red car being driven past him on to the highway. After a couple of minutes he followed this car to find it parked outside a telephone box in the next village. The driver was in the box making a telephone call. Having driven pas the writer turned round and came back through the village. The car was gone and was next seen again on the road near the original parking place. On becoming aware of my vehicle the driver started up and quickly left the scene.

At the time with the writer’s expectations firmly on stalking deer in the coming light, he did not grasp quickly enough he probability that a deer or deer had been killed at night and were being collected by the man I saw and an accomplice who, very likely was late arriving.

In the flying around that followed on from the writer first seeing the car lights, no satisfactory evidence was obtained, no description better than “red car... like a Ford” and not even a complete car number plate.

It is difficult for an honest chap to roll out of bed in the morning and be alert and ready to deal with lying criminals but that is what it comes to with deer poachers. Sadly, time and intelligent effort is required to be put into defeating their criminal activities. In order to maximise the effect of this, stalkers require some training in dealing with criminals and in collating and pressing essential evidence. The writer intends to develop these themes in another article and Stalking Magazine readers who wish to let the writer know of their own experiences with poachers and the lessons to be learned from these are welcome to email or write to the addresses below.

Word version of this article