Hunting for Justice

HUNT MONITORS ARE BREAKING HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION

2010-01-07T10:30:00.000Z

Horse & Hound

Video surveillance of hunts by "hunt monitors" breaks human rights legislation, a judged has ruled.

The judge was presiding over a pre-trial review last month in a case that cannot yet be reported.

He ruled that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which allows police and local authorities to use undercover filming, also applies to anti-hunting groups.

Lawyer Jamie Foster, who is involved in the case, said this means antis must apply to the police for permission for any covert filming.

He said: "It had been assumed that the act only applied to councils or the police, but the judge ruled that covert filming by the League Against Cruel Sports [LACS] or International Fund for Animal Welfare must be licensed or it breaks article eight of the Human Rights Act — the right to privacy."

He added that for permission to be granted the groups would have to prove filming was "necessary and proportionate".

Tony Wright of the Exmoor hunt was the first huntsman in the country to be convicted under the Hunting Act. He was later acquitted.

He told H&H it was "about time" monitors were made to follow the rules.

He said: "I asked the police at the time what their view would be if I decided to follow one of their officers around all day filming what they were doing [like the antis did me]. They said they would take a very dim view of that."

Countryside Alliance spokesman Tim Bonner told H&H: "We have written to chief constables across the UK raising this issue. They cannot continue to use illegal video evidence in prosecutions under the Hunting Act.

"This is very bad news for IFAW and LACS — they claim the Hunting Act works and they can uphold it with covert surveillance, but this ruling takes away the final part of their anti-hunting strategy."

LACS spokesman Louise Robertson said: "It is our clear understanding, based on legal advice, that the activities of hunt observers such as those working for the League are not covered by RIPA as only public bodies are in fact covered by the act.

"If this were the case it would apply to initiatives like Neighbourhood Watch and effectively end the public assisting police in crime prevention."

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has asked for guidance on the subject from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Read More Here

GYROCOPTER PILOT MURDER CHARGE COULD BE DISMISSED

2009-06-11T10:07:00.000+01:00

Court Reporter A MURDER charge facing a pilot accused of killing a hunt supporter with the tail propeller of his gyrocopter could be thrown out.

Lawyers for Bryan Griffiths, accused of killing hunt supporter Trevor Morse at Long Marston airfield in March, are to apply for the murder charge against him to be dismissed. The charge follows an incident when 48-year-old Mr Morse, a hunt supporter from Alderminster, was struck by the rear propeller of the gyrocopter 54-year-old Griffiths, of Wiltshire Close, Bedworth, was piloting. It had landed to refuel at the airfield after being used to monitor a hunt in the area. Mr Morse, a self-employed gardener and a volunteer marshal for the Warwickshire Hunt, died ‘virtually immediately’ from severe head injuries after being struck by the tail propeller. Griffiths’ case was listed at Warwick Crown Court for a plea and case management hearing – but at the request of his barrister the murder charge was not put to him.

Peter Lownds, defending, explained that there was to be 'an application to dismiss' the murder charge so the case was adjourned and Griffiths was granted conditional bail. Mr Lownds asked Judge Richard Griffith-Jones to set a timetable for both the defence and prosecution to serve ‘skeleton arguments’ prior to a hearing at which the application to dismiss the charge will be made. The Judge pointed out the murder case must be heard by a High Court judge, and it had been released to him only for the plea and case management hearing. He ordered the defence should serve its argument by June 26, with the prosecution response to it by July 24, with a hearing on the application to dismiss the charges some time in October. Judge Griffith-Jones said: "The issue will be whether there is a prima facie case of murder. The issue of manslaughter will be another matter altogether." Mr Lownds confirmed there would still be a trial even if the defence application to dismiss the murder charge is successful. The Judge said the court staff would be asked to find a slot for the trial to take place, possibly at Birmingham Crown Court in January next year.

OTIS FERRY: THEY PUT ME IN JAIL FOR MY BELIEFS

2009-06-01T10:26:00.003+01:00

Daily Telegraph

OTIS Ferry is back where he is at his happiest: in the countryside surrounded by his five horses, his 60 hunting hounds and his three pet dogs. For the first time since the end of 2007, the man who says he prefers animals to people can relax in the knowledge that he does not have the threat of a lengthy prison sentence hanging over him.

Yet the eldest son of rock star Bryan Ferry and former model Lucy Helmore (now Birley) is in no mood for celebrating. "I don't feel like I have won the Olympic 100 metres title – more like I have survived a two-year marathon," he says.

Ferry, 26, who has inherited the good looks and quiet charm that led to his father being labelled the "coolest living Englishman", remains "sickened" that he was locked up for four months in a Category B prison with murderers, rapists and robbers, while awaiting trial on a charge of perverting the course of justice, which was later dropped.

The dismay of Prisoner RB7994 is not, however, directed at his fellow inmates, most of whom he says he liked, but at the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which he claims targeted him unfairly. "This has been politically motivated. I am a Tory-supporting master of foxhounds, and the current Government is anti everything that someone like me stands for. This is a socialist Government and I am the epitome of everything they detest.

"The police and Crown Prosecution Service were baying to screw me over as hard as they could. The Gloucestershire constabulary are notorious celebrity-hunters – not that I consider myself a 'celebrity'. I hate the word. The pressure from the Crown Prosecution was not normal. They put an enormous amount of effort and money into a bog-standard case."

It is not just Ferry and his supporters who think he was hard done by. Even the judge who had presided over his case after Ferry was accused of perverting the course of justice could not hide his anger at the defendant's treatment when the charge was dropped.

Ferry is no stranger to controversy, and has been arrested at least five times for his pro-countryside and hunting protests. In 2002, he was seized at 4am as he approached Tony Blair's constituency home "armed" with pro-hunting posters. Two years later, he led a famous assault on the House of Commons chamber when he and seven other pro-hunting protesters disrupted the parliamentary debate.

His latest woes began on November 21 2007 when he had been due to ride out with the South Shropshire Hunt, of which he is joint hunt master. Because his hounds were ill, Ferry called off his own hunt and, along with his girlfriend, Francesca Nimmo, and another huntsman drove to nearby Gloucestershire to ride out with the Heythrop Hunt.

However, he arrived late and was struggling to find the main group when he came across an incident in which a pro-hunt supporter clashed with two hunt monitors – widely known as "antis" or saboteurs to the hunting community.

What exactly happened next is disputed, but Ferry admits that he instinctively went to the aid of the pro-hunt supporter in his scuffle with two women who were seeking to gather evidence of a breach of the Hunting Act 2004.

Ferry, who is dressed in a check shirt and dark blue jeans, admits the hunt supporter had "lost the plot", verbally abusing the hunt monitors, before rocking their car and smashing a window. "I saw the video camera drop to the ground. I thought: 'I had better help this guy out.' I jumped off my horse, ran to the side of the car, picked up the camera and jumped on my horse again. Then I galloped up the road as quickly as I could with the camera gripped in my mouth because my hands were on the reins. I got 200 yards up the road and there was a police car. So I chucked the camera into the verge, opened the gate to a field, and rode off."

One of the hunt monitors claimed, however, that Ferry tried to grab the video camera from her and had won a "tug of war" for her car keys, leaving her upper right arm slightly bruised.

Ferry denies the tussle, but admits he later returned to recover the camera, wiped clear the film, and gave it to a member of the hunt so the camera could be returned to its owner.

Two days later, Ferry was asked to attend Shrewsbury police station after an officer said they had found his lost Jack Russell puppy, Tiny. Yet when he arrived, he was arrested in connection with the Gloucestershire incident, and put in a police cell. Ferry was angry: "Of all the tricks to play. If they had wanted to question or arrest me, all they needed to do was ring me up."

Ferry was taken by police car to Gloucester police station, where he was interviewed and, later, released. In April last year, Ferry was charged with robbery and common assault and a trial date was set for September. Matters then escalated from bad to worse for Ferry, the eldest of four brothers, who was educated at Marlborough College before leaving school after passing 11 GCSEs.

Ferry says he received a mobile message from an anonymous texter just days before the trial, saying that he or she was going to be interviewed by the police. Ferry says he rang the number out of curiosity and found himself speaking to his former groom, David Hodgkiss. He says he was puzzled that Hodgkiss had contacted him, but was unperturbed, especially as the groom had not witnessed the dispute. However, when the police turned up to take the statement, Hodgkiss told them he had been warned by Ferry not to give evidence against him.

Days later, on the first morning of Ferry's robbery and assault trial, Hodgkiss's statement was revealed to the court. The hearing was adjourned until the next day when Ferry was again arrested, this time on suspicion of perverting the course of justice through "witness nobbling". He was interviewed at Stroud police station and, at the insistence of the CPS, refused bail and detained overnight in a police cell. The next day in court, the prosecution lawyer again opposed bail on the grounds that Ferry might re-offend. Judge Martin Picton remanded Ferry in custody, which meant he had to go to Gloucester prison, a Category B institution that houses murders, rapists and violent criminals.

"This really sent a shiver down my spine," says Ferry. "I was handcuffed and booked into this prison with 400 other people. I was absolutely petrified because I had no idea what I might be up against."

Initially, he thought he would be in his single cell for just a night. But the jail was to become his home for the next four months.

In his 12ft-by-7ft cell, he had a bed, sink, lavatory and colour television. "The first week was a blur. I just could not believe that this was happening to me."

His worst moments were changing from his prison uniform – a grey tracksuit – into his suit to go to court expecting to be released on bail, only to be returned to jail: "Going to court to be denied bail is one of the most crushing experiences anyone will ever experience. It happened to me four times and was completely soul-destroying."

After a week in jail, his first visitors were his girlfriend and mother. It was an emotional experience for everyone. "For me, the tears were not about my predicament but how embarrassing it was to be seen in that state: reduced to wearing prison uniform, anchored to a table wearing a prison bib. I felt particularly for my mum, seeing her son totally defensive and helpless. Every part of you is stripped and you become a number, a nothing."

Ferry spent his 26th birthday and Christmas in prison, though he was grateful on Christmas Eve to have a visit from his 63-year-old father, the former lead singer of Roxy Music, whose hits include Dance Away, Avalon and Jealous Guy. "Dad was a bit tougher about it all than mum. I was very touched that he came. I didn't think he would – not out of disloyalty, but because it's a demeaning place to have to come and see your son. If you are in the public eye, you are very image conscious, quite rightly. But I was delighted to see him."

Typically, Ferry spent more than 20 hours a day alone in his cell, reading and writing letters (he had more than 400 from well-wishers to reply to). Every other evening, one half of the prison block had "association", during which prisoners had the chance to play table tennis or pool. "I have never played with such a bunch of cheats – they were worse than my brothers," he jokes.

Ferry liked most of the "screws" – the prison officers – but complained some were "chippy, unhelpful and lazy". While he was never attacked or threatened, he admits that he benefited from having "Trevor" as his "next-door neighbour". "He was the most feared man in the prison – a black guy, aged about 40, on remand for attempted robbery. He was a colourful character but was very nice to me and a nice person. I got on well with him. Prisons are full of people who have simply made a bad decision at some point in their lives. There was a great feeling of camaraderie. Unless you are a child molester, everyone is seen as an equal."

Ferry found that most prisoners were pro-hunting. "I hope I did a good PR job for the hunting community – and public schoolboys." He says that fellow prisoners offered him drugs – there was an abundance of cannabis and heroin in the jail. It was an offer he found easy to decline.

In January, after four months in jail, Ferry's lawyers persuaded the judge to released him on bail subject to a £25,000 surety, a pledge to live with his mother in west London, and Ferry reporting to the police twice a week. Two months later, the prosecution indicated in court that it was unhappy with witness "inconsistencies" relating to the perverting the course of justice charge against Ferry. This incensed Judge Martin Picton, who described Ferry's custody as "nonsensical and farcical".

Finally, nine days ago, the Crown accepted Ferry's pleas of not guilty to robbery and common assault charges. He admitted a public order offence and was given a one-year conditional discharge for causing "fear, stress and upset" to one of the hunt monitors. He was also fined £350 with £100 costs. Today, he concedes he was responsible for an "error of judgement" and regrets getting involved in the dispute.

Gloucestershire police and the CPS deny targeting Ferry unfairly. "He was treated the same as any other member of the public," says a spokesman. "The decision to investigate alleged offences was made by professional, seasoned officers."

A spokesman for the CPS says: "Mr Ferry's case was kept under review and dealt with according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, in the same way as every other case that the CPS deals with."

Although Bryan Ferry is worth millions, his eldest son lives a modest existence. Unpaid for his role as hunt master, Otis
lives alone in a two-bedroom cottage, occasionally selling horses, modelling and writing for a living. He drives an ageing green Mercedes estate, and his parents help him out by paying the odd bill.

Ferry is unclear about his future but remains committed to country pursuits. "I love animals more than people," he says. "I have always been fascinated by the countryside." He admires foxes but says hunting is important for conservation, as it picks off the weakest, oldest animals, unlike shooting, which can kill a fox in its prime.

He says the countryside feels "betrayed, victimised and cheated" by the Government, and, as a Conservative supporter, he is now tempted to pursue a career in politics.

"Hunting is like religion in the countryside. I don't think there is anything I could enjoy more than running my hounds and the hunt. The question I now have to answer is whether I feel I have an obligation to other people to try to safeguard rural traditions."

Read More Here

DEATH KNELL FOR HUNTING BAN AS POLICE ABANDON MONITORING OPERATIONS

2009-05-15T12:39:00.001+01:00

The Times

Police forces are to stop monitoring hunts in a change of policy that sounds the death knell for the hunting ban, The Times has learnt.

New guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) states that gathering evidence of illegal hunting is difficult, that the ban is hard to enforce and that chief constables have more pressing priorities.

In future, forces should rely on anti-hunt activists to produce information, it says. But they should also be “very cautious” of such groups and recognise that hunting is an “emotionally charged” subject.

Hunts will also no longer be required to inform police in advance of the time and place of meets and their planned route.

Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales and the Acpo spokesman on rural affairs, said: “Hunting is definitely not a policing priority. It is not illegal to wear a red coat and ride a horse in a public place.”

The new guidance undermines one of the most controversial pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour Government, which took up 700 hours of parliamentary time.

Since the Hunting Act came into force in 2004, there have been eight prosecutions, of which only three have been successful, with one pending. Hunting has thrived.

Mr Brunstrom said that police had to chose which areas of law enforcement to devote scarce resources to. He said: “If you look at hunting, the penalties do not include a prison sentence for offenders. This puts the Hunting Act to the lower rather than the higher end of offences. Parliament had the chance to include imprisonment as a sentence but did not do so.”

The new guidance is not binding but was unanimously approved by the country’s most senior officers this week. Officers are urged to avoid “acrimonious, time consuming, frustrating and ultimately fruitless activity”.

Senior officers expressed concern that their neutrality had been compromised by being forced to release details of meets through freedom of information requests to activists who had gone on to disrupt hunts.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has made it clear that he favours a repeal of the Hunting Act and in the event of a general election victory will offer MPs a free vote in government time, although a backbencher would have to produce a Bill.

Mr Brunstrom said: “I am pleased with the new guidance but hunting is definitely not a policing priority and don’t let me give you the impression it is. But that does not mean we are not going to deal with it. We recognise it is the law of the land and the duty of the police to enforce it — but to do so proportionately and according to priorities.”

Mr Brunstrom said that forces needed a consistent approach in dealing with reports of unlawful hunting.He also raised concerns about militants becoming involved with anti-hunt organisations and said that police had to be cautious when people made complaints to them. He outlined the difficulties facing police. “If there are offences they are likely to be taking place in a remote rural environment. We are not very well equipped to follow hunts and get evidence and nor do we think we can justify it. Pursuing hunts is an expensive and sophisticated operation.”

He accepted the need to train more police in hunt investigations and said he hoped that the pro-hunt Countryside Alliance and the RSPCA, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the League Against Cruel Sports would attend training seminars to give their views. A hunt investigation manual is to be distributed to forces before the autumn season.

The Countryside Alliance said: “We have always understood what a difficult job the police have in dealing with such a confusing piece of legislation. But the guidance suggests that the sort of engagement some police forces have had with animal rights groups should, quite rightly, be avoided.”

A spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sport said: “We fought for 80 years for the hunting ban and, while we accept it is not a high priority for police, a ban was the will of Parliament and is the will of the people and we are going to press for more prosecution cases to be brought.”

Read More Here

HUNTSMAN CAUTIONED FOR CHASING HARE IN FIRST CASE OF ITS KIND UNDER THE HUNTING ACT

2009-05-07T11:06:00.001+01:00

Daily Telegraph

Nigel Bell, 53, from the Wick and District Beagles, admitted the breach after he was filmed chasing the animal by anti-hunt monitors in February this year.

It is the first time anti-hunt campaigners have successfully brought a case against a hare hunt under the Act which was introduced in 2004, the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) claimed.

Avon and Somerset Police confirmed Bell was cautioned on April 29 at Thornbury police station in connection with the incident on land between Horton and Badminton, in South Gloucestershire.

A spokeswoman for LACS said: "Although a caution may seem like he has been let off, it is actually a very helpful step forward in our fight against illegal hunters.

"What this demonstrates is that the Hunting Act is clear and enforceable and, furthermore, hunters know this to be the case. It is also apparent that the police are aware of what the law entails.

"This latest victory has been the result of the dedication and commitment of League monitors, and under caution it will be very difficult for Mr Bell to get off lightly on any further breaches of the Act.

"In light of the fact there currently exists more than 100 beagle packs, the incident involving Mr Bell will compel huntsmen next season to adhere to the law."

The Wick and District Beagles is a relatively small hunting pack that follows beagle hounds on foot and, pre-ban, traditionally hunted hares rather than foxes or deer.

Based in South Gloucestershire, outside Bristol, it is well-known for bringing beagles to various country shows around the region.

A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police said: "We have investigated a couple of allegations of hunting wild animals with dogs, initially reported in January this year in Horton.

"In connection with that incident, a 53-year-old man was given an adult caution on April 29 at Thornbury police station."

Read More Here

POLICE TRAINED BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

2009-04-10T11:20:00.001+01:00

Westmorland Gazette

A LOCAL huntsman has lashed out at Cumbria Policefollowing the revelation that officers have received training from an animal rights group.

Cumbria Constabulary confirmed that several of it’s officers received “briefings” from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) - a group that campaigned for the hunting ban.

The information was revealed after the Countryside Alliance put in a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Richard Dodd, chairman of the Countryside Alliance in the north west, said the finding has led farmers, landowners and huntsmen to lose confidence in the constabulary.

“Farmers will now say the policeman is his foe rather than a friend,” he said. “If ever there was an own goal scored the police have done it. The IFAW are linked to animal terrorists. This is like asking Al Queda to provide the police with training on counter-terrorism.

“The hunting community is regularly tackled by some of these activists. They turn up at legal hunts and try to provoke an argument with hunt officials. These are not little games they’re playing. They are nasty people with a political agenda.”

Hunts in Cumbria are often monitored by the police and Chief Constable Craig Mackey said advice from the IFAW was received simply to “gain a thorough understanding of all the issues involved.”

Mr Mackey said officers have liased with landowners, residents, hunt monitors, anti-hunting groups, members of the Countryside Alliance and IFAW so that policing of hunting events is “unbiased and proportionate.”

"The briefings provided by the IFAW were an extension of this learning process and other police forces have received identical input,” he said. “The views of the IFAW inform our approach; they do not direct them.”

Mr Mackey said he would be happy for the Countryside Alliance to provide a similar briefing session to officers but Mr Dodd said there were no plans to do this.

In a statement, IFAW claimed to be responding to a request from a regional force to assist with enforcement of the Hunting Act. It said it had provided guidance on the legislation and information on how to spot an illegal hunt.

It said that since the enforcement of the Hunting Act four years ago it has “responded to requests from the Association of Chief Police Officers and various regional forces to assist with enforcement of the Act.

“The police have recognised that IFAW has relevant expertise and knowledge about hunting based on years of peaceful monitoring of hunts in the field.”

The Conservative Party has announced its intention to hold a free vote on the Hunting Act if it wins the next election.

Mr Dodd believes there will be enough support for a repeal, commenting that the Act is “a proper dog’s breakfast.”

HOPE GROWS FOR REPEAL OF HUNT LAW

2009-04-07T11:15:00.002+01:00

BBC Today

As the final legal fox hunts took place before the ban became law in 2005, the mood among hunters was despondent.

There were gloomy predictions - interest in the sport would wane, thousands of hounds would have to be shot and hunt staff would be out of a job. Three hundred years of tradition were being wiped out, said hunt supporters.

But there was defiance too, with the Countryside Alliance vowing to overturn what it called a "temporary ban".

Four years on and the naysayers have been proved wrong. Not a single hunt has gone out of business, there are twice as many registered hounds as there were three years ago and - according to the Alliance - the number of people hunting is up by 11%.

With the Conservatives ahead of Labour in the opinion polls - and promising a free vote on the Hunting Act if they win the next election - supporters of hunting say repeal is now a probability rather than a possibility.

"It was as if the ceiling was falling in," says Nicky Sadler from the lobby group, Vote OK.

"We didn't know if hunting would survive. But today hunting is in very good shape, people are buoyant - and we're looking at a realistic possibility of repeal."

Vote OK was set up to target anti-hunting MPs in marginal seats. It operates from a farm in rural Gloucestershire - near David Cameron's Witney constituency.

Nicky Sadler estimates that they helped to oust 29 MPs in 2005 and says they'll target more than 140 constituencies in the next general election - expected to be in the spring of 2010.

"We're completely colour blind, it doesn't matter what party people represent. As long as they sign up to repeal of the Hunting Act, we'll support them," she says.

Political hunt

One supporter in the House of Commons is shadow justice minister Edward Garnier. He is the chairman of the Repeal Committee of the Countryside Alliance, which includes influential figures from politics and hunting.

AFTER THE BAN

18 February 2005 Ban on hunting a wild animal with dogs comes into force in England and Wales

October 2005 BBC survey finds that more people are taking part in fox hunting than before the ban

November 2007 Law Lords reject the Countryside Alliance's legal challenge to the ban on hunting with hounds

Boxing Day 2008 A record 6,000 people attend the traditional Oxford Boxing Day hunt

March 2009 Charges are dropped against Julian Barnfield, who would have been the first professional huntsman to be prosecuted for hunting a fox

A practising QC, Mr Garnier argues that the Hunting Act is "unfair and unworkable", citing a recent High Court judgement - which upheld an appeal from the first huntsman to be convicted of breaching the Act.

"This is a bad law - it is unclear, it is unfair and it is inept," he says.

"It's not producing the results which the proponents of it thought it would. It seems to me that no parliament can bind its successors and I have every right and every intention to address that issue and to make sure that we have a far better system of criminal law."

But given that the next election will be held in the context of deep economic crisis, are voters really going to be interested in the Hunting Act? Edward Garnier admits that it's the recession that's keeping people awake at night - but says the time is right to do the groundwork for repeal.

"I do think there is a real opportunity and I'm determined that that opportunity should arise in which Parliament can look at this issue again - and repeal the Hunting Act."

