PROBLEM

 

Offences against animals are a low risk crime for the perpetrator.  This is partly due to how they are recorded but also funding and training which impacts their enforcement.  Their remote location affects the speed of response times, sometimes taking many days to respond, making the retrieval of evidence slim, contributing to low conviction rates.  Sadly, there is a catalogue of failings when it comes to protecting animals.  According to the Wildlife and Countryside Link Report, only 2% of reported wildlife crimes in 2024 resulted in a conviction [1].  With such a low conviction rate, it would be hard to determine with any accuracy how many criminals go on to reoffend against animals.  With serious crimes against people receiving better enforcement and conviction rates, they offer an insight into habitual offenders.  The same report reveals that “wildlife criminals are most commonly associated with violent offences and theft/criminal damage (59% and 58% respectively). This rises steeply for poaching and hare coursing offenders (72% and 78%) and badger crime offenders (67% and 62%).” [1]

​

Worryingly, convicted animal offenders may continue to operate in positions of trust and responsibility in roles involving direct and often unsupervised contact with animals. These could include anything from hunt kennel staff to pest controllers, game keepers, cattery owners and puppy farms.  Without any mandatory background verification, there is a risk that individuals with prior convictions for cruelty and neglect could repeat harmful behaviours, compromise animal wellbeing or undermine ethical standards expected by the public.  Ensuring proper vetting for these positions is crucial to protect this vulnerable group and maintain public confidence in regulated activities.

​

While existing enforcement processes determine prosecution outcomes, there is currently no safeguard to prevent those convicted of cruelty, neglect or wildlife offences from returning to activities involving animals. Introducing a proportionate background-checking mechanism would strengthen wellbeing oversight and public confidence, complementing rather than replacing existing law-enforcement frameworks.

​​

SOLUTIONS

​

An Animal Offenders’ Register (AOR) would record individuals convicted of wildlife-related offences, providing an authorised, searchable system for relevant organisations.  It would enable:

​

• Employers to check the future employees AOR status.

• Customers to view business owners AOR status. 

• Landowners and local authorities to verify applicants seeking land-use permissions for hunts.

• Licensing and enforcement bodies can check individuals AOR status.

​

The AOR could be integrated into existing data-sharing frameworks, used for safeguarding, ensuring checks remain proportionate and administratively light.  It would act as a preventative safeguard, quietly flagging concerns to authorised bodies, much like existing background checks do in human safeguarding.  

​

IMPLEMENTATION AND FEASIBILITY

​

The AOR proposal adapts the proven Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) model for use in animal wellbeing contexts.  Its design could draw on existing mechanisms such as:

​

• Police National Computer data for convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and Wildlife.

• Local authority licensing systems (for kennels, hunts, or animal boarding); and 

• Established governance channels within hunting and land management organisations. 

​

A short feasibility study, led jointly by Defra and the Home Office, with input from the National Wildlife Crime Unit, could define which offences would trigger registration, duration of inclusion, and rehabilitation criteria.

 

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

​

It will enhance animal wellbeing oversight.

It will prevent those with a proven record of cruelty from regaining access to animals. 

It will act as a disincentive to break the law.  Whether from the financial fallout of not being able to work with animals, the stigma of such an association or not being able to participate in sociable activities.  With non-lethal hunting, it may act as a greater deterrent than fines or imprisonment.  

Improved enforcement efficiency: gives the police, councils and hunts a clear mechanism for compliance monitoring. 

It will restore public confidence proving that individuals are subject to modern, transparent welfare standards and as a consequence, the organisations that employ them.

​

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

​

1. Commission a feasibility study to define the legal and technical scope of an Animal Offenders Register. 

2. Pilot the register across selected local authorities.

3. Mandate background verification for all hunting and kennel roles through existing licensing and membership systems. 

​

SOURCES

​

1] Lack of wildlife crime convictions opening the door to other serious crimes. Wildlife and Countryside Link https://www.wcl.org.uk/wildlife-crime-press-release-2025.asp