Search results

The purpose of this report is to critically analyse and provide recommendations for Australia's detection and legal enforcement framework regarding wildlife smuggling. This will be . done by comparing the framework in Australia with the framework in the UK. This comparison is important because it will allow us to know if Australia's current framework is as effective as it should be. The UK was chosen as a suitable country to compare with Australia because the UK is a country which is well known for its effective Customs agency and stringent penalties regarding wildlife trafficking. Furthermore, the UK, like Australia, it is an island. This means that wildlife smuggling may not occur through land borders and may only occur through sea and airports. This inevitably means that the UK's border protection focus, like Australia, is on its sea and airports. In chapter 1, the report outlines the detection system in Australia. This chapter looks at the role of the Australian Customs Service in combating wildlife trafficking. It high lights the effectiveness of some of the wildlife detection methods utilised by Customs. Methods such as x-rays, detector dogs, intelligence and the Custom hotline are discussed in detail. Furthermore, the chapter concludes by analysing the effectiveness of the system and some of the problems that Australian Customs faces in the fight against wildlife trafficking. It was found that Customs already has a high rate of success in detecting wildlife but still face a shortage of resources to improve their operations. Chapter 2 focuses on the legal framework, prosecution and sentencing of wildlife smugglers. It firstly explores the CITES framework and how this controls the trade of endangered species of plants and animals around the world. The chapter then explores how CITES is implemented in Australia and the sentences available for a breach of the EPBC Act. It was found that the maximum sentence for wildlife smuggling was a fine of$ 110,000 and 10 years imprisonment. The chapter then discuses some of the problems with Australia's current legal framework such as the low level of prosecutions and the low penalties imposed by courts despite stringent maximum penalties. The third chapter turns to focus on the UK and explores the system in the UK. The focus is on the methods used by the UKBA to detect concealed wildlife in the UK's airports. Some of the methods discussed in this chapter include the training received by UKBA officers who deal exclusively with wildlife trafficking and the partnerships that the UKBA have with other agencies in the UK and internationally. This is then followed by an analysis of the effectiveness of and some of the issues with the system in the UK. This analysis shows that, even though it is very difficult to provide accurate estimates, it is thought that the UK has been very successful in detecting hidden wildlife. The chapter also found that the UK faces the same problem as Australia in the lack of adequate resources for their Customs agencies. II Chapter 4 discusses the UK's legal framework used to prosecute and sentence wildlife smugglers. It outlines the UK's implementation of CITES through the European Council's Regulations and through the CEMA, COTES and the WCA Acts. The report then turns to discuss some of the problems that have arisen in the UK. Here it was found that the UK also suffers from some of the same problems as Australia. The prosecution levels are low and up until2002, the fines imposed for these offences were inadequate and have allowed smugglers to continue to profit from this trade. The final chapter aims to provide general recommendations for the improvement of the current system in Australia. It does this by recapping the problems and issues that were seen in the previous chapters and then offering possible solution and recommendations for each issue. With respect to the detection of wildlife smuggling, even though Australian Customs are already extremely successful, the report recommends that more resources be devoted to Australian Customs so that they have adequate staff and equipment to monitor more passengers, luggage and containers. Another suggestion for Australian Customs is that they designate or create a group of officers to educate and assist other officers with wildlife trafficking offences, similar to the UKBA CITES Team. Recommendations proposed to tackle low level of prosecutions are amendments to the EPBC to lower the evidential requirement to prove 'intention' for wildlife import and export offences. With respect to the low fines given, the report recommends that the legislation creating the penalties be amended. The government may look into increasing the range of fines available or fining 3 times the value of the goods similar to what is available in the UK. Furthermore, proper authorities should also publish a sentencing guideline for magistrates to consider when sentencing wildlife criminals. Finally t his report believes that the root cause of the some of the deficiencies in the enforcement of wildlife trafficking in Australia come from within the Australian community. It is because the Australian people as a whole believe that wildlife crimes is not important, that resources are being allocated to other areas and that the judiciary does not perceive wildlife trafficking as a serious crime. Accordingly, this report further recommends that the government alongside other wildlife organisations educate and highlight the importance of Australia's animals and crimes against them.