That stance has angered animal welfare groups, including the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports - which argue that the law is both fair and enforceable.

The League Against Cruel Sports maintains that the recent High Court judgement was a victory for clarity in the law, setting out clear guidelines for the police to enforce the Act.

The League's chief executive, Douglas Batchelor, says the pro-hunting lobby has put its own gloss on the court's decision.

"It has continually criticised the legislation because it goes against their desire to kill for fun," he says.

"Parliament has already spent 700 hours on the hunting issue and has ended up with an Act which does away with the cruelty of chasing animals for fun before they're killed.

"That was a huge step forward - and the general public agree."

He is warning the Conservatives that any attempt to get the Act repealed will put the party back where the then chairman, Theresa May, put them in 2002 - when she said it was sometimes perceived by the public as the "nasty party".

"This just doesn't make political sense. I can see why - because of some of their traditional support base - they might be toying with the issue, but I would suggest that, having toyed with it, they put it firmly back in the toy cupboard and don't touch it again."

Read More Here

ARRESTED SURREY UNION 'HUNT MONITORS' NOW CHARGED

2009-03-26T12:16:00.000Z

Two people arrested on public order offences while "monitoring" the Surrey Union Hunt have been charged.

The pair were arrested at around 1pm on 28 February, when a number of protestors — from a group of around 17 following the hunt which met at Leigh, Surrey — donned facemasks and scarves.

Tiff Clelland, 34, of Albert Road, Brighton, has been charged with aggravated trespass, and David Marriott, 18, of no fixed abode, has been charged with public order offences.

Both have been released on bail to appear at South East Surrey Magistrates Court on Friday 17 April.

Read More Here

PROSECUTION SENSATIONALLY DROPPED AGAINST HEYTHROP HUNTSMAN

2009-03-10T11:23:00.000Z

Horse & Hound

Charges of illegal hunting have been dropped against Heythrop huntsman Julian Barnfield.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has today dropped the high-profile case against Mr Barnfield. The huntsman was charged with four offences of hunting a fox, relating to incidents between November 2008 and February 2009.

The decision comes after the CPS announced it had no plans to appeal a High Court ruling that effectively weakened the Hunting Act 2004.

Mr Barnfield told H&H: "It's now becoming apparent that it's an unworkable law, that shouldn't have happened in the first place."

The High Court ruled in February that "searching" for a mammal was not hunting, and that hunting could only be an "intentional" activity.

Mr Barnfield's solicitor, Tim Hayden, said: "My client had been engaged in lawful trail hunting, which had been wrongly interpreted to be unlawful hunting by the prosecution.

"Hopefully the recent High Court decision will help to ensure those people who take part in lawful hunting will not be wrongly suspected to be unlawfully hunting in future."

Julian Barnfield added: "Hunt staff are under a lot of pressure, and when you're filmed day-in-day-out, it's not easy to do your job."

Read More Here

JUDGE FURIOUS AS 'WITNESS NOBBLING' CHARGES AGAINST OTIS FERRY ARE DROPPED

2009-03-10T09:41:00.001Z

THE TIMES

Otis Ferry was told yesterday that witness-nobbling charges, for which he had already spent four months in jail, were likely to be dropped in what a judge described as a “farcical” development.

Mr Ferry, the son of Bryan Ferry of the rock group Roxy Music, had been remanded in custody to stand trial on charges of robbing a hunt monitor, assault and perverting the course of justice by interfering with a witness.

But yesterday, the 26-year-old joint master of the South Shropshire hunt learnt at Gloucester Crown Court that the latter charge was likely to be abandoned over “inconsistencies”.

Martin Picton, the judge, described the situation as “nonsensical and farcical”. He had abandoned the original robbery and assault trial in September and remanded Mr Ferry in custody – upon pressure from the Crown Prosecution Service – after hearing the perverting the course of justice allegation. The judge called for Kerry Barker, the prosecution lawyer, who was not in court, to appear before him to give a full explanation.

Mr Ferry and John Deutsch, 55, of Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, were charged jointly with robbing Helen Ghalmi, a hunt monitor, of a camera and assaulting her during a meeting of the Heythrop Hunt near Stow-on-the-Wold, Gloucestershire, in November 2007. They also face alternative charges of affray.

Mr Ferry had also been accused of perverting the course of justice by telling his former groom, David Hodgkiss, not to give evidence against him when Mr Ferry was due to stand trial at Cirencester Crown Court. That trial was aborted when the witness-nobbling allegations were made.

Police investigating this allegation then arrested three other people, including Mr Ferry’s girlfriend, Francesca Nimmo, and Adrian Simpson, the Welsh director of the Countryside Alliance, on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. They remain on police bail.

At yesterday’s hearing Stephen Dent, prosecuting, said: “There has been a lot of painstaking police work carried out as far as the perverting the course of justice charges are concerned and it has been looked at very carefully. Those inquiries reveal a number of inconsistencies which mean that the Crown at the moment offers no evidence on that count.” But Judge Picton said: “At some point I shall want rather more than this by way of explanation because I remanded Mr Ferry in custody for over four months on the basis that there was a perverting the course of justice charge being pursued. There were vigorous objections to bail raised on the grounds of that.”

The prosecution still intends to call Mr Hodgkiss to give evidence in the robbery trial, despite the apparent inconsistencies in his account of the alleged witness-nobbling, though Judge Picton questioned how the defence could understand which parts of Mr Hodgkiss’s evidence were considered true and which not. Annie Johnston, for Mr Ferry, said she had understood that the Crown would formally offer no evidence against him on the perverting the course of justice charge. In fact, she said, Mr Ferry had even been asked by the prosecution if he would be prepared to give evidence against Mr Hodgkiss should he instead be charged with perverting justice.

Judge Picton said he found it breathtaking that the prosecution had reached its present situation after the case had been “vegetating a long time”.Bailing Mr Ferry and Mr Deutsch, he told them: “I am adjourning your case. I can’t tell you until when.”

Read More Here

TWO ARRESTED FOR MURDER AFTER HUNT FOLLOWER IS KILLED BY GYROCOPTER

2009-03-10T09:38:00.001Z

THE TIMES

A keen hunt supporter has been killed after being hit by a gyrocopter believed to have been monitoring hunts in the area.

Trevor Morse, 48, died after the incident at Long Marston airfield, near Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, yesterday. Two men were arrested on suspicion of murder and were being questioned by officers in Leamington Spa last night.

Between 80 and 100 huntsmen were out yesterday at the hunt in Moreton-in-Marsh on the last day of the Warwickshire hunt season. The hunt met at the village of Todenham at 11.45am and the gyrocopter, first spotted at noon, followed it for about two hours.

It is understood that an animal rights group, Protect Our Wild Animals, has been monitoring the Warwickshire and the Heythrop hunts from a gyrocopter over the past three weeks. Masters of the hunt told The Times that a gyrocopter had been reported to the Civil Aviation Authority and the police about ten days ago, amid fears that it was upsetting animals. The light aircraft was said to have been swooping in an aggressive manner over the hunt.

The police could not confirm last night whether the same gyrocopter was involved in the accident. The identity of the pilot remained unknown and it was unclear whether any other passenger was on board.

Civil Aviation Authority records show that Bryan Griffiths, of Bed-worth, is the registered owner of the gyrocopter involved in the fatal accident. There is no indication that he was one of those arrested.

Emergency services were called to the airfield just after 3pm yesterday after reports of a collision involving an aircraft and a pedestrian. The victim was pronounced dead at the scene. It is believed that Mr Morse had gone with a friend to the airfield to try to discover who had been piloting the gyrocopter. He and a woman were believed to have approached the aircraft as it was refuelling.

The airfield manager, Anthony Hodges, 57, said: “It was the only aircraft to land all day and I believe the aircraft hit him as it was taxiing on the runway.”

Alastair Jackson, director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, said that he had written two letters to Thames Valley Police after complaints by riders of the Warwickshire Hunt. “There has been a bit of trouble for the last three weeks involving the Warwickshire and Heythrop Hunts and there have been lots of complaints from riders and farmers concerned about their livestock and horses being frightened,” he said. “We had great concerns there would be an accident involving a horse or farmstock, but no one dreamt of anything like this.”

Members of the hunt paid tribute to Mr Morse, a gardener and odd-job man from Alderminster, near Ship-ston-on-Stour. Although not a rider, he was said to enjoy following the hunt in his Land Rover and helping out with the hounds. His wife, Caroline, would not comment last night.

Sam Butler, joint master of the Warwickshire Hunt, said: “Trevor was a countryman of the highest quality. We have lost a friend of the highest order.”

He said that a gyrocopter had been following the hunting activity for three weeks, but would not be drawn on who was piloting it or their motives. “All I can say is that they did not appear to be hunt supporters,” he said.

West Midlands Ambulance Service said: “On arrival at the scene crews found a pedestrian that had been in collision with an aircraft. Crews immediately assessed the pedestrian, a man, but unfortunately nothing could be done to save him and he was confirmed dead at the scene.”

Penny Little, spokeswoman for Protect Our Wild Animals, was unavailable for comment last night. The group’s website says that it “advocates the observance of hunts by use of video and stills cameras to record the cruelty and vandalism of hunting”.

A gyrocopter, also known as an auto-gyro or rotaplane, is a type of small helicopter that can fly slower and lower than regular sport aircraft. It is forbidden to fly them lower than 500ft.

Read More Here

TWO ARRESTS AT BETCHWORTH FOX HUNT

2009-03-05T09:43:00.000Z

Surrey Mirror

Foxhunting saboteurs were arrested after masked protesters stormed a hunt at the weekend.

The two people were part of a 20-strong group who attempted to force their way onto private land near Betchworth to monitor the Surrey Union Hunt (SUH).

About 40 riders and 100 supporters were met by demonstrators wearing camouflaged jumpsuits, face masks and scarves.

A 34-year-old woman from Brighton and an 18-year-old man of no fixed address were arrested on suspicion of public order offences.

A police spokeswoman said: "Officers ordered demonstrators to remove the items concealing their faces.

"Two refused and became abusive towards the police and were arrested."

SUH said the arrests, made at 1pm on Saturday, were the culmination in a series of sabotaged hunt meetings over the past few weeks, which had become increasingly violent.

A SUH spokesman, who would not be named for fear of reprisals, said: "They were asked by a representative of the landowner not to enter but they tried to force their way past.

"It became clear that there was going to be trouble and the police stepped in. Instead of co-operating with officers they became abusive."

He added: "When you have people running around with face masks and being intimidating and abusive it is quite alarming."

Saboteurs from Brighton and London as well as those from the local area arrived to disrupt the hunt.

The protesters said they believe SUH had been hunting illegally, a claim vigorously denied by the hunt.

John Davis, 39, a hunt saboteur, from Brighton, said: "We were there to make sure they were not hunting [foxes with hounds].

"They say they are just trail hunting but when our backs are turned we think they start fox-hunting again."

The two people arrested were released on police bail pending further inquiries.

Read More Here

TORIES GET READY FOR A REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING BAN

2008-12-26T11:05:00.002Z

The Times

A tribunal to deal with any wrongdoing by huntsmen and women would be set up if the law that prohibits hunting with hounds were repealed under a Conservative government.

It would have the power to fine, suspend and even ban people from taking part if they were found to have broken the rules or brought hunting into disrepute.

Under the system, approved by hunting chiefs, any rogue hunter would face the prospect of a double trial and penalty – any breaches of animal welfare or criminal laws could still lead to prosecution.

The plan, which is still being finalised, has been drawn up by a “repeal committee” of hunting chiefs and parliamentarians, chaired by the Conservative MP Edward Garnier, QC.

The tribunal would probably be headed by an independent person, perhaps a retired judge or senior civil servant, and funded by contributions from every hunt. It would deal with complaints about trespass and nuisance and any allegations about hunt staff breaking rules, such as using terriers to dig out foxes.

David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, has made clear that if he becomes prime minister he will offer a free vote in government time for repeal of the four-year-old hunting ban.

A recent survey by the Countryside Alliance, a pressure group, found that of 120 Tory candidates in marginal seats only one was against repealing the ban and he said that he would abstain on any vote.

Some hunt members see no need to repeal the legislation as hunts have revived since the ban and can operate within the law by following artificial trails, organising hound exercise clubs or hunting with a bird of prey.

Mr Garnier, however, is adamant that the law must be repealed,though he acknowledges that public concerns must be addressed. The MP, the party’s justice spokesman, is chairing the repeal committee in a personal capacity. He does not hunt but represents prime hunting territory in Leices-tershire and supports his local hunts, the Fernie and the Cottesmore.

“I take the view it is not satisfactory to have a law, and especially a criminal law, under which people can be sent to prison or fined when to a large extent it is not accepted in the geographical areas where it’s supposed to bite,” he said. “Lots of people in rural areas think this law is designed to get at them and they find it offensive. What we are trying to do on the repeal committee is to ensure there is a perfectly acceptable way forward.

“This is not just about undoing the ban and nothing else, but this is to provide a system that would act as a deterrent against bad behaviour but also one that offers protection for those who hunt within the law and to protect them from false accusations.”

The tribunal could deal with complaints from people about huntsmen “parking on verges and crushing daffodils” and bring speedy redress, whether in compensation or payment to repair damage and an apology.

Mr Garnier admitted that the plan could fail even with a Conservative victory. “We are not so arrogant as to think that what we are doing is going to happen and that even if we come up with a watertight and sensible scheme that the wider public will think it is a good thing,” he said. “But I hope we are exercising sensitivity and common sense and not getting ahead of ourselves. We will be responsive to public concerns and the political landscape and we are acutely aware of pubic concerns about welfare and cruelty.”

Read More Here

MPs IGNORE CALLS TO ACT ON HUNTS

2008-12-16T13:56:00.001Z

Western Morning News

Anti-hunt campaigners appear to be at loggerheads over the future of the Hunting Act, ahead of a crunch High Court verdict which could decide the way the law applies in the future.

A split has emerged between those demanding the law is rewritten and other animal rights groups who say the existing law just needs to be enforced more stringently by the police.

A campaign in Westminster to persuade the Government to toughen up the Act has attracted the support of less than one in 20 MPs.

The hardcore group of Labour and Liberal Democrat backbenchers claims there is "mounting evidence" hunts are avoiding the law and demands changes be made to secure more prosecutions.

But the move appears to be at odds with leading animal rights campaigners who last night told the WMN the Act was "good" but police must make it a greater priority to enforce.

Countryside campaigners claimed the split was proof of a "widening schism" within the anti-hunting movement.

Meanwhile, a judgment is expected soon on the appeal of Exmoor huntsman Tony Wright, the first huntsman to be prosecuted under the Hunting Act. He was convicted by Barnstaple magistrates in August 2006 of hunting a wild mammal with dogs, but that decision was overturned last year and a ruling was sought from the High Court.

All other prosecutions have been on hold pending the outcome, which is expected soon.

Ahead of the ruling, maverick left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell – who launched an ill-fated attempt to stand against Gordon Brown for the party's leadership last summer – has tabled a Commons motion calling on the Government to amend the Act.

He wants it to include a "reckless behaviour clause" which he says would prevent the abuse of the spirit of the legislation.

But it has been signed by just 28 other MPs. None of them is from Devon, Cornwall, Somerset or Dorset, and even high-profile opponents of hunting like Tory stalwart Ann Widdecombe are notable by their absence.

Mr McDonnell insists the Act – which then-Prime Minister Tony Blair was reportedly "not comfortable with" – is not working.

"It took a long time. There was a lot of discussion. We thought we got it right, but we clearly haven't, in this instance."

His Commons motion highlights that, before the law banning hunting with dogs was passed by Parliament, 50,000 hunt members and supporters reportedly signed a declaration that "they would disobey such a law".

The MPs claim "there is mounting evidence that hunts are avoiding the law and by various devices are continuing the barbaric practice of hunting foxes down to a bloody kill and claiming that such kills are accidental".

And they demand the Government "act to prevent this abuse of the spirit of the anti-hunting legislation by means of an amendment to the Hunting Act to include a reckless behaviour clause".

However, a spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports told the WMN: "We believe very strongly that the Act is an enforceable, good piece of legislation.

"We are working with the police quite closely to push the enforcement as high up the priority of the police as possible.

"Our position is not particularly to support an amendment, it is that the Act is working. It has had prosecutions and we will see more."

She added that the LACS's stance was in line with that of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the RSPCA.

The difference of opinion has been seized on by the pro-hunt lobby as proof the Labour Government spent 700 hours of Parliamentary time "on a piece of legislation that has failed completely to do what they wanted it to do.

"But others say it is a fine piece of legislation, it just needs enforcing better – there are different messages coming out and they appear to be in disarray," said the Countryside Alliance.

Read More Here

NORFOLK LANDOWNER DENIES COURSING CHARGE

2008-12-09T16:57:00.000Z

Eastern Daily Press

A prominent landowner was accused of allowing illegal blood sports on her Norfolk estate at the opening of a landmark trial yesterday.

Mary Birkbeck, 77, denies permitting her land at Little Massingham to be used for hare coursing - an outlawed country pursuit in which greyhounds compete to chase and “turn” their quarry.

She appeared alongside two other defendants at King's Lynn Magistrates' Court - Les Anderson, 80, of Lodge Road, Feltwell, and Robert Fryer, 41, from Tring in Hertfordshire.

Anderson, the chairman of Kimberley and Wymondham Greyhound Club, was accused of running the two events in November 2007 and January 2008.

But the charges against Fryer - accused of participating as the “slipper” who unleashes the dogs - were dismissed after district judge Philip Browning ruled the evidence against him to be inadmissible.

The case is the first of its kind to be brought by the RSPCA after coursing meetings, once a mainstay of the rural calendar, were banned with the introduction of the Hunting Act in 2005.

The court was shown video footage taken by animal-rights investigators which showed muzzled greyhounds chasing hares across a large field at Birkbeck's estate.

But Stephen Welford, defending, said Birkbeck and Anderson believed the event to be a legal “field trial” - an assessment of a dog's effectiveness as a hunting animal, which is exempt from the legislation.

Mark Fenhalls, prosecuting, said: “The principal and sole issue is whether what happened on those occasions amounts to hare coursing.

“The defendants say it was field trials and they faxed rules to the police in an attempt to seek police sanction for their actions. These rules were an attempt to draft something which was compliant with the act, but in fact what went on did not adhere to these regulations.”

Sgt Christopher Flanagan, of Hunstanton police, told the court he had given Anderson permission to hold the event after confirming with a wildlife-crime officer that the faxed regulations complied with the new laws.

Before the ban, coursing rules said hares should be given an 80-yard start before the greyhounds were released. A judge, mounted on horseback, would follow the pursuit and identify the winning dog based on its skill in forcing the more agile hare to turn. The capture and killing of the hare, although common, was not the object of the contest.

In contrast, the Hunting Act defines a field trial as a competition, other than hare coursing, in which dogs flush hares out of cover - which can then be legally shot by landowners.

RSPCA chief inspector Mike Butcher said hares were driven on to Birkbeck's field by a line of beaters and, although none were caught by the dogs, he saw no attempts to shoot them.

“The only difference I saw between this event and courses before the ban was that the judge was not mounted and the greyhounds were muzzled,” he said.

“The hares were beaten from an adjoining field and ran into the open field past about 70 spectators before being chased by dogs. To me, that is hare coursing, no matter how you describe it.”

Mr Butcher said he attended an event on January 8 where he watched four alleged courses and told Birkbeck and Anderson he believed the activity to be illegal.

But Mr Welford said no attempt had been made to cover up the meeting as the organisers had sought police approval. He said the field was surrounded by either mesh fencing or hedges which would allow the hares to escape, but prevent the dogs from following them.

The trial continues.

Read More Here

TWO CONVICTED ON NORFOLK HARE COURSING CHARGES

2008-12-09T15:00:00.000Z

Eastern Daily Press

A Norfolk landowner and her colleague were convicted of hare coursing today after a judge ruled their “sincere” attempt to legally beat the hunting ban had failed.

Mary Birkbeck, 77, and Les Anderson, 80, were found guilty of attending and facilitating two illegal coursing events in November 2007 and January 2008.

Birkbeck was also convicted of permitting land on her Little Massingham estate to be used for the meetings, where hares were pursued across fields by muzzled greyhounds.

The pair were ordered to pay £1,000 each in costs, but escaped further punishment as district judge Philip Browning said he was satisfied a genuine effort had been made to stay within the law.

Hare coursing was outlawed with the introduction of the Hunting Act in 2005, which prompted Anderson - the chairman of Kimberly and Wymondham Greyhound Club - to commission a rulebook for a new sport of greyhound field trialling in a bid to comply with the legislation.

The regulations said the dogs would be judged on their ability to drive hares towards guns - rather than judging their skill in hunting and “turning” their quarry, which was the objective before the ban.

King's Lynn Magistrates' Court heard Anderson, of Lodge Road, Feltwell, had been involved with coursing for 62 years and had sought legal advice and police permission before organising the events.

Mr Browning said: “In my judgement the activities of both dogs and hares are indistinguishable from hare coursing. The dogs are supposed to be judged on different criteria but the activity is the same.

“That activity is hare coursing and the steps taken to create a different sport without breaking the law have not succeeded.

“Having made that judgement, I consider that sincere attempts have been made to conduct these activities within the law.”

The judge gave both Birkbeck and Anderson conditional discharges on the provision that no further offences were committed within two years.

After the hearing, Anderson said: “I would very much like to have been found not guilty, but what we have got I am not dissatisfied with. At least we showed we tried, but we have not succeeded.

“As far as the club goes, I have a two-year order on me now so we will have to be very careful. We have got some very loyal members, so we shall still be a club and we will keep together.”

Read More Here

LANDMARK HARE COURSING TRIAL BEGINS

2008-12-08T15:54:00.001Z

Eastern Daily Press

A landmark trial began this morning with a prominent Norfolk landowner accused of permitting illegal hare coursing events on her estate.

Mary Birkbeck, 77, is charged with attending and facilitating the events at her estate in Little Massingham, between November 2007 and January 2008.

Two others - Les Anderson, 80, of Lodge Road, Feltwell, and Robert Fryer, 41, from Tring in Hertfortshire - are also standing trial at King's Lynn Magistrates' Court for attending the events.

Hare coursing, a country sport in which greyhounds are judged on their ability to chase and “turn” a hare, was outlawed when the Hunting Act was enforced in 2005.

Today's case is believed to be the first of its kind to be brought by the RSPCA since the legislation was introduced.

Stephen Welford, defending, said the events at Massingham were sanctioned by the police as they were classified as field trials, which are exempt from the hunting ban.

The trial continues.

Read More Here

COTSWOLD MAN DENIES FOX HUNTING CHARGES

2008-08-05T10:01:00.000+01:00

A COTSWOLD kennel owner and friend of Tory leader David Cameron has denied charges of fox-hunting after the ban.

Julian Barnfield, 44, of Heythrop Kennels, Chipping Norton, entered the not guilty pleas through his solicitor, Tim Hayden, at today's hearing at Cheltenham Magistrates Court.

The case was adjourned for a pre-trial review to take place and after a judicial review at the High Court in London concerning points of law that potentially relate to the case.

