A LOOK AT THE HUNTING ACT 2004

A look at the Hunting Act 2004
Legal Advice 13 April, 2007
Farmers Guardian

IS the Hunting Act 2004 an unenforceable law considers Emma Coke of East Anglian law firm Ashton Graham.

THE Hunting Act (“the Act”) has now been with us for over two years.

Prior to its inception the government made it clear that hunting was not one of its priorities. However, recognising that very strong views existed for and against the sport it made a commitment in its 2001 manifesto to resolve the issue.

The Act has now forced us to move from a discussion of the rights and wrongs of hunting to a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the Act and whether or not the issue has been resolved.

Its intention is to ban the suffering of hunted animals and it bans the hunting of all wild mammals with dogs - with limited exceptions. Hunting is an intentional activity and there is no such defence as unintentional hunting. However, what constitutes unintentional hunting gives rise to the first loophole.

Drag-hunters would not be guilty of unlawful hunting if while out hunting the hounds became sidetracked and pursued a fox. It is highly likely that should drag hunting hounds pick up the fresh scent of a fox during a chase, they are likely to pursue that rather than the scent laid down and the argument that this was not an intentional activity is therefore open to them.

One of the exemptions allows the stalking and flushing out of prey with up to two dogs. If the hounds come across a fox the huntsmen are allowed to use two dogs to flush it towards a gun or bird of prey and over 40 hunts now use birds of prey.

Interestingly the government does not define ‘hunting’, ‘intentional’ or ‘flushing out’ under the Act. It has left the police and ultimately the courts to define these terms.

Have the numbers of people hunting decreased?

The Act seems to have had the opposite effect from the government’s intention. Record numbers of hunters and supporters are turning out to support their local hunts. Some reports from across the country suggested that Boxing Day 2006 enjoyed the biggest turn out in hunting history with over 300 hunts meeting on that day.

A spokesperson for the Cottesmore stated that ‘there was a crowd of 1,600 to send us off. One person told me that he had never even thought about coming out until the ban, but now he wouldn’t miss the opportunity to show his opposition.’ Clearly hunts are making full use of the exemptions within the Act and the general public are supporting them.

The animal welfare argument

Anti-hunt protesters have always used the argument that hunting is cruel to fuel their objections and to argue that a ban will save animals lives. Well it would appear that it is not difficult to stay within the law and still kill foxes. The ban doesn’t seem to have saved the life of a single fox. In fact hunting seems to have enjoyed something of a renaissance

The Country Land and Business Association argues that the existence of hunting for the purpose of control rather than eradication has meant that a healthy population of foxes remains by virtue of the fact that it is a selective method of control. Alternative methods of control such as trapping, snaring and shooting are indiscriminate and less likely to be humane.

Stripping away all the emotion from the hunting arguments is almost impossible but the selective means of control that hunting provides means that healthy populations of quarry species remain.

Prosecutions under the Act

To date only two prosecutions appear to have been brought under the Act. One huntsman, Tony Wrights from the Exmoor has, ironically for an Act designed to saves foxes’ lives, been prosecuted for failing to kill a fox and an individual, Paul McMullan has been convicted of using a dog to kill a fox which it flushed out from a badger sett.

Tony Wright’s conviction is now being appealed. Does this mean that everyone is dutifully obeying the law, exploiting the loopholes to the full or are the Police too over-stretched to worry about hunting down the hunters?

Summary

Record numbers of hunters and supporters have turned out since the Act came into force to test its viability and levels of support are now higher than before the Act came into force.

However, there is a very real prospect that the Act will be replaced or repealed. The animal welfare rights lobby want to see it replaced with a new wild mammals protection law, which crucially would be popular with the public.

The Act remains subject to legal challenges under both European and Human Rights legislation and it is badly framed and tailor made for confusion. All the government have succeeded in producing is an unworkable and unenforceable Act that hasn’t even banned hunting and the issue therefore still remains unresolved.

emma.coke@ashtongraham.co.uk ( 01284 762331)

* This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. You should not act or rely upon this information.

Read more here