STORM OVER FIRST HUNT FINE

Darren Devine, Western Mail

RURAL campaigners yesterday reignited the hunting debate after Wales’ first prosecution under the Hunting Act saw charges dropped against one defendant and another fined £200.

A pro-hunting group said the case against 69-year-old William Francis Armstrong showed the hunting laws were ill-conceived and had triggered confusion across the nation.

Armstrong, former terrierman with Flint & Denbigh Hunt was ordered to pay £60 costs in addition to a £200 fine at the 2004 Act’s first Welsh test at a hearing at Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court.

Armstrong, of Cefn Home Farm, St Asaph, was prosecuted for four breaches of the Hunting Act 2004, all designed to ensure foxes were killed humanely.

But, defending, Gwyn Jones told the court the breaches were “technical” matters and in a gamekeeping career spanning 40 years Armstrong had always minimised the suffering endured by any animal.




Story continues

ADVERTISEMENT

The court heard how off-duty police sergeant Stephen Whitfield stumbled across the hunt in the Clwydian mountain range, in Denbighshire, on January 2.

Sergeant Whitfield saw a pack of 15 to 20 baying foxhounds gather around a hole in a steep bank while a group of strategically positioned horse riders looked on. He then saw Armstrong put a terrier down the hole, before digging out a fox and shooting it with a pistol.

The law says hunting with terriers is only allowed to protect gaming birds, but Gareth Preston, for the prosecution, said the only gaming birds in the area were ones that had strayed from nearby land.

The Act also said those involved in hunts must gain written permission from the landowner for the hunt, but Armstrong had failed to secure this.

And the court heard the fox had run into a “single-entry hole”, and it was forbidden to send a terrier into a hide of that nature. The law said terriers should only be used where there was a second entry hole to allow the fox to be flushed quickly and prevent the two animals fighting.

Mr Preston said Armstrong failed to indicate whether any checks were made for a second hole.

Armstrong had also used a .22 pistol to kill the fox, when the legislation said a shotgun must be used. Mr Preston described the weapon used to dispatch the animal as “entirely inappropriate”.

But Mr Jones said there were all manner of practical problems around the issue of humanely killing a fox. He said it was difficult to predict where a fox would go to ground and when it did it was up to the huntmaster to seek permission from the landowner to kill the animal.

Mr Jones also said the legislation created the potential for unnecessary harm to the fox, because it had to be allowed to leave the den before being shot.

He said, “Once you’ve located the fox the animal must be given the opportunity to leave the earth and this is where the difficulty arises.

“The potential for harm is there because the fox has to be allowed to escape to be shot by a competent person, with the potential that it will suffer for days afterwards.”

Mr Jones said Armstrong had been involved with terrier work since the age of 12 and had never attracted criticism for the way in which he had killed a fox.

The court also heard that Armstrong’s health had suffered as a result of media interest in the case and he had given up his position as terrierman. Armstrong had since given away the dog he sent down the hole and handed back his pistol and shooting licence to the police.

Charges were withdrawn against his co-defendant, land- owner Robert Peter Rowley Williams, of Llangwyfan, Denbighshire.

The Countryside Alliance said the case proved anti-hunting legislation must be repealed.

“As we understand it the offences were technical breaches of the Hunting Act. It was unfortunate, but predictable given the complication and confusion around the law,” said Tim Bonner.

“The police have spent weeks investigating the case and the key point is that it’s not about whether foxes are killed or killed in a way which is humane, but whether you can comply with the letter of a very complicated law.

“The sooner it’s repealed and people can carry out pest control in a way they see fit the better.”

Speaking through his solicitor Armstrong questioned why the authorities had devoted resources to a prosecution he regarded as unnecessary.

He said, “I’m relieved that the matter has been concluded once and for all, but I would question why it was necessary to pursue these proceedings.

“The fact that so much resources were put into it clearly indicates that there is no real crime in rural Denbighshire.”

A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said the decision to bring charges was reviewed against the same procedures that applied to all its cases.

“There was a clear and obvious breach of the law and that’s why the case went ahead,” she said.

A North Wales Police spokesman said the matter was dealt with proportionately and in co-operation with CPS.

Mike Hobday, head of public affairs for the League Against Cruel Sports, said the case showed that anyone who publicly flouted hunting laws could expect to be penalised.

“It shows that fox hunting is a public activity and if people break the law they may be seen and end up in court and with a criminal record,” he said.

District judge Andrew Shaw said the fine reflected both the mitigating features in the case and the fact a criminal offence had been committed.

Read More Here