Barnfield pleaded not guilty to three charges of breaking the ban on hunting for foxes with dogs in Gloucestershire.

The first relates to November 17, last year at Cold Aston, the second is on January 23 this year in Moreton-in-marsh and the third on February 7 this year at Barrington.

Prosecuting, William Llewellyn, said Mr Barnfield also faced a similar matter at Witney Magistrates Court to be transferred and incorporated into this case.

A High Court judicial review is in process following the prosecution of Tony Wright at Barnstaple Magistrates Court in 2005 in relation to a hunting matter.

The Magistrates heard today that two points of law were under scrutiny at the High Court in relation to the Barnstaple case - notably concerning what the legal definition of hunting was.

The case has been adjourned for a pre-trial review on November 3 at Cheltenham Magistrates.
Julian Barnfield is the first huntsman from the West Country to be prosecuted and only the second time in Britain that such a case has been brought.

The Heythrop is the local hunt for David Cameron and he has ridden with them at least six times since he moved to take the seat several years ago.

Read More Here/

FOX HUNTING CASE ADJOURNED WHILE FILM EVIDENCE IS VIEWED

2008-07-25T11:24:00.001+01:00

Horse & Hound

The first case to be brought by the state for illegal fox hunting has been adjourned while legal teams view filmed evidence.

Heythrop huntsman Julian Barnfield, was due to be prosecuted for allegedly killing a fox on 21 July, but Cheltenham magistrates have agreed to put the hearing back until 4 August after his solicitors asked for filmed footage.

Mr Barnfield, 44, was due to answer three charges of hunting a wild mammal with dogs.
The allegations relate to incidents on 17 November 2007 in Cold Aston, Cheltenham, 23 January 2008 in Adlestrop, Moreton-in-Marsh and 7 February 2008 in Barrington, Gloucestershire.

Read More Here

HIGH COURT SCHEDULES HUNT'S ANTI-HARASSMENT LEGAL BID FOR 28TH JULY

2008-07-15T11:26:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

A legal bid to ban hunt protesters from thousands of acres of private estate and farm land in West Sussex has been given a priority listing in the High Court.

Lawyers for the Crawley and Horsham hunt told a judge in London today they were seeking a ruling by 1 September so as to have an injunction in place for the start of the hunting season.

Mr Justice Teare ordered an urgent four-day hearing, to begin on 28 July.

The Crawley and Horsham hunt, together with more than 80 of its landowners, are attempting to stop saboteurs trespassing and causing harassment and nuisance to the hunt.

The hunt has employed a leading harassment lawyer to lead the ground-breaking civil action which it hopes will put a stop to the tactics used by the Sussex Wildlife Protection group and its two main organisers, Simon and Jaine Wilde.

Senior master Anthony Sandeman is representing the hunt in the action. He told H&H: "For the past three years, since the Hunting Act, they have been using old sabbing tactics — balaclavas, sprays, whips, hunting horns and tape recorders — to disrupt our legal hunting activities.

"But the main thing is the continual trespass, our farmers are getting fed up with it."

The case is being brought under the Protection From Harassment Act.

The hunt has logged some 269 incident of trespass and harassment caused by the Wildes and their associates over the past two years alone. It insists it has been operating within the law since the ban on hunting with hounds came into force and stresses that it is not seeking to ban objectors from public land, footpaths and highways.

The wildlife group says it has substantial evidence that the hunt has broken the law, despite the hunt's claim that it now sticks to legal forms of the sport such as following a false scent.

It argues that the evidence of "hunt monitors" has been instrumental in prosecuting hunts which have failed to abide by the Hunting Act.

Read More Here

TONY WRIGHT CLEARED ON APPEAL

2007-11-30T16:08:00.000Z

The first huntsman prosecuted under the Hunting Act has today had his conviction overturned on appeal.

Tony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, appeared in Exeter Crown Court at 2pm, where the judgment was delivered by Judge Cottrell.

In his conclusion, the Judge stated: "During this appeal we have enjoyed an extended opportunity to observe and to hear from the appellant [Tony Wright]. And we have no doubt that he and the master of the hunt genuinely wished to comply with the Act.

"On that day, with the benefit of hindsight, the arrangements in place may not have been sufficient to ensure compliance with the Act but we are satisfied that the appellant has proved that he reasonably believed, perhaps optimistically, that he had put in place the safeguard that would ensure compliance with the Act."

Tony Wright was found guilty last August at Barnstaple Magistrates Court, in a prosecution brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS).

The case hinged on an exemption under the Act that allows two hounds to flush foxes to be shot, which Tony Wright has always maintained he was doing on 29 February 2005.

"We're delighted that justice has finally been done," said Stephen Lambert, chairman of the Masters of Foxhounds Association.

"And we're thrilled and delighted for Tony Wright whose courage and perseverance in this predicament has been quite superb."

Mr Lambert added: "We are very grateful to our superb legal team."

Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: "This verdict is an absolute vindication of Tony Wright and the Exmoor Foxhounds and another nail in the coffin of the Hunting Act.

"While we celebrate this judgment, we must not forget why an innocent man faced with a vindictive private prosecution has had to spend over two years and two court cases to clear his name.

"The Hunting Act is not only a pointless and prejudiced piece of legislation, it is also a very bad law. If the courts cannot be sure what is hunting and what is not how on earth can anyone else?

"Only by scrapping the Act can we ensure that other innocent people will not be persecuted and today's result adds to the clear case for its repeal."

Read More Here

JUDGEMENT IN TONY WRIGHT APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED TOMORROW

2007-11-29T16:06:00.000Z

Horse & Hound

The first huntsman to be convicted under the Hunting Act 2004 will learn tomorrow whether his appeal has been successful.

At 2pm tomorrow (Friday, 30 November) Exmoor foxhounds huntsman Tony Wright will appear at Exeter Crown Court at 2pm for the judgement.

Tony appealed his conviction last year of hunting a wild mammal with dogs to Exeter Crown Court at the beginning of this month

He was found guilty of hunting illegally in August 2006 by Barnstable Magistrates Court in a prosecution brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS).

Read More Here

HUNTING BAN CHALLENGE FROM COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE IS REJECTED BY THE LAW LORDS

2007-11-29T14:30:00.000Z

Country Life

The hunting ban challenge from the Countryside Alliance has been rejected by Law Lords. The Countryside Alliance had argued that the ban on hunting with hounds contravened human rights and put up to 8,000 livelihoods at risk.

Law Lords ruled unanimously in favour of the ban, and also dismissed a similar appeal relating to Scotland.

The ban, which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales, was passed by government in 2004 using the Parliament Act to overturn opposition in the Lords.

Law Lords rejected the argument from the Countryside Alliance, saying that the democratic process risked being subverted if opponents of the ban won in the courts but not in Parliament.

Lord Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice, headed the panel. He said: 'The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.'

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said: 'We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe. The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare.'

The Countryside Alliance will now appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over the Hunting Act, following the rejection of their challenge by the Law Lords. The Countryside Alliance maintains that up to 8,000 livelihoods are now at risk as a result of the ban.

Read More Here

FOX HUNTING IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT

2007-11-29T10:20:00.000Z

The Times

The latest challenge to the ban on hunting with dogs, was dismissed by the law lords yesterday when they ruled that the Hunting Act does not contravene human rights.

The highest court in the land rejected an appeal in which the pro-hunt lobby claimed that the Parliament Act, used to force through the Hunting Act, was unconstitutional.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill and four other law lords dismissed a second challenge by the Countryside Alliance and other campaigners against the Hunting Act.

The same panel also dismissed an appeal from the Scottish courts by Brian Friend and Jeremy Whaley, both members of the Union of Country Sports Workers.

They claimed that the ban, introduced in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals Act, is an infringement of their human rights.

Lord Bingham, senior law lord and a former Lord Chief Justice, said in his ruling: “Fox hunting in this country is an emotive and divisive subject. For some it is an activity deeply embedded in the tradition, life and culture of the countryside, richly portrayed in art and literature, a highly cherished, skilful, healthy and useful form of communal outdoor exercise.

“Others find the pursuit of a small animal across the countryside until it is caught and destroyed by hounds, to be abhorrent.”

He said that the House of Lords had never given its consent to the Hunting Act but that the law lords were a judicial committee who had to give their views without reference to their personal sympathies.

The Countryside Alliance, along with various individuals, claimed at a hearing last month that the Act – which prohibits foxhunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales – violates the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolve around the meet and the chase.

Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs, the law lords were told. Others would lose businesses and the commercial “good-will” attached to them.

The Hunting Act 2004 must “be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation”, Lord Bingham said.

He added: “The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.”

In the Scottish case, Lord Hope, giving the leading ruling, said that there was “adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that foxhunting inflicted pain on the fox and that there was an adequate and proper basis on which it could make the judgment that the infliction of such pain in such circumstances constituted cruelty”.

Read More Here

HUNTING BAN NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS OR EU LAW

2007-11-29T10:17:00.000Z

The Times

Regina (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another Regina (Derwin and Others) v Same

Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Judgment November 28, 2007

The prohibition of hunting wild animals with dogs and hare coursing imposed by the Hunting Act 2004 was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or inconsistent with the treaty establishing the European Union.

The House of Lords so held when dismissing appeals by:

(i) Countryside Alliance, Donald Summers-gill, Lesley Joan Drage, Roger Bigland, Colin Dayment, Kim Gooding, Joseph Cowen, William Jones, Richard May, Giles Bradshaw and Jason Vickery, the human rights claimants, and

(ii) Francis Derwin, Shane Flavin, Diana Johnson, Susan Lanigan-O’Keeffe, Viscount Hughes Le Hardy de Beaulieu, Gil Jose de Queiroz de Mendia, Barbara Rich, Marion Knoche, Kevin Lamacraft and Brian Divilly, the EC claimants,

from the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Buxton) ( The Times June 30, 2006; [2007] QB 305), affirming the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Moses), ( The Times August 3, 2005) which dismissed judicial review claims against the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

(i) by the human rights claimants for declaratory relief that the 2004 Act was incompatible with articles 8, 11, 14 of, and article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(ii) by the EC claimants, seeking to quash the 2004 Act, alternatively for a declaration that it was inconsistent with article 28 EC (free movement of goods) and article 49 EC (freedom to provide and to receive services) of the EC Treaty.

Mr Richard Gordon, QC, for the human rights claimants; Mr David Anderson, QC and Ms Marie Demetriou for the EC claimants; Mr Philip Sales, QC and Mr Jason Coppel for the respondents; Mr Rabinder Singh, QC and Ms Kate Cook for the RSPCA intervening by written submissions.

LORD BINGHAM said that the purpose of article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, his home and correspondence, was to protect the individual against intrusion by state agents, unless for good reason, into the private sphere where individuals expected to be left alone to conduct their personal affairs and live their personal lives as they chose.

Fox-hunting was a very public activity, carried out in daylight with considerable colour and noise, a spectacle often attracting onlookers’ attention.

Analogies could not be drawn with Strasbourg cases relating to private life and personal autonomy or cultural lifestyle, use of the home and loss of livelihood. The human rights claims could not be brought within the scope of article 8 under those heads.

His Lordship would not treat article 11, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, as inapplicable: if people only assembled to act in a certain way and that activity was prohibited, the effect in reality was to restrict their right to assemble.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 was applicable to the complaints of claimants who suffered loss of control over their possessions.

His Lordship rejected their article 14 complaint, of discrimination in being subject to adverse treatment as compared with nonhunters on the ground of their “other status”. He could not link that treatment to any claimant’s personal characteristic which could meaningfully be described as status.

The EC claimants, relying on article 28, argued that the hunting ban impeded the free movement of goods within the prohibition as interpreted in Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (Case 8/74) ([1974] ECR 837) and was not a selling arrangement within the exception recognised in Keck and Mithouard (Case C-267/91 and C-268/91) ([1993] ECR I-6097).

His Lordship thought the Act did not engage article 28 but, that was not clear on the authorities. If the question had to be decidid, for the House to give judgment, a definitive ruling from the ECJ would be required.

The EC claimants secondly relied on article 49, prohibiting restrictions on freedom to provide services for nationals established in other EU states. He considered that the hunting ban would engage that article, but the matter was not acte clair and a reference would be required if its resolution were necessary to the House’s decision.

His Lordship agreed with the statement in Adams v Scottish Ministers (2004 SC 665), in relation to Scottish legislation, that the prevention of cruelty to animals had long fallen within the constitutional responsibility of the legislature. Enactment of each statute involved the making of a moral judgment; the latest Act was a further step in a long sequence promoting animal welfare.

Having traced that sequence through the stream of 19th and 20th century British legislation, he said that it might be doubted whether any country had done more than the United Kingdom to try to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals.

He referred to noncontentious facts that foxes were a pest, requiring regular culling, traditionally by hunting with hounds, shooting or snaring; that before the 2004 Act those killed by hunting represented roughly 10 per cent of annual deaths from all causes.

Contrary to the appellants’ submission, the courts below accurately expressed the Act’s aim as a composite one of preventing or reducing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport was unethical. The appellants argued that the ban did not reduce the overall level of suffering as compared with the situation before the Act.

His Lordship found it impossible to construct any precise calculus of relative suffering. A body of reputable professional opinion accepted that hunting imposed a degree of suffering. But the degree was unknowable, as was the future incidence of foxes wounded by inexpert shooting and left to die.

The conditions by which otherwise impermissible interferences with articles 8 and 11 rights might be justified were met: the interference was in accordance with the law; it was directed to “the protection of ... morals": see articles 8.2 and 11.2, that was the aim of the Act.

Many did not consider there was a pressing, or any social need for the ban but the majority of the country’s elected representatives had decided otherwise.

The degree of respect to be shown to the considered judgment of a democratic assembly would vary according to subject matter and circumstances but this was preeminently a case where respect should be shown to what the House of Commons had decided.

The democratic process was liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieved through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.

No less far-reaching measure could have achieved the statutory object. The Act was proportionate to the end it sought to achieve.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 was not to impair the state’s right to enforce such laws as it deemed necessary to control the use of property in the general interest. The Act was such a law and respect should be paid to the recent, closely considered judgment of a democratic assembly. No ground was shown for disturbing it.

Article 30 EC, qualifying article 28, and article 46 EC, applicable to article 49 by article 55, provided for justifying an impugned measure on public policy grounds, subject to strict principles: see Omega Spielhallen- und Auton-matenaustellungs GmbH v Oberbürgermeister-in der Bundesstadt Bonn (Case C-36/02) ([2004] ECR I-9609, paragraphs 28-31).

His Lordship approached that issue on the assumption that articles 28 and 49 applied and that the measure was one of social reform, not directed to the regulation of commercial activity, of which any impediment to the intra-Community provision of goods and services was a minor and unintended consequence, and which bore more hardly on those within the United Kingdom than on those outside it.

In Omega the German authorities considered, and the ECJ accepted, that exploitation of games involving the simulated killing of human beings infringed a fundamental value, human dignity, enshrined in the national constitution.

Here, Parliament considered that the real killing of foxes, deer, hares and mink by way of recreation infringed a fundamental value expressed in numerous statutes and culminating in the Act.

The Act was justifiable in Community law; no ECJ ruling was necessary for the House to decide the appeal.

Lord Hope, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale and Lord Brown delivered opinions concurring in the result.

Solicitors: Clifford Chance LLP; Clifford Chance LLP; Treasury Solicitor and Solicitor, for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Mr Raymond Goodfellow Horsham; Edwards Duthie, East Ham.

Read More Here

BRITISH BAN ON HUNTING WITH DOGS STANDS

2007-11-28T14:57:00.000Z

Associated Press

The image of Britons in scarlet coats galloping over fields as their dogs chase foxes is fixed in the popular imagination. But Britain's highest court ruled Wednesday that laws banning the hunts must stand.

Hunters had appealed two bans: one passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2002 and another, enacted in 2004, applying to England and Wales. The laws banned using dogs to hunt mammals.

Hunting supporters argued that the laws violated the rights of people whose livelihoods depended on hunting.

But on Wednesday, the Law Lords — a committee of the House of Lords that acts as Britain's highest court — dismissed the appeals.

The 2004 law banning hunting in England and Wales must "be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation," Lord Bingham said in the unanimous ruling.

"The democratic process is liable to be subverted," Bingham wrote, if hunting supporters achieve in court what they failed to achieve in Parliament.

The House of Commons forced the English and Welsh ban into law after the legislation was repeatedly defeated in the House of Lords.

In rejecting the associated appeal against the Scottish ban, Lord Hope wrote that "there was adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that fox hunting inflicted pain on the fox," and was therefore cruel.

Opponents of hunting say the fox dies an excruciating death as it is ripped apart by the pack of dogs.

But the Countryside Alliance, a group of hunting advocates, argues that between 6,000 and 8,000 people eventually will lose their jobs because of the ban — and many will also lose their homes.

In 2004, hunt supporters organized marches against the legislation, and eight hunt supporters invaded the House of Commons in 2004 to protest.

Under the Hunting Act, dogs can be used to chase a fox into open ground but not to harm it. Instead, the fox can be shot. Because of that, the legislation has not entirely banned the colorful spectacle of horse-mounted hunters setting out in pursuit of game.

Read More Here

BRITAIN'S HIGHEST COURT REJECTS FOX HUNTING APPEAL

2007-11-28T14:55:00.001Z

AFP

Britain's highest court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by countryside groups against the government's ban on hunting with dogs, ruling that the law does not contravene human rights.

It was the second time the Law Lords had been asked to rule on the lawfulness of the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox and deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales following similar laws in Scotland.

Campaigners have tried to have the act declared invalid and claimed it would devastate rural communities and local industries supporting hunts, such as kennels for hounds and farriers who ensure hunt horses are well-shod.

But in a unanimous decision, one of the three judges, Thomas Bingham, said the act "must be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation".

"The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament," he said.

A separate appeal against the Scottish legislation, which has a separate but broadly similar legal system to England and Wales, was also thrown out.

Scotland's most senior judge, James Hope, said there was "adequate factual information" to indicate that fox hunting inflicted pain on the animal and was therefore cruel.

Under both laws, dogs cannot be used to pursue and kill quarry, although they can still follow a scent and flush out foxes and other quarry, which can then be killed either by a bird of prey or shot if only two dogs are involved.

Read More Here

LAW LORDS REJECT HUNT CHALLENGE

2007-11-28T14:48:00.000Z

BBC

The Countryside Alliance has lost its legal challenge to overturn the ban on hunting with hounds.
The pressure group argued that the ban contravened human rights and put thousands of jobs at risk.

The law was passed by the government in 2004 using the Parliament Act to overturn opposition in the Lords.

But the Law Lords unanimously ruled in favour of the ban. The Law Lords have also dismissed a similar appeal relating to Scotland.

The ban prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales.

The Countryside Alliance argued that it violated the human rights of thousands of people and was putting between six and eight thousand jobs at risk.

But the Law Lords rejected the argument ruling the democratic process risked being subverted if opponents of the ban won in the courts but not in Parliament.

The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, headed the panel. He accepted that fox hunting is very important to the traditions and life of the countryside.

But he ruled: "The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament."

It's not the first time the Countryside Alliance has suffered a legal setback.

Two years ago the Lords rejected an appeal made on constitutional grounds. The Alliance argued the ban was illegal because it had been originally passed using the Parliament Act without the consent of the House of Lords.

The Law Lords also refused an appeal brought by members of the Union of Country Sports Workers through the Scottish courts.

The Countryside Alliance is now planning to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The group's chief executive Simon Hart said: "To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated.

"We believe that the European courts will support this view."

Read More Here

LORDS

2007-11-28T14:43:00.000Z

The Guardian

The Law Lords threw out the latest challenges to the ban on hunting with dogs when they ruled that the Hunting Act did not contravene any human rights.

The House of Lords, the highest court in the land, rejected an appeal two years ago in which the pro-hunt lobby claimed that the Parliament Act, used to force through the Hunting Act, was unconstitutional.

On Wednesday Lords Bingham, Hope, Rodger and Brown and Baroness Hale dismissed a second challenge by the Countryside Alliance and other campaigners to the lawfulness of the Hunting Act.

The same panel of Law Lords also dismissed an appeal from the Scottish courts by Brian Friend and Jeremy Whaley, both members of the Union of Country Sports Workers.

They also claimed that the ban, introduced in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals Act, is an infringement of their human rights.

Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice who headed the panel of Law Lords, said in his ruling: "Fox hunting in this country is an emotive and divisive subject. For some it is an activity deeply embedded in the tradition, life and culture of the countryside, richly portrayed in art and literature, a highly cherished, skilful, healthy and useful form of communal outdoor exercise.

"Others find the pursuit of a small animal across the countryside until it is caught and destroyed by hounds to be abhorrent."

He said the House of Lords had never given its consent to the Hunting Act but they were a judicial committee who had to give their views without reference to their personal sympathies.

The Countryside Alliance, along with various individuals, claimed at a hearing last month that the Act - which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales - violates the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolve around the meet and the chase.

Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs, the Law Lords were told. Others would lose businesses and the commercial "goodwill" attached to them.

Read More Here

PRO-HUNT LOBBY TO KEEP ON FIGHTING

2007-11-28T14:36:00.000Z

The Cornishman

A legal bid to prove the ban on hunting with dogs contravenes the human rights of people in the countryside has been thrown out by the Law Lords.

Last night campaigners vowed to take their case to the European Courts despite the unanimous verdict that the Hunting Act 2004 must stand to prevent animal cruelty.

But Westcountry hunts last night insisted the welfare of wildlife had worsened since the Act became law.

The House of Lords, the highest court in the land, yesterday dismissed the challenge by the Countryside Alliance and other campaigners to the lawfulness of the Hunting Act. It is the second time an appeal against the act has been rejected.

Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice who headed the panel of Law Lords, admitted in his ruling that fox hunting was an "emotive and divisive subject".

"For some it is an activity deeply embedded in the tradition, life and culture of the countryside, richly portrayed in art and literature, a highly cherished, skilful, healthy and useful form of communal outdoor exercise."

Others find the pursuit of a small animal across the countryside until it is caught and destroyed by hounds to be abhorrent."

He said the House of Lords had never given its consent to the Hunting Act but they were a judicial committee who had to give their views without reference to their personal sympathies.

Lord Hope, who was also on the panel, added that a history of laws preventing cruelty "is deeply rooted in public policy".

But the Countryside Alliance claimed the Act - which prohibits fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing with dogs in England and Wales - violated the fundamental human rights of thousands of people whose livelihood and way of life revolved around the meet and the chase.

Between 6,000 and 8,000 were expected eventually to lose their jobs, and many would also lose the homes that went with the jobs, the Law Lords were told. Others would lose businesses and the commercial "goodwill" attached to them.

Last night Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg.

He said: "We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe. The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare. To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the Government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated.

"We believe that the European Courts will support this view, even if the Law Lords were unable to."

And John Lucas, spokesman for Tiverton Staghounds, told the WMN: "Animal welfare has certainly not improved since the hunting ban came in because we all know that two hounds can flush out whatever quarry it is and there are a lot more wild animals being shot indiscriminately along with other methods of control being used.

"The Hunting Act was not about animal welfare but prejudice and bigotry towards the countryside.

