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

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

A LOOK AT THE HUNTING ACT 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have the numbers of people hunting decreased?

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

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

The animal welfare argument

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

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

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

Prosecutions under the Act

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here

HUNTS BOOM AFTER BAN 'BACKFIRE'

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

HUNTING IS BOOMING ONE YEAR AFTER THE BAN

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

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

HUNTING ACT FULL OF HOLES, SAY MPs

Steve Dube, Western Mail


A GROUP of MPs has said the conviction of Exmoor huntsman Tony Wright under the Hunting Act will worsen animal welfare in a number of real-life scenarios in the countryside.

A survey commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group showed that more foxes are already being wounded since the Act came into force, and the group says the judgement will further jeopardise welfare.

Wright is appealing against his conviction, which was a private prosecution by the League Against Cruel Sports. The all party group's co-chairman, Montgomeryshire MP Lembit Opik, said a series of points arising from the case will compound the welfare difficulties inherent in the Hunting Act:

Why are only two hounds permitted to flush out an animal? In large areas of forestry it means that the chase, which the Hunting Act is supposed to prevent, will actually be longer.

Shooting ground game is different from shooting birds. There is a greater safety risk, as well as a wounding issue.

To prevent dogs from following their quarry during a flush, as the Judge said, will confuse them and affect their searching ability.

Why were "flushing", "cover" and "hunting" not properly defined in the Hunting Act? The Judge was, in effect, being asked to define these words when those parliamentarians supporting the Hunting Act could not.

Why did the Judge conclude that foxes found only in woodland could be "flushed out"? Foxes are found in a wide variety of countryside and indeed in towns. Was this a view promoted by the anti-hunting lobby to severely limit the areas in which even exempt hunting could take place?

Mr Opik said, "The Hunting Act was never about improving animal welfare - it was intended to hurt a specific group of people.

"Had better animal welfare been the aim, the Act would have been drafted to reflect this and provide clear definitions."

Read More Here