- Messages
- 1,774
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
1. Hunting Act "fatally weakened"
Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) announced that he would not be challenging the High Court judgment of last month that rejected his appeal in Tony Wright's case. This means that the High Court's ruling on the definition of the offence of hunting and the burden of evidence in exempt hunting cases will stand as a legal precedent.
The court ruled that to commit the offence of 'hunting' a person must be in pursuit of an identifiable mammal by sight, or possibly by scent. It also confirmed that "hunting is by definition intentional", and that "any prosecution would have to prove to the criminal standard what the defendant's intention was". Hunting, in terms of the Act, is therefore defined as the intentional pursuit of an identifiable mammal.
For those engaged in exempt hunting, the High Court ruled that there is an 'evidential burden' which means that defendants will have to state which exemption they were using and how they were fulfilling its conditions. After that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had not fulfilled the conditions of the exemption.
The judgment will make it less likely that hunts will face vindictive prosecutions based on allegations by animal rights activists. There have only been three successful prosecutions against hunts since the Act came into force and this judgment will make prosecutions even less likely.
The High Court may have ruled that "the ban (on hunting) is no means absolute", but it is considerable. However much the Act has been damaged by this judgment it is still the law and as such an insult to liberty and good governance. The High Court's ruling, and the decision of the DPP to accept it, is another reason to get rid of the Act, not an excuse for ignoring it. As I have said before, for those readers whose interest is in shooting, fishing or broader rural activity, repeal is as important as for those who hunt. It removes from the Statute Book a piece of legislation that was passed for reasons of political expedience and without the justification or either evidence or principle.
The London Evening Standard, not a renowned supporter of hunting, reported the DPP decision and added an editorial, 'The hunt goes on', that is well worth repeating here (its only error is to say that there are 18 cases pending against hunts - there are just four):
Five years after the divisive hunting bill was passed, the legislation increasingly looks like a waste of time. As we report today, the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS, will not be challenging a recent court judgement that established that the burden of proof on whether a hunt is acting illegally lies squarely with the prosecution. It also reinforced the principle that it is perfectly legal to stalk or flush out foxes or other mammals using dogs in order for them then to be shot. At the time the CPS argued that such a ruling would make the act "wholly unworkable". Indeed, 18 cases pending against hunts must now be reconsidered.
The ruling bears out the reality that hunting still flourishes. It is however questionable whether its intended effect, to ensure that foxes are shot rather than killed by dogs, has advanced animal welfare. Rather, it seems clear that it was a waste of political energy which served only to alienate rural communities. David Cameron, the Tory leader, cannot be seen actually to support hunting but he can certainly allow a free vote to repeal the Act if he wins the election. And that is what he should do.
Simon Hart
Chief Executive
Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) announced that he would not be challenging the High Court judgment of last month that rejected his appeal in Tony Wright's case. This means that the High Court's ruling on the definition of the offence of hunting and the burden of evidence in exempt hunting cases will stand as a legal precedent.
The court ruled that to commit the offence of 'hunting' a person must be in pursuit of an identifiable mammal by sight, or possibly by scent. It also confirmed that "hunting is by definition intentional", and that "any prosecution would have to prove to the criminal standard what the defendant's intention was". Hunting, in terms of the Act, is therefore defined as the intentional pursuit of an identifiable mammal.
For those engaged in exempt hunting, the High Court ruled that there is an 'evidential burden' which means that defendants will have to state which exemption they were using and how they were fulfilling its conditions. After that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had not fulfilled the conditions of the exemption.
The judgment will make it less likely that hunts will face vindictive prosecutions based on allegations by animal rights activists. There have only been three successful prosecutions against hunts since the Act came into force and this judgment will make prosecutions even less likely.
The High Court may have ruled that "the ban (on hunting) is no means absolute", but it is considerable. However much the Act has been damaged by this judgment it is still the law and as such an insult to liberty and good governance. The High Court's ruling, and the decision of the DPP to accept it, is another reason to get rid of the Act, not an excuse for ignoring it. As I have said before, for those readers whose interest is in shooting, fishing or broader rural activity, repeal is as important as for those who hunt. It removes from the Statute Book a piece of legislation that was passed for reasons of political expedience and without the justification or either evidence or principle.
The London Evening Standard, not a renowned supporter of hunting, reported the DPP decision and added an editorial, 'The hunt goes on', that is well worth repeating here (its only error is to say that there are 18 cases pending against hunts - there are just four):
Five years after the divisive hunting bill was passed, the legislation increasingly looks like a waste of time. As we report today, the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS, will not be challenging a recent court judgement that established that the burden of proof on whether a hunt is acting illegally lies squarely with the prosecution. It also reinforced the principle that it is perfectly legal to stalk or flush out foxes or other mammals using dogs in order for them then to be shot. At the time the CPS argued that such a ruling would make the act "wholly unworkable". Indeed, 18 cases pending against hunts must now be reconsidered.
The ruling bears out the reality that hunting still flourishes. It is however questionable whether its intended effect, to ensure that foxes are shot rather than killed by dogs, has advanced animal welfare. Rather, it seems clear that it was a waste of political energy which served only to alienate rural communities. David Cameron, the Tory leader, cannot be seen actually to support hunting but he can certainly allow a free vote to repeal the Act if he wins the election. And that is what he should do.
Simon Hart
Chief Executive
Just a little bit 