"I am sure if they delved deep enough and looked into the countryside they will see animal welfare has taken a step backwards."

In the ruling, Lord Bingham said the law had been drawn up and passed in line with the constitution and should not be undone by an interest group. The democratic process was liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieved through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.

Earlier John Rolls, director of animal welfare promotion for the RSPCA, which was given permission to give its views to the House of Lords hearing, said: "The ability to make animals suffer for sport is not a human right, and we are glad to see that the Law Lords have unanimously decided to dismiss these appeals. We see this as a total vindication of our long-held view that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable in modern Britain."

The Law Lords also dismissed arguments that the Hunting Act infringed European trade laws.

In the Scottish case, Lord Hope, giving the leading ruling said: "There was adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that fox hunting inflicted pain on the fox and that there was an adequate and proper basis on which it could make the judgment that the infliction of such pain in such circumstances constituted cruelty".

The Scottish case had been brought by Brian Friend, an associate member of the Union of Country Sports Workers. He raised concerns about the "the rights of minorities within the majority of the indigenous British population". He added: "I argued that I and my family should have the protection of the same human rights as are guaranteed, to gypsies, Saami Indians, Eskimos, aborigines, ethnic minorities, criminals, terrorists, asylum seekers and to indigenous peoples everywhere and that the Human Rights Act must apply to everyone, not just selected groups."

Read More Here

COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE TAKES ITS BATTLE FOR HUNTING TO THE EUROPEAN COURT

2007-11-28T14:34:00.000Z

Horse & Hound

The House of Lords has dismissed appeals by the Countryside Alliance (CA) and other supporters of hunting which claimed the acts banning hunting with hounds in England, Wales and Scotland breached human rights and free trade laws.

But the CA has announced it will now take its appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Five Law Lords heard the cases in October and yesterday returned their verdict — that the appeals should be dismissed.

Simon Hart, chief executive of the CA, said: "We have always maintained that the legitimacy of the Hunting Act would eventually be decided in Europe.

"The Hunting Act was based on prejudice, rather than principle or evidence, and has no justification in terms of public benefit or animal welfare.

"To have found in our favour would have meant the Law Lords finding that the Government has allowed fundamental human rights and European Law to be violated. We believe that the European Courts will support this view, even if the Law Lords were unable to."

The three test cases were brought by the CA and Union of Country Sports Workers member Brian Friend.

The CA cases strove to prove that the England and Wales Hunting Act infringes the European Convention on Human Rights and is contrary to EU law on free trade.

Mr Friend's appeal was of a personal nature, claiming that the Scottish Hunting Act had infringed his human rights.

The RSPCA was also invited to give submissions at the hearings.

John Rolls, of the RSPCA, said: "We are glad to see that the Law Lords have unanimously decided to dismiss these appeals.

"We see this as a total vindication of our long-held view that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable in modern Britain."

Read More Here

LAW LORDS RULE HUNTING BAN IS 'LAWFUL'

2007-11-28T14:26:00.000Z

RSPCA

The House of Lords has today dismissed appeals by the Countryside Alliance and other hunting supporters who argued the hunting ban breaches Human Rights and European law.

The Hunting Act 2004 must “be taken to reflect the conscience of a majority of the nation,” said Lord Bingham, the senior Law Lord, in the leading opinion - after a unanimous ruling by the five Law Lords who heard the case last month.

He went on to say “The democratic process is liable to be subverted if, on a question of moral and political judgment, opponents of the Act achieve through the courts what they could not achieve in Parliament.”

This case provided a rare opportunity for animal welfare legislation to be considered by the highest court in the land. The RSPCA was granted permission to intervene in the proceedings and presented written submissions to the court.

John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, said: “The ability to make animals suffer for sport is not a human right, and we are glad to see that the Law Lords have unanimously decided to dismiss these appeals. We see this as a total vindication of our long-held view that hunting with dogs is cruel and unacceptable in modern Britain”.

All five Law Lords Law Lords who heard the case (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) decided the appeals should be dismissed.

Lord Hope commented: “The history of legislation in the United Kingdom for the prevention of cruelty to animals leaves no room for doubt that in this country*the subject is deeply rooted in public policy. It has been for a long time regarded as one of the fundamental interests of society about which Parliament is expected, when the need arises, to legislate.”

Lord Bingham viewed the Hunting Act as a measure of social reform and that Parliament considered that the killing of foxes, deer, hares and mink “by way of recreation infringed a fundamental value expressed in numerous statutes and culminating in the 2004 (Hunting) Act”.

After the judgment, the RSPCA’s John Rolls said: “It is time for people who have spent millions of pounds challenging this law to accept it and move on. Cruelty-free hunting, which does not involve chasing a wild animal and where the pageantry, social recreation, jobs, horses and hounds can be retained, is the obvious way forward, and something the RSPCA has always suggested.”

The legal challenge brought by the Countryside Alliance and other hunting supporters had previously been dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Ten of the country’s leading judges have now dismissed these pro-hunt claims since the Hunting Act became law in 2004.

The Law Lords also today unanimously dismissed a related case involving a challenge to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

Lord Hope, giving the leading speech in that case, agreed “there was adequate factual information to entitle the Scottish Parliament to conclude that foxhunting inflicted pain on the fox and that there was an adequate and proper basis on which it could make the judgement that the infliction of such pain in such circumstances constituted cruelty”.

Read More Here

HUNTING FOR ANSWERS

2007-11-22T09:44:00.000Z

The Countryside Alliance Chief Executive examines the Hunting Act's farcical progress:

The Hunting Act was thrown into further confusion today at Portsmouth Magistrates Court on the first day of what was scheduled to be a seven-day trial of the Isle of Wight foxhounds.

Four barristers, two solicitors, four defendants and the District Judge struggled to find a solution to the vexed question of where the burden of evidence of proving “exempt hunting” lies. Eventually, after frantic phonecalls between the court and another District Judge in Bristol, who was scheduled to hear the case against the Devon and Somerset Staghounds next week, no answer was forthcoming and the Isle of Wight trial was adjourned.

It seems that the answer will come not from a Magistrates Court but from the High Court, as both parties in the Devon and Somerset case have agreed to appeal this point of law to a higher court. This will cause a significant delay in all “exempt hunting” cases. The Isle of Wight case has been put back, provisionally, to the beginning of May 2008, and we expect that the Devon and Somerset trial will also be delayed for at least that long.

Meanwhile, we still await the outcome of Exmoor Foxhounds Huntsman Tony Wright’s appeal against his conviction, which may come at the end of next week, and also the ruling of the House of Lords in the Human Rights and European Law case, also due in the near future.

Sometimes it is perfectly acceptable to say “I told you so” and we certainly told Parliament that the Hunting Act was going to cause nothing but chaos and confusion. Whilst it is easy to write this off as simply another chapter in the farce that is the Hunting Act, there are serious points which should not be overlooked: decent people are being dragged through the courts facing criminal charges with no idea where or when the process will be complete. Today alone, over two weeks of court times which were booked for criminal trial will stand empty as a result of this ridiculous law.

Another day, another unanswerable argument in the case for repeal.

Read More Here

HUNTS AND THE LAW - WHY THE BAN ISN'T WORKING

2007-11-18T11:34:00.000Z

The Independent

The ban on fox-hunting came into force in February 2005, when it was made a criminal offence for groups to hunt a wild mammal with dogs.

The first successful private prosecution under the new law took place this year when Tony Wright, of the Exmoor Foxhounds, was found guilty of hunting a wild mammal with a dog.

However, the Hunting Act 2004 does not stop hunts using two hounds to follow a scent to flush out a fox. Nor is it an offence to then shoot the fox.

These loopholes have been fully exploited by many members of Britain's hunting community, and it is estimated that around 25,000 days of hunting have been carried out by about 300 hunts since the ban.

Some hunts lay artificial trails for their hounds, using a rag soaked with a scent that is dragged ahead by "trail layers", while others have invested in golden eagles and eagle owls to exploit falconry clauses in the Act.

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos) can be brought against those involved in hunts. Introduced by the government in 1998, Asbos are made against people who have engaged in anti-social behaviour defined as "conduct which caused or was likely to cause alarm, harassment, or distress to one or more persons". An Asbo warning is the last step before a full Asbo. Breaching an Asbo is a criminal offence.

Read More Here

HOW DENISE WARD SERVED AN ASBO WARNING ON HER LOCAL

2007-11-18T11:31:00.000Z

Robert Verkaick

Independent

After her village was terrorised by a pack of rampaging hounds, and their equally aggressive owners, Denise Ward decided to fight back.

The first time it happened was around two years ago, in mid-November. It was a beautiful day and a small group of us had got together in the hamlet. I was chatting to my elderly neighbour when we all heard a terrible noise. It was a bloodcurdling, snarling uproar – as if some wild animals were smashing about in the undergrowth.

A deer came crashing down through all the gardens in the hamlet, pursued by baying hounds. It leapt along the lane past a resident it was too terrified to notice, and back up again into the woods just behind my neighbours' house, where it ran frantically up and down the slope, crashing noisily around with the hounds close behind.

As we stood there helplessly, they caught it. It screamed piteously and we could hear the hounds savaging it in loud and hideous detail. It was horrific. It was so sudden and so violent it was like a car crash. No one knew what to do; we all just stood there.

The next thing we knew, several hounds burst out of the woods into the village. They were frenetic and rampaging around. We've all got pets, and were immediately fearful for them; the hounds were out of control and we didn't know what else they were looking to kill. I'm used to animals – I've got a horse and we work with cows – but these dogs were hunting; they were like something else.

We found out later that the hunt master had lost control of the pack and the hounds had run on to the nature reserve next to our village – an open hill popular with dog-walkers and families where hunting is not allowed.

One of my neighbours managed to catch two of the dogs and tie them up. Shortly afterwards, the hunt people came out in a Land Rover, looking for their dogs. The hunt master was incredibly rude and dismissive; the only reason they even bothered to speak to us was because we had two of their dogs. I tried to explain how dreadful and frightening it had been to hear an animal being killed like that. They had no comprehension of what I was talking about. We told them it was private land, but one of them said, "Tell me who your leader is", as if we were a tribe. The hunt master kept coming closer to me until their face was within an inch of mine, "If you appoint a leader, we'll tell them when we are coming and that way you can put all your animals away." Meanwhile, another hunter was brandishing a horn. I knew at that point we had to be very careful. They didn't even bother discussing the hunting ban; they claim they are trail-hunting, and that's how they get around it. We called the police but they never came. Hunt calls are apparently a low priority.

We wanted to make sure they never came back, so on the advice of a solicitor, 10 householders in the hamlet sent a formal letter to the hunt explicitly forbidding entry on to the land. They didn't respond. It turns out we were wasting our time. A couple of months later, on a peaceful February morning, the whole hound pack exploded into the village. They were in full cry. The noise was terrifying, something you cannot imagine unless you have been close to a pack of baying hounds. We leapt to the window. Twenty to 30 hounds were in the village, streaming up our neighbours' driveway. They milled around the house, spreading over the garden before exploding into action again. It was clear from the noise that they were chasing something and when they got up the slope behind the houses, uproar broke out. This time the cries sounded like a smaller animal, but as a stag then roared in distress, we feared it could again be a deer. Sick with the apprehension that I would find either the remains of a village pet or a mangled deer, I climbed up to look but the hounds had gone and there were only splashes of blood.

Quite a few people I know stay in during the hunt season. There's a man on the Isle of Wight who stays in every Wednesday and Saturday when the hunt is on. His wife and grandson were outside in the back garden and the hound pack – again out of control – came over his hedge. The woman managed to grab the baby just in time. Last season a fox, followed by hounds, came rampaging through a children's Halloween party in a public garden near Taunton. And one woman had her pet terrier skinned alive in front of her face by hounds. Her story was in the news until they offered her compensation, along with a gagging clause. That's a common strategy. There is a strong sense of the old rural hierarchies and power structures going on and people are afraid to speak out. The police don't do anything; they claim the laws are unenforceable. The hunt only has to say it was an accident and that's it.

After the second invasion we decided we needed to do something. Getting a civil-law injunction against hunt trespass, the only legal tool available, is not only expensive (it costs around £10,000), but also difficult to obtain. It was my neighbour who suggested an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Asbo). It sounds a bit unusual but Asbos are related to repeated, anti-social behaviour. We read the legislation and realised it fitted our case in every way. By massive, concerted effort, the residents of my hamlet managed to get an Asbo warning served on the hunt. This was achieved because we are an articulate group of people demanding protection with the support of our MP. Initially the Asbo officer, a retired policeman, was horrified at the thought of giving an Asbo to the master of the hunt, but he found that we had a "compelling" case and went out on a limb for us. The warning was issued to three hunt masters, so this caused a bit of a ripple locally.

If we have another incident, it will be grounds for instigating a full Asbo, which would go on their record. But their attitude and the fact that they can't control their dogs means we still don't feel totally safe. No one in a hunting area is.

This is especially sad for me, because I love the autumn, and here, with the beech woods, it is especially beautiful. But for me, it is now tainted. The hunts are out several times a week. Even if they don't come here I know they are somewhere – and I know what they are doing. I know the suffering that is being caused and I know that the law in this country is not working.

Read More Here

PRESCOTT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO HARE COURSING CHARGE

2007-11-09T17:53:00.000Z

Racing Post

SIR MARK PRESCOTT has entered not guilty pleas to charges which allege his involvement and attendance at two hare-coursing events earlier this year.

The pleas were entered on his behalf by solicitor Stephen Welford at the start of a private prosecution of the trainer by the International Fund for Animal Welfare at Scarborough Magistrates' Court.

Prescott, who did not attend the hearing on Friday, and celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright each face four charges - two of hunting hares with dogs and attending a hare coursing event at Nunnington on March 2 and two similar alleged offences at Amotherby, near Malton, the following day.

The proceedings were adjourned until November 19 to coincide with the case management hearing into a CrownProsecution Service prosecution of five other defendants including former champion jumps trainer Peter Easterby who is accused of permitting land to be used for hare coursing and attending hare coursing.

John Weatherall, representing theIFAW, said the charity had begun a private prosecution because “the police investigation was delayed” but would continue its case if the CPS decided not to take any action against Prescott and Dickson Wright, according to a report in the Yorkshire Post.

“A number of potential offenders were not spoken to and the Fund was satisfied they had enough evidence against these two particular defendants to obtain a conviction,” he said.

“Since then they have been in contact with the CPS. It may be the CPS will decide to take these two defendants on so all the defendants are treated by the same body.”

Read More Here (Requires Registration)

APPEAL STARTS FOR FIRST HUNTSMAN CONVICTED UNDER HUNTING ACT

2007-11-07T16:54:00.000Z

Horse & Hound

The first huntsman to be prosecuted under the Hunting Act 2004 appeared in court yesterday to appeal his conviction.

Tony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, appeared in Exeter Crown Court for the first day of his appeal. Like the Quantock Staghounds case last month, Tony Wright's appeal hinges on the exemption of flushing a fox using two hounds.

He was convicted by Barnstable Magistrates Court in August 2006 of hunting a wild mammal with dogs, in a prosecution brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS).
The Barnstable judge's ruling was based on video evidence filmed by LACS on 29 April 2005.

Tony Wright's Exeter Crown Court hearing is likely to last until Thursday, with a reserved judgement expected.

Read More Here

TWO THIRDS OF PUBLIC BELIEVE HUNTING ACT IS NOT A POLICE PRIORITY

2007-11-01T17:04:00.000Z

Horse & Hound

Two in three people in Britain believe police should not make policing the Hunting Act any more of a priority than it is now.

The poll, carried out by ORB for the Countryside Alliance (CA), reveals 65% of people believe that police should spend less or the same time policing the Hunting Act.

Only 26% of people surveyed believe police should spend more time with hunts.

CA chief executive Simon Hart said: "This poll proves what we have believed since the Hunting Act came into force: the general public simply do not view the Act as a police priority."

He added: "Hunts are working with the police and telling them when and where they will meet. This is hardly sensible preparation for law-breaking."

Last weekend, as the hunting season began in earnest across Britain, 1011 respondents were asked:

Since the Hunting Act came into force, anti-hunt groups feel that the law is not being properly enforced by police. Do you think the Police should spend more, less or the same amount of time as they currently do policing the Act?

29% said less time
36% said the same time
26% said more time

Read More Here

WIDDECOMBE'S BID TO TIGHTEN HUNTING BAN

2007-10-29T16:58:00.000Z

Daily Telegraph

Attempts are being made to tighten up the ban on hunting with hounds this week, as the season gets under way.

Police and politicians are to meet at Westminster amid claims that hunts are routinely breaking the law and killing foxes illegally.

The meeting has been called by Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP for Maidstone and the Weald, who is a prominent opponent of the sport.

She is calling for police to enforce the legislation more powerfully and is to show video footage that she claims includes "dozens" of instances of "blatant" flouting of the Act, as well as an alleged assault on a hunt monitor.

The Hunting Act, one of the most bitterly contested pieces of legislation in history, was passed in 2004, banning hunting with dogs. But the sport has remained popular with followers using various exemptions to carry on.

As the season starts officially this week, there are still more than 313 registered hunts in the country, with 68,000 followers. They now take part in drag hunts, where riders and hounds pursue a scented rag, and trail hunts, which involves following a scent trail.

If the dogs stumble upon a fox and kill it, that is permissible under law, while foxes can still be driven out of hiding by dogs and shot as long as no more than two hounds are involved. Dogs can also be used to flush out a fox so it can be hunted by a bird of prey.

Hunts are closely monitored by opponents and 20 people have so far been convicted under the Act. A further 17 are being prosecuted, including the television cook Clarissa Dickson-Wright, who is facing hare-coursing charges.

However, many investigations have failed. Opponents claim this is because the Act has not been properly enforced by police and prosecutors.

Miss Widdecombe said: "The Act is not being enforced. I want to talk to the police and explore possibilities about how this can happen."

She is calling from the introduction of licenses for hunt monitors and for it to be a criminal offence to obstruct them.

The meeting will be attended by representatives from 13 police forces.

Barry Hugill, a spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said: "We think there has been some uncertainty from police about how to enforce the legislation."

But Tim Bonner, from the Countryside Alliance, said: "The police and hunts have dealt extremely well with the Hunting Act since it came into force given the confusing and unworkable nature of the law. Only someone completely out of touch with public opinion could suggest that the police should be spending more time pursuing hunts and less chasing muggers or burglars."

The organisation is still awaiting the results of a challenge to the Act in the House of Lords, claiming it violates the human rights legislation.

Read More Here

HUNTSMEN'S APPEAL DISMISSED

2007-10-27T17:09:00.000+01:00

Somerset County Gazette

TWO men found guilty of hunting with dogs have had an appeal against the judgement dismissed.

Huntsman Richard Down, 44, from West Bagborough, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36 from Willand in Devon were found guilty of breaching hunting laws while out with the Quantock Staghounds and fined by magistrates back in June.

They always said they were acting within the remits of "Exempt Hunting" and appealed against the verdict earlier this month, backed by the Countryside Alliance.

But on Friday, a High Court Judge sitting at Taunton Crown Court handed out a judgement dismissing their appeal.

In the first appeal of its kind The Honourable Mr Justice Wyn Williams ruled that although both men did not set out to break the law, their activities did not constitute "Exempt Hunting", where the practice of finding, flushing and shooting at the first available opportunity must be adhered to.

The case was brought after two representatives from the League Against Cruel Sports filmed members of the Quantock Staghounds during a hunt in February.

Prosecution barrister Richard Furlong claimed the men were hunting for sport, chasing the deer and not shooting at the first available opportunity.

Defence barrister Neil Ford QC had said that given the complexity of the provision with regard to hunting deer, it was reasonable for the appellants to believe they were taking part in Exempt Hunting.

In conclusion the judgment states: "We consider that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden upon them to prove that they were actually engaged in exempt hunting."

Outside court the League Against Cruel Sports prosecutions manager Mike Hobday said: "We are delighted with the verdict. This is not just about two individuals - it affects hunts across the country."

Solicitor Tim Hayden, speaking on behalf of Mr Pillivant and Mr Down said: "There are a number of things in this judgement that do encourage the hunt.

"The Quantock Staghounds will be ensuring that it continues lawful hunting."

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart added: "We remain convinced that Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant believed what they were doing on that day in February 2006 was legal hunting. Surely it cannot be reasonable to have expected these men to have interpreted a law, which even its supporters describe as ambiguous, in exactly the same way as a High Court Judge."
Read More Here

HUNTS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE DESPITE QUANTOCK APPEAL FAILURE

2007-10-26T17:13:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

The West Country staghound packs have resolved to find a way to continue hunting within the law following last week's dismissal of an appeal by the Quantock Staghounds.

Huntsman Richard Down and amateur whipper-in Adrian Pillivant appealed against their June conviction of hunting a wild mammal with dogs. The case centred on the exemption, under the Hunting Act, of flushing a wild mammal using two dogs.

It was a private prosecution, brought by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), using video evidence filmed in Somerset on 16 February 2006.

Giving his judgement on Friday at Taunton Crown Court, Mr Justice Wyn Williams acknowledged the difficulties of working within the Act and gave some clarification on the flushing exemption.

Crucially, he also accepted that both Mr Down and Mr Pillivant believed they were hunting lawfully, saying: "We accept that both men did not set out to break the law. . . that they considered they were entitled to enjoy their sport provided they complied with the statutory conditions as they believed them to be."

This contradicts District Judge David Parsons, who convicted the pair in June, saying they were "disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing they were exempt hunting".

On Monday, Richard Down said: "We shall carry on. The judgement will make things harder, but at least we have it in black and white now."

He said the hunt will meet this week to discuss how to proceed.

"At least we cleared our names," said Mr Down. "This judge believed we were doing what we thought was lawful."

On Monday, chairman of the Masters of Deerhounds Association Tom Yandle told H&H: "Of course we're not pleased with the judgement. There are good parts and bad parts, but the initial reaction is 'on we go'.

"We have to talk to lawyers about how we can proceed, it's such a badly written Act. We are pursuing other exemptions."

Mr Yandle's views were echoed by chairman of the Council of Hunting Associations Stephen Lambert, who said: "People are stoic and positive about the judgement, and are continuing to think 'outside the box' about how they can hunt meaningfully within the law."

Read More Here

QUANTOCK STAGHOUNDS DUO STILL GUILTY OF HUNTING OFFENCE

2007-10-19T17:17:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

The first appeal to be heard under the Hunting Act has this afternoon proved unsuccessful.

Quantock Staghounds huntsman Richard Down and amateur whipper-in Adrian Pillivant were again found guilty of breaching the Hunting Act 2004 .

Down and Pillivant appealed against their June conviction of hunting a wild mammal with dogs. But the Countryside Alliance say today's judgement at Taunton Crown Court allows hunts to keep hunting.

The case centred around the exemption, under the Hunting Act, of flushing a wild mammal using two dogs. It was a private prosecution, brought by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), using video evidence filmed in Somerset in February 2006.

But Countryside Alliance head Simon Hart said the judgement finally gives hunts a clear idea of what is "exempt hunting" following months of confusion.

