High Court debate on hunt ban
TWO famous Westcountry hunts are involved in High Court test cases which could have important implications for the Government's ban on hunting.
The court was asked yesterday to decide what actually constitutes hunting and how the law on exemptions from the ban should be applied.
Both hunters and anti-hunt campaigners, including the RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports, want clarification of the 2004 Hunting Act, which imposed the ban.
One of the test cases at London's High Court involves Tony Wright, huntsman to the Exmoor Foxhounds, the first man to be prosecuted for hunting foxes.
He was prosecuted before Barnstaple Magistrates Court in a case brought by the League Against Cruel Sports and convicted of hunting with dogs contrary to section 1 of the 2004 Act, but won his appeal before Exeter Crown Court in November 2007.
The second case involves men from the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, including hunt master Maurice Scott, hunt servant Peter Heard and huntsman Donald Summersgill. The case was referred to the High Court to settle points of law before their trial continues at Taunton Magistrates Court.
Other similar cases, including those involving the Isle of Wight and Heythrop hunts, are on hold pending the High Court laying down guidelines.
Kerry Barker, appearing for the CPS, told two judges the court's guidance was needed on whether the term to "hunt" a wild mammal, featured in the 2004 Act, included the activity of "searching for" an animal to stalk or flush it out.
He argued the ordinary meaning of the word "hunts" included "hunting for, or searching for".
Mr Barker said: "If searching for a wild mammal with dogs is not illegal, then it is difficult to see how Parliament's intention of preventing cruelty and bringing an end to the sport of hunting can be met."
He also asked Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Maddison for guidance on whether it was for the prosecution to prove defendants were not covered by exemptions to the ban or whether the burden of proof was reversed, obliging defendants to show they were exempt.
Mr Barker argued the combined effect of provisions of the 1980 Magistrates' Court Act and the Hunting Act was to reverse the burden.
He argued this would not be oppressive because a huntsman would be readily able to prove matters within his knowledge, but it would be exceedingly difficult for a prosecutor to prove his case.
Philip Mott QC, appearing for the huntsmen, argued reversing the burden would cause a serious imbalance at trial and result in "a substantial infringement" of the normal presumption a defendant was "innocent until proven guilty".
Mr Mott also argued that the word "hunting" should not be extended to include "searching".
He told the court: "If 'hunting' is interpreted widely to include 'searching', and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an exemption, that burden would be even more oppressive."
Outside court, Countryside Alliance spokesman Tim Bonner said: "The CPS is seeking to extend the normal definition of hunting to include searching for a wild mammal before any pursuit takes place.
"If the CPS wins, it could criminalise anyone taking their dogs into an area where there might be a wild mammal.
"It could leave them open to the allegation that they are searching for a wild mammal, and therefore hunting."
The hearing continues today.
7 Comments
by Charles Henry, Somerset
Tuesday, December 23 2008, 9:42PM
“Sociopaths are often people who use the defence of animals as the excuse for persecuting others.
A Judge has found another group of them all guilty today. . .”
by Charles Henry, Somerset
Tuesday, December 23 2008, 11:26AM
“All along this has just been a psychotic minority's attack on a traditional law abiding minority. . . They have abused our democracy by exploiting the control freak tendencies of the worst government in this country's history.
Message was edited by: wmneditor”
by ANONYMOUS, STOCKPORT
Monday, December 22 2008, 11:11AM
“Is this really an attempt to "clarify" a clear, reasonable and ethically justified law or an attack on the humanitarian majority who object on moral grounds to suffering inflicted for archaic ideas of sport? For full information see www.huntingact.org.”
by John Eves, Lancashire
Wednesday, December 17 2008, 12:51PM
“Along with the quashing of all convictions under the idiotic Hunting Act, I hope the repeal of it will also provide for the full reimbursement of fines and costs, plus interest, to those convicted. A State apology to the victims of this disgraceful law would also not be amiss. In the meantime I hope the Hunting Act continues to be stuffed along with the Xmas turkeys.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Wednesday, December 17 2008, 12:01PM
“And 'searching' being illegal coupled with moves to add a recklessness clause really would push this law beyond the bounds of even absurdity.
Dogs search for wild animals it's a simple fact. How many people recklessly allow their dogs to search for wild animals?”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Wednesday, December 17 2008, 11:45AM
“The CPS are arguing to make the Hunting Act even more absurd than it already is. The police assure me that they won't prosecute me for deliberately flushing out and chasing deer in any case. Are they now to be expected to prosecute me for searching for deer with my dogs?
It's completely ridiculous.
Let's have a sensible law making cruelty illegal. Wouldn't that be the best way to prevent or reduce cruelty rather than the nonsense legislation we have at present?”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Wednesday, December 17 2008, 11:41AM
“Why does searching for wild mammals with dpgs have to be illegal to prevent cruelty? It does not cause cruelty to search for wild mammals with dogs.
Are people really to be prosecuted just for going out with dogs and looking for animals? Surely any cruelty involved in such an activity depends on what if anything you do to the wild animals once you have found them.”