When we think about wildlife crime, we often picture individual poachers operating alone. But a new study suggests that the reality is far more complex, and that South Africa’s courts may not always be recognising the full picture.

The study, entitled “Missed signals? Are South African high courts undervaluing corruption risks and syndicate involvement in wildlife crime?” published by the British Journal of Criminology delves into this question by examining decisions by South African courts in wildlife crime-related cases.

The report highlights the importance of green and conservation criminology frameworks for addressing the complexity of environmental harms, their perpetrators and societal consequences. Both are grounded in the concept of harm, which includes illegal wildlife trade (IWT).

Researchers examined 61 illegal wildlife trade cases heard by South Africa’s High Courts and Supreme Court of Appeal between 2000 and 2024. Their goal was to understand whether judges considered the roles of organised crime and corruption when dealing with wildlife trafficking cases.

The cases involved a variety of threatened species, including cheetah, lion, Temminck’s pangolin, elephants and vultures, but abalone and rhinos dominated the records. Surprisingly, despite the widespread recognition that criminal syndicates play a major role in wildlife trafficking, fewer than half of the cases even mentioned organised crime. Of those that did, judges formally confirmed syndicate involvement in only six cases.

This finding was particularly striking for rhino-related cases. Previous research has repeatedly shown that rhino horn trafficking is often linked to sophisticated criminal networks, yet many rhino cases reviewed in the study were not analysed through an organised crime lens.

The researchers also looked for signs of corruption. Although no case included formal corruption charges, almost one-third contained indicators that corruption may have played a role. These warning signs included the involvement of public officials, members of the wildlife industry, questionable permits and documents, and the misuse of public resources.

The study highlights an important gap between what conservation scientists know about wildlife crime and how these crimes are handled within the justice system. While stronger legislation has been introduced internationally to combat wildlife trafficking, the authors argue that laws alone are not enough. Effective investigations, improved prosecution strategies and greater awareness of the organised nature of wildlife crime are equally important.

The findings also remind us that conservation is about more than protecting species in the field. Success depends on the strength of institutions, law enforcement and judicial systems that hold offenders accountable.

By examining what happens after an arrest is made, this research provides valuable insights into an often-overlooked part of conservation. Understanding how courts respond to wildlife crime could help ensure that the scale and complexity of these offences are properly recognised, and ultimately improve protection for South Africa’s wildlife.

The article can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azag050