"We remain convinced that Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant believed what they were doing on that day in February 2006 was legal hunting," he said. "It cannot be reasonable to have expected these men to have interpreted a law, which even its supporters describe as ambiguous, in exactly the same way as a High Court Judge.

"But we also asked that the judge gave a framework for future exempt hunting and he did. The court has confirmed that, with adaptation, the Quantock Staghounds, and others who use this exemption, can continue to hunt."

Read More Here

HUNTING DUO APPEAL IS TURNED DOWN

2007-10-19T15:57:00.000+01:00

BBC News

Two men convicted of breaking the law prohibiting hunting have had their appeal against conviction rejected.

Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant, both members of the Quantock Staghounds, were convicted after being filmed by the League Against Cruel Sports.

The league filmed the pair chasing a deer for more than an hour, and the hunters were convicted.

A judge at Taunton Crown Court rejected their appeal, saying the pair were hunting for sport.
Down, 44, and Pillivant, 36, were convicted by magistrates in June after the anti-hunt campaigners filmed two hounds as they chased deer across Exmoor a year after the Hunting Act made hunting with hounds illegal.

The League Against Cruel Sports told the original court hearing that the deer were chased for more than an hour with no attempt made to shoot them humanely or call off the hounds.

Read More Here

RESERVED JUDGEMENT ON HUNTING APPEAL

2007-10-14T17:11:00.000+01:00

Somerset County Gazette

TWO huntsmen appealing against a guilty verdict for breaching new hunting laws will have to wait for a reserved judgement later in the month.

Huntsman Richard Down, 44, of West Bagborough, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36, of Wil-land, Devon, were found guilty at Bristol Magistrates Court in June of hunting deer with dogs.

Anti-hunt campaigners filmed the Quantock Staghounds at one of their meets on February 16, and as a result Down and Pilli-vant were each fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs for chasing deer with dogs.

Both men have always denied flouting the hunting laws, believing what they did to be lawful as they were acting within the laws of Exempt Hunting.

Prosecution barrister Richard Furlong claimed that they failed to adhere to the five criteria of Exempt Hunting, and rather than following the "find, flush and shoot" rule they were hunting for sport, chasing the deer and not shooting at the first available op-portunity.

Giving evidence last Thursday at the appeal hearing at Taunton Crown Court, the land owner, Anthony Trollope-Bellew, said he gave the Quantock Staghounds permission to be on his land.

He said: "The deer were building up and doing damage, eating the grass, so I asked the stag-hounds to come down and take out as many deer as they could."

Witness Nicholas Gibbons, chairman of the Quantock Stag-hounds, said they adhered to the Exempt Hunting rules always, adding: "The deer were shot at what we considered was the first place to do so at the first available opportunity."

Defence barrister Neil Ford QC told the court: "Given the complexity of the provision with re-gard to hunting deer it was reasonable for the appellants to be-lieve they were taking part in Ex-empt Hunting."

Mr Justice Wyn Williams, presiding, said: "It is the wish that the court reserves its judgment and provides a written report."

He hoped to deliver the report to the court on October 19.

Read More Here

QUANTOCK STAGHOUNDS APPEAL ADJOURNED

2007-10-12T17:16:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

The Quantock Staghounds appeal, heard over three days last week in Taunton Crown Court, has been adjourned until Friday, 19 October.

Huntsman Richard Down and amateur whipper Adrian Pillivant were convicted of hunting in June this year. Their case hinged on the exemption of flushing a wild mammal using two dogs. The appeal was heard afresh and a judgement is expected on 19 October.

"The judgement is as important as the verdict, because hunts want to continue to manage the deer population in the south-west," said the Countryside Alliance's Tim Bonner. "The Quantock's barrister has asked the judge 12 questions to be addressed in the judgement.

"We hope these will be answered, so we can properly understand what the courts make of the exemption."

Read More Here

PRESCOTT CHARGED OVER COURSING

2007-09-26T17:59:00.000+01:00

The Independent

Newmarket-based trainer Sir Mark Prescott and celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright are to face charges relating to alleged hare coursing. The pair are due to answer a summons at Scarborough Magistrates Court on 9 November after a private prosecution by the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

They face allegations of hunting hares with dogs at two events near Malton, North Yorkshire, in March and charges of attending the events, at the villages of Nunnington and Amotherby.

In a separate case, being brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, the retired trainer Peter Easterby is charged with allowing his land to be used for hare coursing and attending hare coursing, an activity made illegal at the same time as foxhunting with hounds.

Read More Here

PRESCOTT FACES HARE COURSING PROSECUTION

2007-09-26T17:56:00.000+01:00

The Guardian

Sir Mark Prescott, the Newmarket trainer, is to face charges at Scarborough magistrates court in November relating to alleged hare coursing, which was banned in Britain at the same time as hunting foxes with hounds in February 2005.

Prescott, and celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright, who featured on the BBC food show Two Fat Ladies, face a private prosecution by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Both face allegations of hunting hares with dogs and attending two events near Malton, North Yorkshire, in March, one at the village of Nunnington and the other at nearby Amotherby.

Prescott, who has continued his interest in coursing in Ireland, where the practice remains legal, will not attract the attention of the British Horseracing Authority should he be found guilty following the IFAW prosecution. "This is not in connection with racing and wouldn't impact on Sir Mark's status as a licensed trainer," said the HRA's Paul Struthers.

Read More Here

CHEF ON HARE-HUNT CHARGES

2007-09-26T17:42:00.000+01:00

Daily Express

CELEBRITY chef Clarissa Dickson Wright faces a private prosecution by animal rights activists after allegedly being spotted hunting hares with dogs.

It is alleged that the former Two Fat Ladies star, who is an avid hunt supporter, and the sporting baronet Sir Mark Prescott attended an event on land owned by former champion horse trainer Peter Easterby in North Yorkshire in March.

The details emerged in a hearing at Scarborough magistrates’ court involving five co-defendants – including Mr Easterby, 78. The pair will face four charges, including two of hunting hares with dogs, before a private prosecution being brought by the International Fund for Animal Welfare next month.

Ms Dickson Wright, 60, of Inveresk, East Lothian, whose show ended when fellow TV chef Jennifer Paterson died in 1999, was not available for comment.

Read More Here

FAT LADY CLARISSA DICKSON WRIGHT TO BE PROSECUTED OVER HUNTING WITH DOGS

2007-09-25T17:33:00.000+01:00

Daily Mail

Controversial: Clarissa Dickson Wright is being prosecuted for allegedly hunting with dogs
Clarissa Dickson Wright is facing prosecution for allegedly taking part in an illegal hunt.

The 60-year-old author and chef, former co-star of Two Fat Ladies, is an outspoken supporter of country sports.

She has been accused of attending two events earlier this year at which she took part in hare coursing. The bloodsport, which was banned two years ago, involves the hunting of hares with dogs.

Leading racehorse trainer Sir Mark Prescott, 59, is also alleged to have been at the hunts.

The pair face four charges each of attending events at Nunnington and Amotherby, both in North Yorkshire, on March 2 and 3 and taking part in the illegal sport under a private prosecution brought by the International Fund for Animal Welfare pressure group. If found guilty, they face fines of up to £5,000.

Miss Dickson Wright, a qualified barrister, found fame in 1996 when she joined Jennifer Patterson for the Two Fat Ladies cookery series.

The programmes ended with the death of Miss Patterson eight years ago, but Miss Dickson Wright has remained in the public eye as a figurehead for the Countryside Alliance and on TV in Clarissa and the Countryman.

In 1998, she condemned anti-coursing protesters as the 'fluffy bunny brigade' when she attended the sport's blueriband Waterloo Cup event in Altcar, Lancashire.

She strenuously denied IFAW's allegations yesterday as she toured the UK to promote her autobiography Spilling the Beans - in which she criticises the organisation.

scroll down for more

On the run from the law: Hare coursing was outlawed under the 2004 Act

"I have not been to an illegal coursing event in Yorkshire and I will plead not guilty," she said.

Sir Mark, who has trained more than 1,200 winners since 1970, is based at Heath House in Newmarket, Suffolk.

Hare coursing and other forms of hunting with hounds were banned under the 2004 Hunting Act. Details of the allegations emerged on Monday at Scarborough Magistrates' Court, where five defendants, including former champion racehorse trainer Peter Easterby, 78, faced charges relating to hare coursing in March this year.

The case was adjourned until November 19. It was not clear whether the allegations - which are being brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service - were connected with those against Miss Dickson Wright and Sir Mark, who are due to enter a plea on November 9.

A CPS source said: "Generally speaking, private prosecutions are brought after the CPS has made a decision not to prosecute the case."

Read More Here

TV CHEG FACING HARE HUNT CHARGES

2007-09-25T17:20:00.000+01:00

BBC News

Racehorse trainer Sir Mark Prescott and celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright are to face charges relating to alleged hare coursing.

Officials at Scarborough Magistrates' Court confirmed the pair were facing a private prosecution by the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Mr Prescott and Ms Dickson Wright are due to appear at the court in November.

They both face allegations of hunting hares with dogs at two events near Malton, North Yorkshire, in March.

One was at the village of Nunnington and the other at nearby Amotherby.

They also face charges of attending these events.

Mr Prescott, 59, is a prolific trainer of winners from his Newmarket yard, while Ms Dickson Wright, 60, is a former barrister who shot to fame on the BBC food show Two Fat Ladies.

Hare coursing was outlawed at the same time as fox hunting with hounds.

Read More Here

THREE ACCUSED OF BREAKING HUNTING ACT

2007-09-22T23:12:00.000+01:00

The Cornishman

A date has been set for the trial of three men accused of hunting illegally in the Westcountry.

The members of the Minehead Harriers will appear before magistrates in Taunton on October 8.

They face allegations under the Hunting Act, in a prosecution brought by the League Against Cruel Sports.

It is understood the organisation has footage which it claims shows the trio hunting illegally.

Papers have been served on Minehead Harriers huntmaster Sydney Westcott, as well as William Goffe and Gary Bradley.

All three stand accused under the Hunting Act, but Gary Bradley, the hunt's whipper-in, is also alleged to have committed a public order offence.

The allegations relate to an incident in January this year.

The huntsmen have the support of their hunt and of the Countryside Alliance.

The case will be the third brought by the league in the region. So far, all of them have been in Somerset. The organisation has succeeded in its two other prosecutions.

In June, huntsman Richard Down and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, of the Quantock Staghounds, were convicted at Bristol Magistrates' Court.

They were each fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

In August last year, Tony Wright, of the Exmoor Foxhounds, became the first person to be found guilty of hunting illegally.

He was fined £500, but he has lodged an appeal, which is scheduled to be heard at Exeter Crown Court on November 5.

Read More Here

HARRIERS PACK ACCUSED OF ILLEGAL HUNTING

2007-09-03T12:49:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

TheMinehead Harriers are the latest pack to be targeted by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) for alleged illegal hunting.

The LACS claims to have footage showing the hunt breaking the terms of the Hunting Act while trail hunting in January.

Minehead Harriers master Sydney Westcott, huntsman William Goffe and amateur whipper-in Gary Bradley were summonsed to appear at court today (Thurs) but the case was been adjourned.

Mr Bradley is also charged with a public order offence.

It is the first case to involve a pack of hounds carrying out trail hunting – rather than huntsmen taking part in exempt hunting.

Joint master Caroline Clifford said: "We have not seen the footage. The League is out with us almost every day and they have taken a lot of footage of us but I don't know what of. We just have to wait for the new date to be set. The Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) and the Countryside Alliance (CA) have been tremendously supportive of us."

Read More Here

COURT CASE 'WILL MAKE HUNT STRONGER'

2007-08-02T09:11:00.000+01:00

By Phoebe Smith
Denbighshire Free Press

THE Denbigh and Flint Hunt will be stronger than ever, according to Master of the Hunt Jeremy Reed, despite the controversial sentencing of its "terrier man".

William Francis Armstrong, 69, of Cefn Home Farm, near St Asaph, was fined £200 plus £60 court costs for hunting a wild animal with dogs, at Prestatyn Magistrates' Court on Monday. But Mr Reed said he was confident that membership will not fall in the slightest and he sees no reason why the hunt will be affected.

"We're only talking about a minor infringement of a technicality," he said. "It is really no different to someone driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone.

"The law is so ambiguous – it can be read in a number of ways. In this instance we did slip from the hunting law and we're sorry we did it but we will carry on hunting within the law as we have for the past two years.

"We've had amazing support from the community and farmers, and all members of the hunt are standing behind us, so we'll only get stronger," he said.

Mr Armstrong pleaded guilty in what is thought to be the first prosecution in Wales under the Hunting Act 2004.

Gareth Preston, prosecuting, told District Judge Andrew Shaw that Mr Armstrong was seen sending a terrier down a hole on the Clwydian hills, on January 2, by off-duty policeman Stephen Whitfield who was walking in Moel Llys-y-Coed.

Mr Armstrong had started digging and eventually shot the fox with a .22 pistol. Mr Preston said that under the law Mr Armstrong should have made sure that there was another exit from the hole before he sent the terrier down as they should only be used to locate and flush the fox out.

He said Mr Armstrong should also have used a shotgun to kill the fox as it is more humane than a pistol.

Defending solicitor, Gwyn Jones, said that Mr Armstrong did accept on this occasion that his actions were not in accordance with Section 1 of the Hunting Act.

"Whatever political or moral views people have on hunting, the one aspect universally supported is that a fox should not suffer any more than is necessary," said Mr Jones.

But he said it is often hard to see if there are more exits from a hole.

Mr Jones said that since the incident Mr Armstrong had given up his position with the hunt, given away the dog and handed his pistol and gun licence to the police.

Mike Hobday, head of prosecution with the League Against Cruel Sports, said: "This case shows that fox hunting is a public activity and if people go out and break the law they may well be seen and taken to court.

"Hunting with terriers below ground is a particularly cruel form of hunting. I am very pleased that the cruelty of fox hunting has been dealt with and punished in this case," he added.

Read More Here

HSBC INSURES FOXHUNTERS AGAINST COST OF COURT ACTION

2007-08-01T09:27:00.000+01:00

Holly Watt, The Times

BRITAIN’s biggest bank is insuring dozens of hunts against the costs of a court case if they are prosecuted for illegally hunting foxes.

The unusual arrangement means HSBC will pay legal fees associated with hunt employees taken to court for breaking the law, even if they are found guilty.

According to figures collected by the League Against Cruel Sports, the bank is insuring as many as 125 hunts, an arrangement the league claims gives those taking part confidence that they can break the law without suffering excessive financial hardship.

Under the hunting ban introduced in February 2005, prosecutions can be brought either against hunts as organisations or against individuals such as hunt masters and employees, riders who take part in illegal hunts or landowners who allow them.

John Cooper, a barrister and chairman of the league since 1995, said he was “shocked” at HSBC’s actions: he would be writing to the bank’s chief executive to query the arrangement.

Five cases have so far been brought against individuals by the Crown Prosecution Service and in private cases by campaign groups since the ban, but campaigners claim the law has been regularly flouted far more frequently.

The insurance was organised through the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), which represents 174 packs of foxhounds in England and Wales and a further 10 in Scotland.

Cooper said: “Millions of people bank with HSBC. I am sure they do not know that the bank is using their money to help bail out criminals. What next — insurance for burglars and shoplifters?”

Alastair Jackson, director of the MFHA, said: “Hunts can get legal fees insurance from any number of firms. It’s a perfectly normal sort of insurance.” HSBC declined to comment.

Read More Here

HSBC INSURING HUNTS AGAINST PROSECUTION

2007-08-01T09:23:00.000+01:00

JOHN KIRK, Western Morning News

A row has erupted after it was revealed hunts are being insured by Britain's biggest bank to cover them if they are prosecuted for illegally pursuing foxes.The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) claims HSBC bank will pay legal fees associated with hunt employees taken to court for breaking the law - even if they are found guilty.

The Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), which represents 174 packs of foxhounds in England and Wales and a further ten in Scotland, says it has always had insurance in place.

It said it would be "irresponsible" not to be insured, adding that the insurance was in place well before the controversial hunting ban came into force.

The row broke out after LACS released figures claiming HSBC is insuring as many as 125 hunts.

The league claims the cover means hunts can have confidence that they can break the law without suffering massive financial hardships. The hunting ban, introduced in February 2005, means that prosecutions can be brought against hunts as organisations or individuals.

Campaigners claim the law is being regularly flouted but, so far, just five cases have been brought against individuals by the Crown Prosecution Service and in private cases by campaign groups.

Carolyn Johnson, secretary of Dartmoor Hunt, said having insurance in place was nothing new.

"We have had insurance for many years," she said. "Nothing has changed.

"It seems to me that they are clutching at straws. I don't know why they have said this now because it's been established for many years."

Michael Bickell, chairman of Lamerton Hunt which hunts in Cornwall and Devon, said the league was "dredging from the bottom of the barrel. We're not insured by HSBC but we have not altered our insurance cover since before the ban was announced," he said.

Alastair Jackson, director of the MFHA, said insurance cover had been in place long before the ban was introduced, adding that the cover in place was "perfectly normal".

"The hunts are strongly advised, and always have been, to have legal fees and insurance and of course they must have public liability," he said.

"From the hunting office we run three insurance block schemes which include public liability, legal fees and personal accidents.

"Our insurance brokers for many years have been HSBC. But nothing has changed with the hunting ban. As far as I'm aware providing the intent is not to break the law. We are covered for a prosecution under the Hunting Act if there's a reasonable chance of success."

John Cooper, a barrister and chairman of LACS since 1995, said there was no dispute about hunts having been insured before the ban.

He said: "Since the ban members of hunts have been prosecuted and they have been convicted. We always knew they had insurance but it never crossed people's minds that the insurance would cover them to break the law."

He said he had written to the chief executive of HSBC to query the situation, stating he was "shocked" if the bank was paying legal fees for such cases.

HSBC declined to comment

Read More Here

TERRIERMAN FINED £200 FOR HUNTING IN WALES

2007-07-31T09:40:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

A terrierman with the Flint and Denbigh hunt in Wales has been fined £200 after pleading guilty to hunting a wild animal with a dog.

William Francis Armstrong, 69, was also ordered to pay £60 costs by Prestatyn Magistrates Court yesterday (Monday 30 July).

"Mr Armstrong hadn't fulfilled all the technical exemptions for terrier work," said Countryside Alliance spokesman Tim Bonner. "We would again urge everyone carrying out exempt hunting to make absolutely sure they know what they are doing."

Charges brought against landowner Peter Rowley Williams, 48, connected with the same incident on 2 January 2007 (news, 19 July), were dropped.

This was the first case under the Hunting Act (2004) in Wales, and fifth prosecution to be brought against a hunt in England and Wales.

Read More Here

STORM OVER FIRST HUNT FINE

2007-07-31T09:36:00.000+01:00

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

MAN FINED IN HUNTING ACT 'FIRST'

2007-07-30T09:38:00.000+01:00

BBC NEWS

A 69-year-old has been fined £200 after what is believed to be the first case in Wales under the Hunting Act 2004.
William Francis Armstrong from near St Asaph, Denbighshire, admitted hunting a wild animal with a dog after he was seen putting a terrier into a hole.

The terrier man, who was not at the hearing at Prestatyn Magistrates' Court, was ordered to pay £60 costs.

Another case against a man for permitting land to be used for hunting was dropped by the prosecution.

The charge was brought against Armstrong after he was spotted by an off-duty police officer on the Clwydian Hills above Llangwyfan, Denbighshire on 2 January.

Gareth Preston, prosecuting, said the sergeant had been out walking and noticed sheep running ahead of the Flint and Denbigh Hunt.

From a distance, he watched the hunt close in on a fox hole and saw Armstrong, the terrier man, bring a terrier dog to the hole and send it down the hole.

Armstrong was then seen using a spade to dig down after the dog towards the fox, the court heard.

When later questioned by police, Armstrong had said he was a terrier man for the Flint and Denbigh hunt and admitted he had sent a dog in.

He had also described how when the fox did come out of the hole, he shot it with a pistol.

The 2004 act allows a fox to be humanely destroyed under specific circumstances but Armstrong had not carried out certain checks it requires.

He had not ensured there was another hole from which the fox could be flushed out. This is to avoid the dog cornering the fox underground.

Armstrong also failed to give the fox a chance to escape before he shot it and should have used a shotgun instead of the .22 pistol.

Gwyn Jones, defending, said Armstrong had been involved with terriers since he was 12 and had not intended to cause the fox any distress.

He added: "Whatever political or moral views people have on fox hunting, the one aspect universally supported is that the fox need not suffer more trauma than necessary."

District Judge Andrew Shaw, however, reminded the court that fox hunting with dogs is illegal.

The court also heard that the clerk could only find details of two other prosecutions in Britain brought under the ban in Scotland and Chester.

Both had been more serious cases, as a terrier had been used to kill the fox.

A case against landowner Peter Rowley Williams, 48, of Llangwyfan, for permitting land to be used for hunting on the same day, was dropped by the prosecution.

Read More Here

FIFTH HUNT PROSECUTION REACHES COURT

2007-07-19T09:31:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

A landowner and terrier man from the Flint and Denbigh hunt in Wales are to be prosecuted under the Hunting Act.

Tenant farmer Peter Rowley Williams, 48, of Llangwyfan near Denbigh, was due to appear before Prestatyn Magistrates on Monday, 16 July, charged with permitting his land to be used for illegal hunting on 2 January 2007.

Terrierman William Francis Armstrong, 69, of Cefn, was also due to appear in court on Monday, charged with hunting a wild animal with dogs on the same date. But the case was adjourned to a later date.

While the Flint and Denbigh declined to talk to H&H, Countryside Alliance (CA) spokesman Tim Bonner said Mr Armstrong has been charged over an alleged technical breach of the terrierwork exemption of the Hunting Act. It is legal to use a terrier below ground to flush out a mammal, provided the handler has written permission from the landowner and fulfills other exemptions.

He added: "It's not clear what evidence the police have to suggest Mr Williams 'knowingly permitted' illegal hunting on his land. We believe he had given the Flint and Denbigh permission for legal hunting."

Mr Bonner stressed there have been only a handful of prosecutions since the Hunting Act (2004) came in to place in February 2005. While the case was "regrettable", he said it was only the fifth in about 47,500 days' hunting.

This is the second case brought by the crown, the first being against the Devon and Somerset Staghounds. LACS has successfully brought private prosecutions against the Exmoor Foxhounds and Quantock Staghounds — both are being appealed — with a case against the Isle of Wight pending.

Read More Here

BLAIR WANTED TO BACK DOWN ON HUNTING PLEDGE

2007-07-12T09:26:00.000+01:00

Matt Chorley
Western Morning News

Tony Blair tried to find a "way out" of his pledge to ban foxhunting because he "didn't instinctively feel" it was right, according to the diaries of his media chief Alastair Campbell.The memoirs of nine years as one of the Prime Minister's closest advisers reveal Mr Blair spent two years trying to avoid fulfilling his promise without invoking the anger of his own MPs.

The PM "did not feel comfortable" about the proceeding with the ban and at one stage even hoped the House of Lords would scupper the plan altogether, according to The Blair Years.

