THE first man prosecuted for hunting foxes says he is delighted with a High Court ruling expected to make it more difficult to bring prosecutions under the Government's controversial hunting ban.

Tony Wright, from the Exmoor Hunt, said yesterday's test case judgment was a "big step in the right direction" for hunt supporters.

"I think it just emphasises what a useless piece of legislation it was and how badly put together, and that the Act should be repealed so pro-hunters and anti-hunters at least know where they stand," he said.

The Countryside Alliance has said it expects the ruling to result in fewer prosecutions.

Mr Wright, of Exmoor Kennels, Simonsbath, was prosecuted by the League Against Cruel Sports in 2006 and convicted of hunting foxes with dogs, contrary to Section 1 of the 2004 Hunting Act. He was fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 costs over two incidents involving "flushing out" a fox from cover. He argued he was trying to prevent serious damage to livestock.

The huntsman won his appeal before Exeter Crown Court in November 2007 after the court found the prosecution had failed to prove his hunting activity was not exempt from the ban.

By that time, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had taken over the prosecution from the League Against Cruel Sports.

Yesterday the High Court dismissed the DPP's appeal against the crown court decision.

Following the judgment, Mr Wright said: "It has been a waste of my time but I feel it's worth it to get to this stage. It's a shame it had to be me, but I was determined to see it out to the end."

The Countryside Alliance said it expects the judgment will mean prosecutions will only be possible under the 2004 Hunting Act if there is "overwhelming evidence" of guilt. The act bans the pursuit of wild animals with dogs, unless there are exemptions.

Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and Mr Justice Maddison were asked to define what activities were covered by the hunting ban.

The DPP had argued it included "searching for" a wild mammal with dogs to stalk or flush from cover.

Appearing for the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service, Kerry Barker, had argued: "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."

But the judges ruled the term "hunts" did not include "mere searching".

They also ruled it was for the prosecution to prove to the criminal standard that a hunter charged under the act was not covered by an exemption.

The DPP had argued it should be for the hunter to prove he was exempt.

Exemptions granted under the act include permitting the use of two dogs to stalk and flush out a wild mammal from cover to guns to prevent the animal causing serious damage, or the use of a terrier to flush a fox from underground to protect game birds.

Rejecting the DPP arguments, the judges said it was for the prosecution to prove "every element of the offence charged", subject to certain limitations, and that reversing the normal burden of proof would be "oppressive, disproportionate and unfair".

In their ruling, they said the Hunting Act was controversial during its "virtually unprecedented" prolonged parliamentary history, and remained so.

They also said: "If the general aim was to ban the perceived cruelty of hunting wild animals with dogs for sport, the ban is by no means absolute."

A case involving men from the Devon and Somerset Staghounds was also affected by the ruling.

Their case was referred to the High Court to settle points of law before their trial continues at Taunton Deane Magistrates Court. It will now proceed in accordance with yesterday's judgment.

Tim Hayden, of law firm Clarke Willmott, which is representing the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, said the ruling would come as a "great relief" to those who hunted legally, adding: "Prosecutors will have to consider the evidence in relation to exemptions very carefully before deciding to charge."

Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said of the ruling: "It is very positive. We have won on everything, essentially."

While saying he expected fewer prosecutions as a result, Mr Bonner stressed that the group would still continue to campaign for the Act to be repealed.

However, Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, accused the Countryside Alliance of "trying to put the judgment wider than it goes".

He said: "It is really a victory for clarity in the law. Where people said there was doubt, there is now no doubt."

The RSPCA also welcomed the ruling, saying it had cleared the way for prosecutions under the act to continue.