A picture emerges of division at the top of the Labour Party over the issue - with key ally and Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson launching a "big defence" of foxhunting while the chief whip Hilary Armstrong warned if the ban did not proceed, Labour rebels would throw out measures to introduce foundation hospitals.

Last night, Westcountry huntsmen and women said the revelations showed Mr Blair was forced into the move by left-wing urban Labour MPs with a grudge against rural areas.

Diana Scott, joint master of Devon and Somerset Staghounds, said it suggested he was manipulated by a minority pressure group. "He didn't stand up for his own mind and it has been proven to be the most appalling law because nobody understands the workings of it. He must live to regret it."

John Lucas, spokesman for Tiverton Staghounds, said: "He didn't even turn up to vote on the Bill on one or two occasions."

He said he thought Mr Blair needed to appease his left-wing MPs."I think he said things that he regretted. It was pushed by a group of left-wing MPs who did it on bigotry and prejudice not animal welfare."

The 1997 Labour Party manifesto promised a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned but was not made a priority by the new Blair Government.

But two years later, when Mr Blair was bounced into promising a new Bill on the subject late at night on BBC One's Question Time, it sparked a furore that took on a life of its own.

In his diaries, published yesterday, Mr Campbell recalls that in an otherwise staid meeting on September 8, 1999, Mr Mandelson "launched into a big defence of foxhunting".

The protest that greeted the PM at the Labour conference days later piled on the pressure. Mr Blair and Mr Campbell then tried to make light of the matter. "The hunt demo was going big and we agreed he should start the speech by saying tally-ho," Mr Campbell wrote.

Within months, however, Mr Blair was repeatedly voicing his disquiet.

In early January 2001, Mr Campbell wrote: "On hunting, TB was still trying to think of a way out."

It was even being suggested that the Bill could be left to be blocked by the House of Lords and "we could then put in a middle way in the manifesto for the next Parliament".

Mr Campbell says the next day "TB was still banging on about hunting". "The Tories thought he was being cunning. In fact, he was agonising because he did not feel comfortable about his position."

The conflict between his convictions and the will of his party was clear."

You could argue that we would never win the support of most of those who opposed our position but that we would lose a stack of support if he tried to shift the position back."

However, Mr Blair was clearly rattled by the mood in his party, illustrated by the comments of senior MP Gerald Kaufman in March 2002.

He told Mr Campbell "he would never see himself as a loyal TB supporter again if we back-tracked on this. I said I never realised he was so passionate about it and he said he was, adding: 'If the Tony who stood up to Milosevic and bin Laden can't stand up to the Countryside Alliance, I can't support him."

Read More Here

FIRST HUNTING CASE BROUGHT BY POLICE

2007-07-10T13:56:00.000+01:00

Western Mail

THE first hunting case has been brought by police in Wales since the Hunting Act became law three years ago.

Last night it was revealed that landowner Peter Rowley Williams, 48, of Llangwyfan on the Clwydian hills in Denbighshire is to appear before Prestatyn magistrates next week charged with permitting land to be used for hunting on January 2 this year.

William Francis Armstrong, 69, of Cefn, St Asaph, will appear with him charged with hunting a wild animal with dogs on the same day.

It is believed the charges arise from an incident during a meeting of the Flint and Denbigh Hunt, of which Mr Armstrong is “terrier man”. The hunt is based at Cefn.

Read More Here

ISLE OF WIGHT MEN PLEAD 'NOT GUILTY'

2007-07-04T09:56:00.000+01:00

HORSE & HOUND

Four men connected to the Isle of Wight hunt have pleaded not guilty to charges that they were hunting illegally with dogs.

Huntsman Stuart Trousdale of Gatcombe, falconer Jamie Butcher of Ryde and amateur whipper-in Liam Thom, of Rookley are charged with hunting a fox with dogs. Field master Malcolm Purcell, of Blackwater, is charged with hunting with dogs.

All four appeared at the Isle of Wight Magistrates Court in Newport on Monday to answer the charges, which relate to an incident in Shepherds Chine on the Isle of Wight on 29 November last year, when the hunt was using an Eagle Owl.

The prosecution is being brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) following a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to prosecute. This is the third private prosecution of a hunt by LACS.

Charlotte Fiander of the Countryside Alliance (CA) told H&H: "The Isle of Wight case will test the falconry exemption of the Hunting Act for the first time. We remain committed to helping those charged under the Hunting Act to prove that they were legally hunting within the exemptions laid out under the law.

"The law itself continues to be bathed in confusion and difficult to follow, and the exemptions are extremely unclear."

The case was adjourned for a pre-trial review at the Newport court on 17 September.

TONY WRIGHT APPEAL ADJOURNED

2007-07-04T09:43:00.000+01:00

Horse & Hound

The appeal of Tony Wright, the first huntsman to be convicted of breaching the Hunting Act (2004), has been adjourned.

The Exmoor huntsman was due to launch his appeal in Exeter Crown Court on Monday (9 July), but yesterday the case was adjourned until September because no judge is currently available.

Mr Wright was convicted last August over an incident alleged to have taken place on 29 April 2005.

Read More Here

MEN PROSECUTED FOR HUNTING WITH DOGS

2007-07-03T12:56:00.000+01:00

The Times

Four men denied charges of illegal hunting with dogs during a private prosecution brought by the League Against Cruel Sports.

The defendants are expected to use the defence that they were legally hunting with an eagle owl – the first time that the falconry exemption would be tested in the courts since the Hunting Act came into force in February 2005.

The animal rights group has brought the prosecution at Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court after the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the case against the four from the island.

Jamie Butcher, of Ryde, Liam Thom, of Rookley, and Stuart Trousdale, of Gatcombe, are all charged with hunting a fox with dogs. Malcolm Purcell, of Blackwater, is charged with hunting with dogs.

The charges relate to an alleged incident on November 29 last year.

The case was adjourned yesterday for a pretrial review at the Newport court on September 17.

Read More Here

FOUR MEN DENY HUNTING WITH DOGS

2007-07-03T12:50:00.000+01:00

BBC Hampshire

Four men from the Isle of Wight have pleaded not guilty to illegally hunting with dogs in a private prosecution brought by an animal welfare group.
Stuart Trousdale, of Gatcombe, Jamie Butcher, of Ryde, and Liam Thom, of Rookley, are charged with hunting a fox with dogs.

Malcolm Purcell, of Blackwater, is charged with hunting with dogs.

They are expected to argue they were using an eagle owl, in the case brought by the League Against Cruel Sports.

It is the first time the falconry exemption would be tested in the courts since the Hunting Act came into force in February 2005.

The League Against Cruel Sports brought the prosecution at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court after the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with the case against the men.

The charges against Mr Butcher, of Ashey Road, Mr Thom, of Highwood Lane, Mr Trousdale, of The Kennels, and Mr Purcell, of Blackwater Mill Farm, relate to an incident on 29 November, 2006.

The case was adjourned for a pre-trial review at the Newport court on 17 September.

Read More Here

ISLE OF WIGHT HUNT FACE PRIVATE PROSECUTION BY LACS

2007-06-27T11:53:00.000+01:00

Abigail Butcher
Horse & Hound

27 June, 2007The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) has launched a private prosecution against four members of the Isle of Wight hunt following a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to prosecute.

This is the third private prosecution of a hunt by LACS and relates to an incident in Shepherds Chine in November 2006.

A CPS spokesman told H&H that all the evidence surrounding the incident was thoroughly reviewed and that the CPS met with LACS.

"Our lawyers have noted that this was a very thorough police investigation, but we dropped the case because we didn't think there was a realistic prospect of conviction," added the spokesman.
Following the conviction of the Quantock Staghounds, LACS spokesman Barry Hughill told H&H there were more prosecutions "in the pipeline" (news, 14 June).

The men are to appear in court on the Isle of Wight on 2 July.

Meanwhile, Tony Wright, the Exmoor Huntsman last year convicted of hunting a wild mammal with dogs (news, 10 August 2006), will appeal against his prosecution in the week of 9 July at Exeter County Court.

Read More Here

PRIVATE CASE AGAINST HUNT FOUR

2007-06-21T12:05:00.000+01:00

Isle of Wight County Press

THE League Against Cruel Sports has taken out a private prosecution against four members of the IW Hunt.

In May, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with a prosecution of the same four men, who were arrested at their homes in dawn raids and held in the cells for 15 hours before being released without charge.

Now the League Against Cruel Sports is taking out its own prosecution at the IW Magistrates’ Court over the same alleged incident.

The four men summonsed are Jamie Butcher, of Ashey Road, Ryde; Liam Thom, of Highwood Lane, Rookley, and Stuart Trousdale, of The Kennels, Gatcombe, who are all charged with hunting a fox with dogs and Malcolm Purcell, of Blackwater Mill Farm, Blackwater, who is charged with hunting with dogs, all on November 29, 2006.

The case was adjourned until July 2.

A spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports said it would be the third prosecution it had taken out in the country. He said the other two cases had been won and the defendants fined.

Read More Here

QUANTOCKS COURT CASE HIGHLIGHTS 'HUNTING FOR RECREATION'

2007-06-14T13:59:00.000+01:00

Karen Spinner,
Horse & Hound

The issue of what constitutes exempt hunting was thrown dramatically into focus last Thursday when two men from the Quantock Staghounds were found guilty of breaching the Hunting Act.
Just two days after Stephen Lambert, chairman of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, warned that the current situation was untenable, Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant were convicted of hunting a wild mammal with dogs.

The pair were each fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs by District Judge David Parsons in a case brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS). The duo's legal team will meet next week and H&H understands that an appeal is likely. The Countryside Alliance (CA) and the Council of Hunting Associations have agreed to underwrite any appeal.
Although some aspects of the judgement mirrored those seen in the Exmoor case in which huntsman Tony Wright was also found guilty of hunting for the first time the issue of purpose played its part in the verdict.

In his judgement, District Judge Parsons stated: "The purpose of the undertaking was preserving a way of life the participants and defendants are not prepared to give up.
"The defendants were hunting for sport and to continue with their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt hunting."

Tom Yandle, chairman of the Masters of Deerhounds Association, was shocked at the interpretation.

He told H&H: "What has enjoyment got to do with the law? It seems a very odd way of approaching it. I'm very unhappy with the outcome, as we have always considered that we've been hunting within the law. One thing's for certain — there's no question of us giving up."

The CA's Tim Bonner admitted to being surprised by the emphasis District Judge Parsons placed on recreation.

He told H&H: "We haven't encountered this before. The judge accepted that they fulfilled some conditions of the exemptions, but because he saw the primary purpose as recreation, he ruled against them. In many ways, this interpretation is worse than in the Tony Wright case."

Read More Here

TWO FINED FOR HUNTING DEER WITH HOUNDS

2007-06-08T21:30:00.000+01:00

By Richard Savill
Telegraph

Two men were found guilty yesterday of illegally hunting deer with hounds in the second case brought against a hunt since the ban was imposed two years ago.

The verdicts against huntsman Richard Down, 44, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36, of the Quantock Staghounds in Somerset were hailed as a victory by the League Against Cruel Sports, which brought the private prosecution.

However, the Countryside Alliance, which supported the men, said the outcome had increased confusion over the Hunting Act, which it said was a "bad law that needs to be got rid of."

The two men were convicted at Bristol magistrates court after anti-hunt campaigners filmed two hounds chasing a herd of 11 deer across Exmoor.

The men claimed they were acting within exemptions in the Hunting Act, using two dogs rather than a pack.

They said they were flushing out deer for the gun rather than chasing them to exhaustion.

However, the league claimed that the deer were chased for more than an hour for sport. Down, of Bagborough, Somerset, and Pillivant, of Willand, Devon, both denied contravening the Hunting Act, which came into force in February, 2005.

Finding them guilty, District Judge David Parsons fined both men £500 and ordered them to pay £1,000 each as a contribution towards costs.

"The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting," he said.

Mike Hobday, of the League Against Cruel Sports, said afterwards he was delighted with the verdicts.

"The chasing of wild animals is cruel, immoral and illegal," he said.

The Countryside Alliance said the men would consider appealing against the verdicts. The alliance said the pair had given evidence that they had been flushing deer to concealed guns, as they thought the law allowed.

Simon Hart, the alliance's chief executive, said: "On the day in question they hunted with two hounds, as stipulated by the Act, and ensured there were experienced guns in place to shoot the deer. They shot six deer. If this is not flushing to guns I do not know what is."

He added: "In the end this is one simple solution to the mess which will end all the confusion and waste of police and court resources. The Hunting Act is a bad law and needs to be got rid of."

Read More Here

DEER HUNTS IN DANGER AS PAIR FOUND GUILTY OF FLUSHING OUT WITH DOGS

2007-06-08T21:28:00.000+01:00

Steven Morris
The Guardian

The future of England's last three staghound packs was uncertain yesterday after two huntsmen became the first to be found guilty of illegally pursuing deer with dogs. Richard Down, a huntsman employed by the Quantock Staghounds, and Adrian Pillivant, a volunteer whipper-in, were convicted after a district judge ruled that they led the sort of old-fashioned chase that was outlawed under the Hunting Act, pursuing red deer in the Quantock hills in Somerset for almost three hours.

Down, 44, and lorry driver Pillivant, 36, argued that they were using the dogs to flush deer out to marksmen, which can be exempt under the act. They also claimed they were hunting to control the deer which compete with livestock for food. But the district judge, David Parsons, concluded that they were trying to preserve "a way of life that the participants and the defendants are not prepared to give up" and had attempted to "deceive me into believing they were exempt-hunting".
Animal rights campaigners, including the League Against Cruel Sports, which brought the private prosecution at Bristol magistrates court were jubilant.

The ruling could make life very difficult for the last three stag hunts in north Devon and Somerset. The hunts have taken extensive legal advice and believed they were working within the law.

Down and Pillivant, who are supported by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance, may appeal but the three hunts will have a lot of thinking to do ahead of the start of the hunting season in the autumn.

The two men were caught hunting illegally in February last year. At least 17 riders, including children, followed the hunt, which had been called in by a landowner, Anthony Trollope-Bellew, to cull deer on his land near Taunton and move the herd on. As monitors from the campaign group watched, groups of deer were flushed out on three occasions and six animals shot. Four dogs were used, two at a time.

Down and Pillivant said what they did should be viewed as three separate events - deer were flushed and killed "as soon as possible" - and therefore legal.

But the judge disagreed. "This was a continual act of hunting over a period of two and three quarter hours ... some of the deer found at the first flush were present at the final flush ... the dogs may well have been deployed in relay to use fresh dogs to chase the deer faster and harder, to tire them quicker and to compensate for having to hunt with only two dogs."

The judge did not accept the animals had been shot as soon as possible and was unimpressed that the gunmen conceded that the deer could only be shot cleanly if they had stopped or slowed to a walking pace very close to them.

Outside court, Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, called the decision ludicrous and said it added "confusion to the whole picture".

Tom Yandle, chairman of the Masters of Deerhounds Association, said: "I'm very surprised by it. We will have to have a think about it but there are other exemptions we can use." Mr Trollope-Bellew, whose land the hunt began on, said: "This will make a lot of people very angry. It's going to mean more animals being shot by rifles and more injured rather than killed."

Mike Hobday, spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said: "The chasing of wild animals is cruel, immoral and illegal. It is a way of life for some people, but it's against the law."

Down and Pillivant were each ordered to pay a £500 fine and £1,000 costs.

Read More Here

HUNTERS FINED FOR ILLEGAL PURSUIT OF DEER

2007-06-08T21:25:00.000+01:00

The Times
Simon de Bruxelles

Animal rights campaigners claimed victory yesterday as two men were convicted of illegally hunting deer with dogs.

The two members of the Quantock Staghounds claimed they had been acting within the law as they chased the deer across Exmoor. Richard Down, 44, a huntsman and Adrian Pillivant, 37, a whipperin, were each fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 each in costs.

The private prosecution was brought by the League Against Cruel Sports, which filmed the Quantock Staghounds hunting near Holford, Somerset, in February last year.

The men said that the hunt, which resulted in six deer being killed, had been covered by the Hunting Act, which provides for deer to be flushed from cover by dogs if they are shot as soon as reasonably possible.

Judge David Parsons said that the men could not have reasonably believed they were within the law as the deer were chased a considerable distance.

The judge, sitting at Bristol Magistrates’ Court, said: “The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt-hunting.”

The court was told that the staghounds had been invited to Crowcombe Park, an estate owned by Anthony Trollope-Bellew, where deer had been damaging crops.

The meet was advertised in the press and attracted 17 members on horseback, and followers in 4x4s and quad bikes.

Down, as huntsman and full-time employee of the hunt, met the hunt master, the owner of the land and Pillivant, who was standing in for the regular whipperin, to discuss tactics.

The league argued that the hunt was illegal as it did not fulfil any of the five criteria for exemption. The judge found that the hunt satisfied four criteria: that the deer were flushed from cover; that the hunting prevented or reduced damage caused by the deer; that only two dogs were used on each occasion, and that the dogs were at all times above ground. But it had failed to fulfil the fifth condition, that the deer be shot as quickly as reasonable.

The judge said: “Exempt hunting does not allow for a chase – there was no sign of the deer being shot. In fact it was not possible for them to be shot and Mr Pillivant did not call the hounds off.

“It was obvious to him that the deer were not as soon as possible going to be shot. They should have been called off; they were not.”

The Countryside Alliance, which had backed the men, said that the ruling confused the issue of what was legal and what was not.

Mike Hobday, of the league, said after the case that the law stated that one could not chase with hounds for entertainment, “and we are very grateful that the judge agrees with us”.

Tim Hayden, solicitor for Pillivant and Down, said that they were very disappointed with the result and would appeal.

Read More Here

TWO FINED FOR HUNTING DEER WITH HOUNDS

2007-06-08T15:17:00.000+01:00

Adam Wilshaw
Western Morning News

Two huntsmen have been found guilty of illegally hunting deer with hounds on Exmoor.Huntsman Richard Down, 44, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36, of the Quantock Staghounds were convicted at Bristol Magistrates Court after only the second prosecution of its kind under the 2004 Hunting Act.

Anti-hunt campaigners filmed two hounds from the hunt as they chased a herd of deer a year after the controversial Hunting Act made hunting with hounds illegal.

The law allows the use of dogs to flush out wild animals so they can be shot.

But the League Against Cruel Sports launched the prosecution because it said the deer had been chased for more than hour and no attempt had been made to shoot them humanely or call off the hounds.

The men, who had argued throughout the trial that they had been hunting the deer within the law, are considering an appeal.

The league's chief executive, Douglas Batchelor, said: "We are delighted but not surprised by the result. Justice has prevailed today in what was a clear-cut case of blatant law-breaking by hunters who believe themselves to be above the law.

"Today's result will send out a stark message to those extremists who insist on flouting the law that their behaviour will not be tolerated.

"The hunting fraternity must grasp what the British public have understood ever since the ban was introduced - chasing and slaughtering stags for pleasure is totally unacceptable in a civilised society."

Anti-hunt monitors from the league filmed Pillivant and Down hunting 20 deer with hounds on February 16, 2006 at Longstone Hill, a remote rural location near Watchet, in North Somerset. The hunt met with four dogs, 17 members on horseback, and a number of other followers in vehicles.

Landowner Anthony Trollope- Bellow had asked the hunt to cull deer and move a wild herd, in an attempt to stop them causing damage to crops intended for livestock. The hunt set off at about 11.45am and had killed six deer by 3pm.

Counsel for the defence argued that the hunting was allowed under an exemption in the law.

The 2004 Hunting Act allows the use of hounds to flush out wild animals so they can be shot, if the deer are flushed from cover, if the hunting is done to prevent deer causing damage to crops or livestock, if only two dogs are used, and if those dogs are above ground at all times. The judge agreed the defendants had met these criteria.

But the men failed to meet the fifth criterion - that they take "reasonable" steps to shoot dead the deer "as soon as possible" after they are flushed out.

In his summing-up, Judge David Parsons said: "Neither defendant has established on the balance of probability that he reasonably believed the hunting was exempt."

The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting."

Down, from West Bagborough, a village between Taunton and Watchet, and Pillivant, from Willand, Devon, denied breaking the law. They were each fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

After the verdict, Richard Furlong, prosecuting, asked for four hounds and three guns to be confiscated and the defendants to be banned from driving. But the judge said that would be "disproportionate" punishment. He also noted the men were of previous good character.

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said the Quantock Staghounds had consulted lawyers and the police before hunting, in an attempt to avoid breaking the law.

He said: "On the day in question, they hunted with two hounds, as stipulated by the Act, and ensured that there were experienced guns in place to shoot the deer they flush as soon as possible. They shot six deer. If this is not flushing to guns, I don't know what is."

There is one simple solution to this mess which will end all the confusion, and the waste of police and court resources. The Hunting Act is a bad law and needs to be got rid of."

Tim Bonner, from the Countryside Alliance, said: "It is a slightly extraordinary judgment. I disagree with huge parts of it. It adds confusion to the whole picture. We may consider appealing as we don't believe this judgment is correct."

Robbie Marsland, UK director of the International Fund Against Animal Cruelty (IFAW), welcomed the decision. He said: "This is the second time that the league has taken and won a private prosecution and IFAW congratulates them for that."

In the light of this ruling it is very difficult to see how anyone could go out stag hunting in the belief that they are acting lawfully."

The Hunting Act is showing its teeth. There have been a number of prosecutions under the Act and more are in the pipeline."

Last August, Exmoor Foxhounds huntsman Tony Wright became the first huntsman to be found guilty of breaking the new law. He has appealed against that verdict and his case will be heard in July. There have been nine successful prosecutions since the Act came into force.

QUANTOCK STAGHOUNDS DUO FOUND GUILTY

2007-06-07T21:30:00.000+01:00

Karen Spinner
Horse & Hound

Two huntsmen have been found guilty of illegally hunting under the Hunting Act.

Quantock Staghounds huntsman Richard Down and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant were convicted at Bristol Magistrates Court this morning after video evidence of the pair hunting deer at a meet in Somerset last February - filmed by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) - was shown to the court.

The duo were each fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 towards costs. H&H understands that they are likely to appeal.

The prosecution, which was the second brought against a hunt under the Act, was brought privately by LACS and hinged on the flushing exemption.

District Judge David Parsons rejected the pair's claim that they were hunting within the law, describing their claims as "disingenuous".

But Countryside Alliance chief Simon Hart said that the pair had acted "entirely responsibly."

Read More Here

TWO MEN CONVICTED OF ILLEGAL HUNTING

2007-06-07T21:18:00.000+01:00

Country Life
Holly Kirkwood

Huntsman Richard Down and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, from the Quantock Staghounds, have today been convicted of illegally hunting deer with hounds at Bristol Magistrates Court.

Video footage of two hounds chasing deer in Somerset was cited as evidence that illegal hunting was taking place, and although the defendants argued that what they were doing was within the law, District Judge David Parsons said their argument was 'disingenuous'. He said that in his eyes their hunting was not exempt, and that their belief that their hunting was exempt was 'not reasonable.' Both men were fined £500 plus £1000 each towards costs.

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said: 'Since the Hunting Act came into force the Quantock Staghounds have acted entirely responsibly. They consulted legal experts, the hunting authorities and the police. This judgement contrasts with all their interpretations of the Act.

'One the day in question they hunted with two hounds, as stipulated by the act and ensured there were experienced guns in place to shoot the deer they flush as soon as possible. They shot six deer. If this is not flushing to guns I don't know what is.'

He then called for the Hunting Act to be repealed: 'The Hunting Act is a bad law and needs to be got rid of,' he concluded.

Read More Here

PAIR GUILTY OF BREAKING BAN

2007-06-07T21:16:00.000+01:00

BBC NEWS

Two men have been found guilty of illegally hunting deer with hounds.
Huntsman Richard Down, 44, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 36 of the Quantock Staghounds were convicted at Bristol Magistrates' Court.

Anti-hunt campaigners filmed two hounds chasing deer on Exmoor. The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) said the deer were chased for more than an hour.

Both men had denied contravening the Hunting Act, which came into force in February 2005.

The LACS said it launched the prosecution because no attempt was made to shoot the deer humanely or call off the hounds during the hunt.

Spokesman Douglas Batchelor, said: "Justice has prevailed today (Thursday) in what was a clear-cut case of blatant law-breaking by hunters who believe themselves to be above the law.
"The hunting fraternity must grasp what the British public have understood ever since the ban was introduced - chasing and slaughtering stags for pleasure is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.
"To do so is a criminal act as these two gentlemen have discovered today."

Down, 44, of Bagborough, Somerset, and Pillivant, 36, of Willand, Devon had argued throughout the trial that they had been hunting the deer within the law.

District Judge David Parsons said their argument was "disingenuous" and fined both men £500 and ordered them to pay £1,000 each as a contribution towards costs.

He said: "Neither defendant has established on the balance of probability that he reasonably believed the hunting was exempt.

"The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting."
The LACS had played the court video evidence of 20 deer being chased with dogs at a hunt meet at Longstone Hill, Somerset, last February.

Richard Furlong, representing the League, had told the court: "They made no attempt to call the dogs off.

"The facts of this case are that no reasonable person could have believed this was exempt from the Hunting Act.

Robbie Marsland, UK director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), welcomed the decision.

He said: "This is the second time that the league has taken and won a private prosecution and IFAW congratulates them for that.

"In the light of this ruling it is very difficult to see how anyone could go out stag hunting in the belief that they are acting lawfully.

"The Hunting Act is showing its teeth. There have been a number of prosecutions under the Act and more are in the pipeline, including one being taken by Avon and Somerset Police against the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, expected later this summer."

Read More Here

STAG HUNTERS FOUND GUILTY OF BREAKING BAN

2007-06-07T21:14:00.000+01:00

Steven Morris
Guardian Unlimited

A professional huntsman and a volunteer helper today became the first members of a stag hunt to be found guilty of breaking the ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs.
Richard Down, an employee of the Quantock Staghounds in Somerset, and Adrian Pillivant, a lorry driver who was acting as a volunteer "whipper-in", were each ordered to pay a £500 fine and £1,000 costs.

A judge decided that the pair had used two pairs of staghounds to pursue red deer for almost three hours and over 10 miles.

Down, 44, and Pillivant, 36, had argued that they were using the dogs to flush deer out to three marksman - which can be exempt under the Hunting Act 2004 if the animals are shot dead "as soon as possible". They also insisted that they were hunting to control the deer, which compete with livestock for food.
But district judge David Parsons concluded that the purpose of the hunt was "sport and recreation, preserving a way of life that the participants and the defendants are not prepared to give up".

The judge, sitting in Bristol, added that the pair were "disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing they were exempt hunting". After the ruling, members of the tightly knit staghunting community expressed dismay and shock.

They said they had taken advice from the police, lawyers and the pro-hunting group the Countryside Alliance, which supported the defendants' case, and believed that the Quantock Staghounds and the two other stag hunts that operate in Somerset and Devon were operating within the law.

A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance said that in the light of the convictions the three hunts would have to consider carefully how to work in future.

The League Against Cruel Sports, which brought the prosecution, said the convictions showed that hunts were continuing to break the ban, which came into force two and a half years ago, and that the law, heavily criticised when it came into force, could work.

The League brought the first successful case against a huntsman, fox hunter Tony Wright, last year. The appeal against his conviction will be heard in Devon next month. The first prosecution against a fox hunt led by the police and Crown Prosecution Service is due to take place in the autumn.

On the day Down and Pillivant were judged to have broken the ban, the Quantock Staghounds met at Crowcombe, near Taunton. At least 17 riders, including children, followed the hunt, and others watched from quad bikes and four-wheel vehicles.

As monitors from the League watched, groups of deer were flushed out on three occasions over two and three quarter hours, and six animals shot. Four dogs were used, two at a time.

Supporters of Down and Pillivant said what they did should be viewed as separate events - deer were flushed and killed as soon as possible. But the judge said: "This was a continual act of hunting over a period of two and three quarter hours ... some of the deer found at the first flush were present at the final flush ... the dogs may well have been deployed in relay to use fresh dogs to chase the deer faster and harder, to tire them quicker and to compensate for having to hunt with only two dogs."

Read More Here

CONFUSION INCREASES

2007-06-07T20:27:00.000+01:00

Confusion over the Hunting Act has increased after the huntsman and whipper-in of the Quantocks Staghounds were today found guilty of illegal hunting in the second case brought against a hunt.

Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant, along with many other members of the Quantock Staghounds, gave evidence that they had been flushing deer to concealed guns on 16th February 2006, as they thought the law allowed. Six deer were shot dead. But the district judge found that their hunting was not 'exempt', and that their belief that their hunting was exempt was not 'reasonable'.

Since the Hunting Act came into force the Quantock Staghounds have acted entirely responsibly. They consulted legal experts, the hunting authorities and the police. This judgement contrasts with all their interpretations of the Act.

On the day in question they hunted with two hounds, as stipulated by the Act, and ensured that there were experienced guns in place to shoot the deer they flushed as soon as possible. They shot six deer. If this is not flushing to guns I don't know what is.

In his evidence Professor Patrick Bateson of Cambridge University described the law as "imprecise". If it is not clear to him what the law means then it is ridiculous to suggest that hunts should understand it in exactly the same way as the courts.

In the end there is one simple solution to this mess which will end all the confusion, and the waste of police and court resources. The Hunting Act is a bad law and needs to be got rid of.

The Quantock Staghounds are consulting their legal team and are likely to appeal this judgement. The Countryside Alliance and the Council of Hunting Associations have said that they will pay each man's fine of £500 and £1000 costs, and will also underwrite the cost of any appeal.

The Quantocks remain the frontline of the fight against the Hunting Act, and all donations to the appeal fund would be welcomed. Please send donations to the Appeal Fund c/o the Countryside Alliance at the Old Town Hall, 367 Kennington Road, London SE11 4PT.

QUANTOCK STAGHOUNDS AWAIT VERDICT

2007-06-01T21:32:00.000+01:00

Abigail Butcher
Horse & Hound

A verdict is not likely to be returned until next week on the private prosecution of the huntsman and whipper-in of the Quantock Staghounds accused of breaching the Hunting Act.

Huntsman Richard Down, 36, and whipper-in Adrian Pillivant, 44, appeared in Taunton Magistrates Court last week accused of hunting deer with hounds on 16 February 2007. Both deny the charge.

The case, which lasted four days, is a private prosecution by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) — the second brought against a hunt under the Act and the second by LACS.

"The case hinges on the first part of the 'fifth condition' of the flushing exemption, that 'reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that after being found and flushed out, the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person'," said Countryside Alliance (CA) spokesman Tim Bonner. "We believe the Quantock Staghounds were fulfilling that, and all other conditions, of 'exempt hunting'. Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant believed what they were doing was legal."

He added: "Whatever the outcome, the Quantock Staghounds are absolutely determined that they will continue their crucial role in the management of Red Deer in the Quantocks."

Video evidence filmed by LACS employees Graham Floyd and Edmund Shepherd on 16 February at Longstone Hill, near Holdford, was presented in court.

Richard Furlong, prosecuting for LACS, told the court a herd of 11 deer was chased across the moor for more than an hour before gunshot blasts were heard.

Mr Shepherd added that "no attempt was made to control the hounds".

Giving evidence for the defence, Richard Down said the hunt had started at about 11.45am, with three guns present, and had flushed deer from two covers, killing four hinds cleanly before LACS employees arrived.

He said the deer in the video evidence were being flushed back towards the three guns, and although they did not come in range of the guns on that occasion, they were re-found and two were shot, as heard by the LACS employees.

Witnesses called for the hunt included the three guns, the landowner, local farmers and Quantock Staghounds chairman Nick Gibbons, who confirmed the events of the day.

Read More Here

COURT TOLD DEER CAUSING 'UNACCEPTABLE' DAMAGE

2007-05-23T13:54:00.000+01:00

By P. Harrison
Western Morning News

A landowner has told a court the amount of deer on the Quantock Hills needs to be halved to prevent expensive damage.

Hugh Warmington said damage to the spring grass and crops, caused by the red deer which roam the Quantocks, was "unacceptable".

He was speaking at the trial of Richard Down and Adrian Pullivant who are accused of breaching the ban on hunting with dogs in February last year.

The two men are at the centre of a private prosecution pursued by the League Against Cruel Sports which claims the men chased deer with dogs for such a long time that it was no longer deemed flushing, but illegal hunting.

Speaking yesterday at Taunton Magistrates' Court, Mr Warmington said: "There are as many as 800 red deer on the Quantocks which is far too many. Something needs to be done to bring the population down. We would not want it to be any lower than 400, but currently the damage being done to valuable spring grass, crops and trees is totally unacceptable.

"I have looked into buying fencing for my 1,500 acres of land, but this would damage the look of the surrounding area and is uneconomical."

Spring grass, he said, was used to graze livestock.

Under the hunting ban no more than two dogs are allowed to flush deer out of cover. The huntsmen are required to call off the hounds and shoot the deer as soon as possible.

The league claims the chase given by two dogs in February last year was in breach of this.

The Quantock hunt hires a team of people with short-barrelled shotguns to shoot deer and they shot six that day.

Down told the court that in order for the "guns" to carry out their role safely and effectively they needed the deer brought out.

He told the court: "It would not be safe to shoot the deer when they are running. Therefore it was necessary for the dogs to flush the deer until they reached an area where the guns were able to shoot them accurately."

For the Defence Nigel Ford QC asked: "Did you consider you were acting outside of the law?"

Down replied: "No."

Asked what he believed they were acting out, he replied: "Flushing."

Mr Ford asked him if he believed the deer could be shot any earlier than they were. Down again replied "no".

The trial continues.

Read More Here

PAIR 'TRANSGRESSED' HUNTING BAN

2007-05-22T15:40:00.000+01:00

Two huntsmen "blatantly" transgressed the law by leading a hunt on National Trust land, a court has heard.

Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant are accused of jointly hunting wild deer with dogs during a meet at Longstone Hill, Somerset, in February 2006.

The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) has brought the private prosecution at Taunton Magistrates' Court.

Mr Down and Mr Pillivant are both denying the allegations and the hearing continues.

Richard Furlong, representing LACS, said: "They made no attempt to call the dogs off.

"The facts of this case are that no reasonable person could have believed this was exempt from the hunting act.

"They made no attempt to control the dogs.

Mr Down, 37, and Mr Pillivant, 44, both of Kennel Lane, Bagbrough, Somerset, both deny breaching Section 1 of the Hunting Act.

Witness Edmund Shepherd, a league member who filmed the hunt, said the pair made no efforts to pull back their hounds during the chase.

He said he heard two gunshots go off more than two hours after the hunt began.

Mr Shepherd said: "I would expect someone to get very near the hounds and loudly shout and clap to get them to move away. This was not done."

The hearing continues.

Read More Here

HUNTSMEN CHASED DEER FOR OVER AN HOUR

2007-05-22T15:30:00.000+01:00

Huntsmen 'chased deer for over an hour'
Last Updated: 1:54am BST 22/05/2007

A huntsman and his whipper-in have been accused of breaking the Hunting Act after a herd of deer was allegedly chased across moorland for more than an hour.

Anti-hunt monitors filmed two hounds from the Quantocks Staghounds as they chased a herd of deer across Exmoor a year after the ban came into force.

Richard Down, the huntsman, and Adrian Pillivant, who as whipper-in is responsible for the hounds, went on trial yesterday at Taunton Deane magistrates' court in only the second prosecution under the controversial Act. Both deny the charge.

The law allows the use of dogs to flush out wild animals if they are then shot as soon as possible.
The League Against Cruel Sports launched the prosecution because it said that the herd of 11 deer was chased across the moor. Two hunt monitors said they saw no attempt to shoot the deer humanely or to call off the hounds.

Down, 44, of Bagborough, Somerset, and Pillivant, 36, of Willand, Devon, deny breaking the 2004 Hunting Act.

The Act came into force in February 2005. The prosecution says the hunt took place a year later.

Richard Furlong, prosecuting for the league, said the hunt consisted of the two defendants and followers on horseback, on foot, in four-wheel drive vehicles and on quad-bikes.

He said the deer were pursued for more than an hour from the time when two hounds were seen chasing them to the time when the monitors heard two shotgun blasts.

Mr Furlong said: "These two men hunted in clear breach of the Hunting Act. It was unlawful and they knew it was unlawful.

"They used hounds to search for deer and what took place was a prolonged period of pursuit by the hounds which were in the charge of these two men.

"No attempts were made to ensure the deer were shot as soon as possible by competent marksmen or to ensure the hounds did not obstruct any attempt to shoot the deer.
"No firearms were seen and the only shots heard were more than an hour after the hunt was first seen to pursue the deer."

The defendants are accused of allowing the hounds to pursue the deer in the traditional way with a view to wearing down the quarry so they could be shot later.
"That is why the spectators were there. It was the thrill of the chase," Mr Furlong said.
"The law is clear and allows find, flush, shoot. What happened on the Quantock Hills was not that, it was hunting."

He said in a traditional hunt the deer is chased until it is so exhausted that it turns to face the hounds and is said to be brought to bay. It is then shot.

The trial continues.

Read More Here

COURT DATE FOR QUANTOCKS HUNT DUO

2007-05-20T14:23:00.000+01:00

Court date for Quantocks hunt duo
Abigail Butcher, H&H news editor

The Quantocks' huntsman and whipper-in are due to appear in court on 21 May accused of breaching the Hunting Act.

The prosecution is being privately brought by the League Against Cruel Sports and hinges on the flushing exemption.

Richard Down (huntsman) and Adrian Pullivant are charged with hunting deer with dogs on 16 February at Longstone Hill, near Holford, Somerset.

The case will be heard in Taunton Magistrates Court. It starts on Monday, 21 May and is expected to last three or four days.

Read More Here

CRUCIAL TEST FOR HUNT BAN

2007-05-19T14:33:00.000+01:00

CRUCIAL TEST FOR HUNT BAN
BY TRISTAN CORK
08:00 - 19 May 2007

Two huntsmen will be in the dock on Monday charged with illegal hunting in a trial which both sides agree will be crucial to the future of the hunting ban.Richard Down and Adrian Pullivant are facing a private prosecution brought by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), which claims they hunted a deer illegally on the Quantocks in Somerset in February last year.

The LACS will present video evidence to Taunton Magistrates during the week-long trial - evidence already rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service and police.

Hunt monitors captured the footage at Longstone Hill, near Holford, on February 16 which, it is alleged, shows the Quantock Staghounds (QSH) illegally chasing a deer.

It is only the second time - and the first for a staghunt - a huntsman has faced trial under the Hunting Act, and the result will prove key to the future of the ban and its policing.

Last year, Exmoor Foxhounds huntsman Tony Wright was convicted and fined for breaching the ban in another private prosecution by the LACS - his appeal against that conviction will be heard in July. A police-led Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecution of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds leaders is yet to come to court. Anti-hunt campaigners say if Mr Down, the 43-year-old QSH huntsman, and his whipper-in Mr Pullivant are successfully prosecuted, it will put more pressure on police across the country to monitor hunts, and more pressure on the CPS to go through with prosecutions based on video evidence.

But pro-hunt campaigners claim it is the hunting ban itself which is on trial next week, and that the pair will provide evidence that their hunting was 'exempt' under the controversial ban.

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said: "It is the Hunting Act that is really on trial here. It is well over two years old yet this is only the second prosecution of a hunt and we are still no nearer a proper understanding of what the law actually means.

"These two men are being dragged through court to try and better define what is, and what is not, exempt hunting."

An Alliance spokesman added that staghunting has always involved the selection and pursuit of deer with hounds prior to the deer being shot.

"The Hunting Act does not prohibit the use of dogs to hunt deer, or the shooting of deer, it simply regulates how dogs may be used.

"The defendants do not deny that they were hunting with dogs on February 16, 2006 at Longstone Hill. They will, however, produce evidence to show that their hunting complied with the conditions of 'exempt hunting: stalking and flushing out'."

POLICING THE HUNTING ACT

2007-05-18T21:34:00.001+01:00

There was good news from the Isle of Wight on Monday when the four members of the Isle of Wight Hunt, who had been arrested in a series of ludicrously over-dramatic 'dawn raids' last week and questioned about alleged Hunting Act offences, heard that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that they had no case to answer. Both our Chairman Kate Hoey MP and local MP Andrew Turner had written to the Chief Constable of Hampshire asking some searching questions about why the investigation was handled as it was.

Everyone understands that the Hunting Act is a confusing and unclear law, and that the police might want to ask exactly what hunts are doing, but when everyone connected with the hunt would have voluntarily attended a police station for questioning, the use of large numbers of officers is bound to leave local people with serious questions about policing priorities.

Generally, the policing of the Hunting Act has been so sensible that exceptional incidents like this stand out. Most police forces understand that this sort of heavy handed and wasteful policing, especially when it is based on allegations made by well known animal rights activists, risks sparking a breakdown in the relationship between the police and the rural community, which is exactly what we should all be trying to avoid.

Beginning on Monday in Taunton Magistrates Court, Richard Down and Adrian Pullivant of the Quantock Staghounds face a private prosecution under the Hunting Act brought by the League Against Cruel Sports. This is only the second Hunting Act case to reach the courts following Tony Wright's prosecution last year. Tony's case is being appealed and will be heard in Exeter Crown Court later in the summer. We wish Richard and Adrian all the best and will be reporting from Taunton as the case progresses.

Whatever the outcome, there is one thing we can be confident of: the Hunting Act has failed all the expectations the animal rights movement had for it. The determination of the Countryside Alliance and the hunting community to see the Hunting Act repealed remains undiminished.

Simon Hart

POLICE BEHAVED LIKE NAZIS

2007-05-18T21:32:00.000+01:00

Isle of Wight County Press Letters Page
From T. J. R. Sheldon, Kings Manor, Freshwater:

YOU reported (CP 11-05-07) that four people had been arrested on suspicion of illegally hunting a wild animal with dogs.What you may not have known is that eight police officers descended on the homes of the four, at 6.30 in the morning in a manner which we have come to expect of the police when dealing with known terrorists.

This was apparently in connection with an alleged offence on November 29, 2006, approximately six months ago.

This procedure of invading people’s homes to catch them while they are still in bed reminds us of Germany in the 1930s.

The police may wish to treat people who live in the countryside like this but it will backfire on them.

When Yarmouth was invaded one evening last year by 15 yobs who smashed cars and windows the police response was pathetic. No chance of eight police officers turning up to try and protect law-abiding people’s property.

There is only one way to respond for those who live in the countryside. A complete lack of faith in the police can only mean an end to the full-hearted co-operation they currently receive. All charges have now been dropped, taxpayers’ money has been wasted, the four each lost a day’s earnings and decent law-abiding people’s view of the priorities of our police force has been put firmly into perspective.

Read More Here

MP SLAMS DAWN RAIDS ON HUNT HOMES

2007-05-18T21:28:00.000+01:00

Isle of Wight County Press

HEAVY-HANDED treatment by police of huntsmen arrested in dawn raids and kept in police cells for 15 hours before being released without charge has been questioned by Island MP Andrew Turner.

In a letter to Hampshire and IW Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan, Mr Turner said the police actions would seem more appropriate for drug smugglers than for those who, even if found guilty, would only face a fine.

The concern was exacerbated by the fact the alleged offence of illegally hunting a wild animal with dogs, had taken place almost six months previously.

The four men, arrested at 6.30am at their respective homes on May 3, were Liam Thom, a member of the IW Hunt, professional huntsman Stuart Trousdale, falconer Jamie Butcher and Malcolm Purcell, a former master of the hunt and field master on the day the offence was alleged to have taken place, November 29, 2006.

This week the police confirmed the Crown Prosecution Service had decided there should be no prosecutions.In a statement, the police said: “Officers investigating this complaint carried out a full documentary assessment before taking any further action. The circumstances of these arrests were down to operational reasons and to protect the integrity of the interview process.“The time spent in custody appears to be due to the time it took for the nominated legal representative to arrive from London.“Any formal complaint regarding the individuals’ treatment can be made through the appropriate channel, where it would be guaranteed a fair and impartial investigation.”

Mr Turner said he could not discuss matters relating to individual constituents but he did confirm a letter had gone to the chief constable.

However, the CP was given a copy of the letter by Liam Thom, one of the huntsmen who raised the issue with Mr Turner, who accused the police of abusing their authority by imprisoning innocent people in such a way. Mr Thom said: “I was asleep at 6.30am on May 3 when two police constables knocked on the door and arrested me.“I was processed and put into a cell. My Island-based solicitor was unavailable so I had to wait until the early afternoon before I could see a solicitor who had to travel from Tunbridge Wells in Kent. I wasn’t interviewed by the police until 9.30pm.“If the police wanted to discuss matters with me, they could have done so with an appointment so there was no need for a dawn raid, which, apart from being a total over-reaction, must have cost several thousand pounds of public money.”

Mr Trousdale also felt he had been treated in a heavy-handed manner.“I was incarcerated for 15 hours, a fair period of which was waiting for our lawyer. Had we been asked to come in on an appointment basis, we would have had our legal representative there ready,” he said.

In his letter, Mr Turner said when his constituents complained unruly neighbours, low-level crime or anti-social behaviour were making their lives a misery, the constant refrain was the police did not have the resources to attend promptly, let alone to sort out the problems.

Read More Here

HUNT SUSPECTS RELEASED FOR THREE WEEKS

2007-05-09T12:07:00.000+01:00

Isle of Wight News

Four men arrested on suspicion of hunting a wild mammal with dogs have been released on bail without charge by police.

The suspects were questioned at Ryde Police Station after being detained on Thursday morning. Officers are investigating what they describe as an ‘incident’ at Shepherds Chine on the south-west coast of the Island in November last year.

The Countryside Alliance has criticised the arrests as “clumsy and unnecessary.” A 41-year-old from Ryde, a 61-year-old and a 36-year-old from Newport and a 36-year-old from Ventnor are due to report back to police on 24 May.

Read More Here

FOUR ARRESTED OVER ILLEGAL HUNTING

2007-05-04T20:11:00.000+01:00

Isle of Wight County Press

FOUR men were arrested yesterday (Thursday) morning on suspicion of hunting a wild animal using dogs.

A 41-year-old from Ryde, a 61-year-old and a 36-year-old from Newport, and a 36-year-old Ventnor man were arrested, following an incident in Shepherds Chine, near the Military Road, in November last year.

The men were yesterday (Thursday) still in custody.

Read More Here

ISLE OF WIGHT RAID

2007-05-03T10:25:00.000+01:00

Four men arrested on suspicion of hunting
Abigail Butcher, H&H news editor

3 May, 2007

Four men connected with the Isle of Wight hunt have been arrested on suspicion of hunting a wild mammal with dogs.

Police carried out a number of raids, including one on the Isle of Wight hunt kennels at Gatcombe in Newport, at 5am this morning.

Hampshire Police have confirmed to H&H four men are currently being held in custody: a 41-year-old from Ryde, a 61-year-old and 36-year-old from Newport and a 36-year-old from Ventnor.

"This follows an incident in Shepherds Chine, Isle of Wight in November last year," said a police spokesman.

Stephen Lambert, chairman of the Council of Hunting Associations (CHA), told H&H of his "total astonishment" that the police had prioritised this issue to such an extent that they carried out dawn raids.

Alastair Jackson, director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) added: "Clearly, with these sorts of allegations, the police have slightly overreacted."

Read More Here

LACS DEER MANAGEMENT

2007-05-02T13:55:00.000+01:00

And they call us cruel, when their lack of a workable deer management plan causes suffering like this on their 'Deer Sanctuary'

A LOOK AT THE HUNTING ACT 2004

2007-04-13T12:04:00.000+01:00

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

HUNTERS' ANGER OVER HUGE POLICE PRESENCE

2006-11-10T20:31:00.000Z

Chester Chronicle

FOLLOWERS of the Cheshire hunt are furious after a police helicopter was sent to observe their activities even though they were acting within the law.

Police dispatched a squad car and diverted a chopper to the scene after a member of the public reported fox hunting with hounds taking place at Aldford in contravention of the Hunting Act.
But the Cheshire Hunt said it was merely exercising its pack, which is allowed within the law, and police agreed that not only was nothing illegal taking place, they couldn't actually find any dogs at all.

Cllr Noel Dutton, chairman of Kelsall Parish Council, was following the hunt on Tuesday and was incensed at the level of police resources on display given his village is about to lose its dedicated bobby.
He said: 'We were subjected to a police car with two officers in it, cruising up and down, writing down numbers of cars in the vicinity. A helicopter was scrambled with a camera below it taking photos of riders and dogs.
'I thought the police were struggling for resources. Kelsall, for instance, is losing its policeman, yet they can scramble a helicopter!'

Cllr Dutton said no-one was doing 'anything illegal' and added: 'There was a lot of muttering among the people about the relationship with the police. It did the police no good at all.'
Richard Thomas, joint master of the hunt, who was out on Tuesday, agreed the police reaction was 'probably' overkill.

He said: 'It's very difficult for the police. They are being called by somebody saying something is going on and they have a duty to investigate it.
'I need to sit down with the police and explain exactly what is going on so they are more comfortable. I'm sure it is very expensive to have a helicopter hovering above 20 people out for a ride across country. But they deemed it necessary on the day.'

A Cheshire police spokesman said officers responded after a report of people hunting with dogs.
He said: 'When we arrived there was no evidence of any dogs being present.'
The spokesman said the helicopter happened to be in the air already and was diverted to the scene.

Read more Here

HUNTS BOOM AFTER BAN 'BACKFIRE'

2006-11-06T10:17:00.000Z

Sam Burson, Western Mail

THE Government's ban on hunting with dogs was blasted as being "ridiculous" last night after figures showed the sport has more participants than before the new laws were introduced.
Bloodless hunting has flourished, but foxes are not being saved as a result, the new survey shows. More than ever are being killed by other means since the controversial ban came into force.

As the traditional start of the hunting season gets under way today, figures compiled by the Countryside Alliance show hunts, normally these days involving dogs chasing a scented rag, have more people participating and are better supported than before the ban was made law in February, 2004.

The study also shows more land is now being made available by farmers and other landowners for hunting, which the alliance says is a rural show of solidarity against the Government.
But the report also suggests that fox and hare numbers are in decline, which campaigners say is due to more people slaughtering them by other means now they are not being culled by the hunts.

The survey is based on returns from 61 hunts across the UK, with many from Wales, just under a quarter of them registered with the Masters of Foxhounds Association and the Masters of Harriers and Beagles.

They were asked to compare the level of support, the number of subscribers, the amount of land available for hunting and the status of the quarry species with February 2004, when the Hunting Act came into force.

Adrian Simpson, Welsh spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said, "I'd say we've now got more support for hunting than the sport has ever had throughout its history.
"These statistics are for the UK but, apart from the hares, because we don't have many of those, it all applies to Wales," he added.

"And farmers who may have been ambivalent towards it before, and not given permission for hunts to go on their land, are now happy to let them do so, because it's a protest against the legislation."

An increased level of support was reported by 64% of those asked, with just 7% saying support had declined.

The number of subscribers had gone up according to 34% of hunts, with 56% saying it had remained the same, and just 10% saying it had decreased.

More land was now available for hunting than in February, 2004, according to 20% of hunts, with 66% saying it had remained the same and 15% saying it had declined.

But just 36% of hunts said fox and hare numbers had decreased, with 49% saying they had remained constant and just 15% of hunts reporting they had gone up.

Mr Simpson said, "The reason numbers have declined is because when you talk about banning hunting, it's nothing to do with saving foxes.

"The fact is that other means are now being used to kill them.
"Now they're being wiped out.
"They've got no value at all, as they did when they were hunted, and they're just viewed as an enemy of the farmer."

He added the biggest threat to hunting had not come from the ban but from increasing urbanisation, saying, "You can't go hunting in areas surrounded by houses, near rail tracks and so on.

"There are now more cars than ever around, and small rural lanes which used to be quiet are now busy rat-runs.

"The fact hunting is increasing in popularity despite this, shows just how ridiculous the legislation is."

A spokesman for the League against Cruel Sports derided the survey, saying, "Any figures or survey by the Countryside Alliance, we are going to suspect.

"It will always conclude that hunting animals is essential, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt."
He added, "To say it isn't working is not true. You can ask Tony Wright, the man who now has a criminal record for hunting in the West Country."

Read More Here

HUNT SABOTEURS WELCOME FIRST PUBLIC PROSECUTION

2006-10-29T10:05:00.000Z

Hunt Saboteurs welcome first public prosecution of Hunters, Arkangel for Animal Liberation

The Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) of the UK has welcomed the news that, for the first time since the Hunting Act became law, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), together with Avon and Somerset Police, will bring the first public prosecution against two hunt staff. Maurice Scott, Master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, and Peter Heard, a member of hunt staff, will both appear before Taunton Deane Magistrates charged with hunting a wild mammal with dogs.
The charge relates to an incident back in April 2006, and is the first publicly brought case under the Act, as two previous cases have been brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports.

Dawn Preston, spokesperson for the HSA, stated "At last we see the police taking action, and not a minute too soon. One full season has already gone by without any public cases being brought, and this could have been seen to send a very worrying message out to the hunts that continue to hunt illegally. This case should hopefully start to hammer the message home that hunting was banned because the majority of the population do not want to see bloodsports practised."

Ms. Preston continued 'The Countryside Alliance continue to provide 'guidance' on hunting within the law, but we can see here, as with the two cases brought by the League Against Cruel Sports, that the only way you can hunt safely within the law is to leave the wild animal out of the equation. That was the point of the law in the first place, but it seems to be a point that the hunting fraternity have so far failed to grasp.

One report of the charging of the Master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds lamented the fact that he had spent 2 and a half hours in a police cell prior to being charged. We fail to see what could possibly be surprising about that - it is alleged that Maurice Scott broke the law, and as such he should be treated like a criminal."

On the 4th August this year Tony Wright, a huntsman with the Exmoor Foxhounds, was found guilty of breaching the Hunting Act of 2004 after the League Against Cruel Sports brought a private prosecution against him. League monitors had filmed Mr. Wright hunting foxes. Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports said at the time: "The message from this case is absolutely clear: it is a crime to chase a fox with hounds. People who hunt do so because they wish to torment a fox. The Hunting Act has taken away their playtime. "I would now expect the police to be visiting their local hunts to make it clear that they are not allowed to pursue foxes. If we become aware of other hunts acting illegally we will have no hesitation in passing on the information to the appropriate authorities."

Read more here

HUNTING IS BOOMING ONE YEAR AFTER THE BAN

2006-10-29T09:55:00.000Z

The Independent

It was both celebrated and decried as the death knell of the country way of life. Yet hunters begin the new season with no quarry, but more packs. Martin Hodgson reports

As they have done for centuries, the men and women of the Beaufort Hunt will ride out this week for the first meeting of the new season.

Resplendent in royal blue jackets, riders will gather on Saturday at the gateway to the Badminton estate in Gloucestershire, and the open parklands will once again ring with the call of the hunting horn and the wild baying of a foxhounds in full pursuit.

One year after the ban on hunting with dogs started to bite, a new poll has shown that since the Hunting Act became law many hunts have actually increased their membership - and two new hound packs have even been created.

According to the survey carried out by the Countryside Alliance, which campaigned against the ban, 34 per cent of packs consulted reported an increase in subscribers, while 90 per cent reported the same or higher levels of support since the Act became law.

At the Beaufort Hunt, morale is high, said Ian Farquhar, joint master of the hunt. "People are absolutely determined to keep going. Like most hunts, we've got more people supporting us than we've ever had."

In the angry public debate before the Act was passed in 2004, pro-hunting activists warned that the legislation would lead to a rural apocalypse: thousands would lose their jobs, horses would be slaughtered, and hundreds of foxhounds would be culled, snuffing out bloodlines dating back centuries.

Two years later, there is little evidence to support such claims: the hound packs are intact and, according to the Countryside Alliance, the loss of hunting-related jobs has been "marginal".
Most of the 185 hunts in England and Wales have switched to trail-hunting, in which hounds follow a lure doused in fox urine; but around 50 use hounds to flush foxes from cover to be killed by birds of prey.

Both practices are legal under the Act, but the widespread adoption of trail-hunting proves that it is possible to enjoy country sports without cruelty, said Becky Hawkes, a spokeswoman for the RSPCA. "The Act banned the cruelty of hunting wild quarry. People can still enjoy a day riding together in the countryside, and ditch the cruelty. Now it is up to them to ensure that they follow the letter of the law," she said.

Under the law, hunts are obliged to notify the police of any "accidental" fox kills, but supporters concede that not all such incidents are reported. Tim Bonner, a spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said: "If people were minded not to follow the law, it would be impossible to know or for anyone to stop them,"

Police have been hard-pressed to monitor hunts across open countryside, and so far the only successful prosecution under the Act was the result of a private action brought by the League Against Cruel Sports. In August, Tony Wright of Exmoor Foxhounds became the first person in England or Wales to be convicted for illegal fox-hunting with dogs.

The League's chief executive, Douglas Batchelor, said: "We've always argued that when you take the cruelty out of hunting, more people would want to join in. But we're concerned that too many in the hunting fraternity want to move the clock back to a time when wildlife could still be chased and killed by dogs for sport."

Many admit that they see trail-hunting as a temporary alternative while they campaign to roll back the law. Otis Ferry, master of the South Shropshire Hunt, and son of the rock star Bryan Ferry, said: "Trail-hunting is like having sex with a condom. It's not the real thing."

Ferry, who has become a figurehead for pro-hunting activists intent on reversing the ban, said: "The hope now is to repeal the Bill. We can't just throw away what we have - we're just going to fight through it," he said.

Earlier this year, the Countryside Alliance mounted a legal challenge to the Bill on human rights grounds, arguing that the legislation threatened the livelihoods of thousands of people who work in hunting, and that hunters' right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association had been infringed. That argument was rejected in June by the Court of Appeal, partly on the grounds that hunts could continue to meet as long as they did not kill foxes.

Mr Bonner conceded that the human rights argument was weakened by the continuing survival of the hunts, despite the ban. "We have been concentrating on maintaining the infrastructure of the hunts, so that when there is a repeal there will still be packs to hunt with. [But] success at keeping the hunts together has played against us. It makes the human rights case more difficult to argue," he said.

Hunt supporters have pledged to take their legal challenge as far as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but most now pin their hopes for a repeal on a change of government. David Cameron has promised that a Conservative government would allow a free vote on fox-hunting, which could lead to the ban being lifted.

Alastair Jackson, the director of Masters of Foxhounds Association, said: "Everyone is working for a change of government. If there is no sign of a repeal, people will not continue to keep hounds and maintain the hunt infrastructure."

Some huntsmen have even pledged to leave the country if the ban remains. Otis Ferry said: "If we don't get a government that is more understanding to rural way of life I'd be so disheartened I'd leave the UK."

According to Ferry, the ban has opened the floodgates of indiscriminate fox culls using snares, gas, shooting and poison.

"Hunting has never boasted of being the way to kill the most foxes," he said. "It's a way of controlling by natural selection, by killing the old, the weak, the lazy and letting the healthy live. Now people are using methods that are much more cruel. It's naive to think that now hunting has been banned the fox is living happily ever after. Hunting ensured a healthy balance, but now the fox population is suffering."

His claims were echoed by the Countryside Alliance poll, which showed that 36 per cent of hunts report seeing fewer foxes and hares since the ban.

But new research from Bristol University shows that there has been no change in the fox population since the ban. The two-year nationwide study, to be published early next year, shows that the number of adult foxes has remained stable at around 250,000, said Professor Stephen Harris, who led the research.

Around 425,000 cubs are born each year, and the same number are trapped, shot, or killed by disease or cars, he said. Hunting with hounds accounted for just 20,000 kills every year.
"The suffering caused by hunting with dogs is immense - that's why we made it illegal. Shooting is comparatively humane because foxes are small animals, and if they're hit they are either killed outright or hit again with a second bullet.

"Before the ban, the hunting lobby argued that they were an effective way of controlling fox numbers. Now they say that numbers are going down. They're constantly shifting the grounds of their argument to justify their actions in any way they can," he said.

Read More Here

SCRUTINY OF LAW

2006-10-27T21:14:00.000+01:00

Time to act when the law doesn't stand up to scrutiny
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor, Daily Telegraph

How well is the Hunting Act 2004 working? There has been one successful private prosecution for hunting a wild mammal with dogs since the Act took effect last year. Two further cases are pending, one brought by the police and the other by the League Against Cruel Sports.

Given the apocalyptic predictions while the legislation was fighting its way through Parliament, three prosecutions does not sound very many. Should we assume that former huntsmen are now operating within the law? Or are hunters more discreet about their activities these days, relying on over-stretched rural police forces not to make a fuss?

Though the answer must be a bit of both, nobody can be entirely sure. Ultimately, there must be doubts about whether the Hunting Act was drafted in the most effective way to deter law breaking and facilitate law enforcement.

One law that was definitely not fit for purpose was the Social Security Act 1989. This was supposed to deal with "double compensation" in accident cases — where a victim received damages as well as social security benefits for the same injury. Under the Act, state benefits were deducted from compensation.

This was fine in principle — compensation should put you back to where you were, not make you better off — but in practice it left victims almost nothing at all.

Concluding in 1995 that the legislation was seriously flawed, a Commons committee said that the Act's calculations had caused "manifest unfairness". The Government agreed, and an amending law, the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act, was passed in 1997.

Meanwhile, there had been eight years of unfairness. Some of this could have been avoided if Britain had in place a system of reviewing all laws after they have been in force for a while. Post-legislative scrutiny, as it is called, is widely regarded as a good idea: the key question is how best to do it.

Enter the Law Commission, the body that advises the Government on reform of the law. In a report launched, unusually, at the House of Lords, the commission recommended yesterday that there should be a twin-track approach to post-legislative scrutiny.

First, government departments should review legislation for which they had been responsible. But that would not be enough: there would need to be some sort of parliamentary oversight too. The obvious answer would be to set up a joint committee drawn from both Houses, and with power to call evidence and issue reports.

That is not to say that the existing departmental select committees would lose their powers to scrutinise legislation, something they may be better placed to do than a committee without specialist knowledge.

But if a departmental committee chose not to exercise its scrutiny power, the task would pass to a dedicated committee.

The new committee could also commission research from a body such as the National Audit Office. And it would be assisted by the present Scrutiny Unit, which currently deals with work on Bills before they are introduced in Parliament.

The idea of a post-legislative scrutiny committee is likely to be welcomed by judges, who often complain about the quality — as well as the quantity — of criminal justice legislation.

Faced with legislation that does not make sense, judges and other interested parties could send their complaints to the new committee. They could even answer questions about how the legislation might be re-drafted.

Here, though, is a potential flaw. Surely, people who were against the legislation in the first place — the hunters, to use my first example — will use post-legislative scrutiny as a means of reopening old political arguments?

"There are difficulties in this process and we are quite candid about them," Sir Terence Etherton tells me. A High Court judge, Sir Terence became chairman of the Law Commission three months ago.

"What you really want to avoid at the review stage is a re-hash of all the policy arguments. That's a difficult issue, but if Parliament sets up a joint committee it will be something they will have to work through."

Sir Terence is conscious of the fact that MPs and peers are the only people who can decide how to conduct their own affairs. The Law Commission's role has been to gather evidence from those in the know and present it to Parliament. But those consultees have told the Law Commission that introducing post-legislative scrutiny would be very important.

"Our consultations with a large number of organisations, both inside and outside Parliament, have given overwhelming support for some more systematic process of post-legislative scrutiny," he says.

Even so, the Government may be reluctant to admit that the present system produces wonky legislation that needs fixing within a few years. Does Sir Terence fear that his report will gather dust, like other worthy but ineffective recommendations from his predecessors?

"I'm not sure that's a question for me as chairman of the Law Commission," he says cautiously. "There's a matter of political will involved here." The effectiveness of a parliamentary committee will depend on its standing and the strength of its recommendations.

But, he stresses, there is a lot that can be done by government departments, and much will depend on how they develop their existing responsibilities. "There already is a Cabinet Office requirement for a regulatory impact assessment each time there is a new policy," Sir Terence says, and that includes a requirement for monitoring and evaluation.

"The difficulty is that only six of these assessments out of every 10 properly and fully comply with that requirement. It is, in fact, part of the Government's agenda that there should be better regulation so you would expect the Government to act on recommendations that will lead to better regulation."

Perhaps. It strikes me that considerable political pressure is needed if we are going to see an end to laws that are rushed through by government departments with little care or thought. But the aim is a noble one.

As Sir Terence said at the launch yesterday: "Enhancing post-legislative scrutiny could improve the accountability of governments for the legislation they pass and ultimately lead to better and more effective law."

Read more here

HUNT SEASON STARTS WITH WARNING OF MORE PROSECUTIONS

2006-10-26T21:21:00.000+01:00

League Against Cruel Sports

Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, has warned hunters that they face a ‘spate of prosecutions’ if they breach the ban on hunting.

The hunting season begins on Saturday October 28th with several huntsmen due to appear in court to face a charge of illegal hunting. The most recent prosecution has been brought by the Crown Prosecution Service following an investigation by the Avon and Somerset police.

In August Tony Wright, huntsman with the Exmoor fox hounds, became the first hunter to be convicted of breaching the hunting ban. Following his conviction the League has held top-level meetings with senior police officers and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr Batchelor said:

“At these meetings the Police made it clear to us that they would not tolerate breaches of the hunting ban. I was left in little doubt that any hunters caught defying the law would find themselves in court”.

In recent weeks the courts have also cracked down on hunt supporters who have assaulted members of the public monitoring their hunts.

Mr Batchelor added:

“Hunt apologists said the Act could not be enforced. The criminal conviction of Tony Wright put an end to that claim. We all hope that those hunts going out today do no more than ride across the countryside. If that’s all they do we have no complaints. But any hotheads who think they can behave as they did in the past should be aware that they are being monitored and will find themselves in court if they break the law”.

Read more here

HUNTSMAN CHARGED

2006-10-26T21:03:00.000+01:00

Donald Summersgill, huntsman of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, has this week been charged under the Hunting Act in relation to the same incident for which Maurice Scott and Peter Heard already face allegations (reported in last week's grass e-route). The case against the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, the private prosecution of the Quantock Staghounds, and Tony Wright’s appeal against his conviction are all likely to be heard in the New Year.

TWO IN COURT IN HUNTING CASE FIRST

2006-10-19T21:19:00.000+01:00

Press Association, Guardian Unlimited

Two men appeared before magistrates today charged with illegally hunting with dogs, in the first case of its kind under the new anti-hunting laws to be brought to court by the police.
Maurice Scott, 63, master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, and Peter Heard, 23, a hunt servant, are both accused of breaching the hunting act. The alleged breaches are said to have taken place at Higher Broford, near Dulverton, Exmoor, on April 25.

Previous prosecutions under the act have been brought by the League Against Cruel Sports, but this is the first case brought by the police. The league praised Avon and Somerset Police for bringing the prosecution The two men spoke only to confirm their names and addresses during the short hearing at Taunton Deane magistrates court.

The case was adjourned to the same court on November 2. The men, who are both on bail, were told they didn't need to attend the next hearing.

Speaking after today's hearing, the Countryside Alliance said the case was "a waste of resources".

Alison Hawes, south-west regional spokesman said: "Mr Scott and Mr Heard understand that this is a political case. People on Exmoor are very angry that rural policing is concerning itself with things like this.

"Mr Scott is a well known and well respected member of the community and the hunting community which is why there has been so much uproar on Exmoor about this."

Read more here

TWO FACE COURT ACCUSED OF BREAKING HUNTING BAN

2006-10-18T21:17:00.000+01:00

Steven Morris, The Guardian

The master of a stag hunt and a hunt servant have become the first to be charged by the police with breaking the ban on hunting with dogs, it was revealed yesterday. Maurice Scott, a master of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, and Peter Heard, who works for the hunt, will appear before magistrates tomorrow.
Anti-hunt campaigners see the case as an indication that police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service are prepared to take action against hunts and hope more will follow. There has been one successful prosecution against a huntsman but it was brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) after police decided the evidence was not strong enough.

Hunt supporters, however, said yesterday that if a string of prosecutions are taken the resentment against the police and the government which surfaced in the build up to the hunting ban would intensify. Mr Scott is said to have been held in a cell for 2½ hours after being asked by officers to attend Minehead police station.

Mr Scott, 63, of Watchet in Somerset, is charged with two counts of hunting a wild mammal with dogs. Mr Heard, 23, of Exford in Somerset, faces one count. Both charges relate to incidents on April 25 on Exmoor. A spokesman for Avon and Somerset police said: "This is the first criminal prosecution in the country under the hunting act by a police force."

A spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports said yesterday: "At long last we are delighted to see the police fulfilling their responsibilities."

Exmoor is seen by many as England's "hunting playground". Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, said there was anger on Exmoor at the prosecution of Mr Scott, a stalwart of the farming community on the moor, and Mr Heard.

Read more here