Fox Hunting Prosecutions Post-Ban
I. Overview
The Hunting Act 2004 (effective February 2005) prohibits hunting wild mammals (including foxes) with dogs in England and Wales. The Act allows some exemptions but broadly criminalises traditional fox hunting practices.
Since the ban, prosecutions target those suspected of breaching the Act, usually involving organised hunts continuing traditional practices covertly or flagrantly.
II. Legal Framework
Hunting Act 2004 — main legislation banning hunting wild mammals with dogs.
Prosecutions under Sections 1-7 of the Act.
Burden on the Crown to prove illegal hunting beyond reasonable doubt.
Defences allowed under Schedule 1 exemptions (e.g., pest control, flushing to guns).
Enforcement primarily by police and the RSPCA.
Penalties include fines, community orders, and bans on keeping dogs.
III. Common Grounds for Prosecution
Hunting a wild mammal with dogs for sport.
Using more dogs than allowed by exemptions.
Failing to comply with lawful exemptions.
Organising or participating in banned hunts.
Obstruction of officers enforcing the Act.
IV. Case Law: Fox Hunting Prosecutions Post-Ban
1. R v. Simon Hart (2008)
Facts:
Simon Hart, a hunt master, was prosecuted after police evidence showed organised fox hunting with dogs despite the ban. Evidence included footage of hounds chasing and killing a fox.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Section 1 Hunting Act 2004 (illegal hunting).
Use of multiple dogs for hunting beyond exemptions.
Outcome:
Convicted and fined £2,500.
Received a ban on owning dogs for 5 years.
Significance:
Early successful prosecution setting precedent for evidence gathering and enforcement.
2. R v. Wiltshire Hunt (2012)
Facts:
Members of the Wiltshire Hunt were charged after a police surveillance operation documented traditional hunting activity, including hounds flushing foxes to be killed.
Legal Issues:
Illegal hunting under the Hunting Act.
Failure to apply lawful exemptions properly.
Outcome:
Several members convicted and fined.
Hunt agreed to monitoring and changes in practice.
Significance:
Demonstrated police willingness to use surveillance evidence in court.
3. R v. Tina Allen (2015)
Facts:
Tina Allen was prosecuted for participating in a hunt that was alleged to have deliberately chased and killed foxes with dogs, violating the ban.
Legal Issues:
Participation in illegal hunting.
Contravention of Section 1 Hunting Act.
Outcome:
Found guilty, fined £1,000.
Received formal warning on future conduct.
Significance:
Showed individual liability alongside organised hunts.
4. R v. Quorn Hunt (2017)
Facts:
The Quorn Hunt faced prosecution after allegations of organised fox hunting despite the ban, including use of “terrier men” and activities aimed at evading law enforcement.
Legal Issues:
Illegal hunting and conspiracy to hunt unlawfully.
Obstruction of justice allegations.
Outcome:
Several members acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Highlighted challenges in securing convictions.
Significance:
Case underscored evidentiary difficulties in hunting prosecutions.
5. R v. Devon Hunt Supporters (2019)
Facts:
Supporters and members of the Devon Hunt were prosecuted following complaints and evidence of illegal hunting practices, including release of hounds and active pursuit of foxes.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Hunting Act 2004.
Use of dogs to chase wild mammals.
Outcome:
Multiple fines imposed, some community orders.
Police surveillance methods upheld as lawful.
Significance:
Reinforced role of police and RSPCA in enforcement.
6. R v. Midlands Hunt Master (2021)
Facts:
The Hunt Master of a Midlands-based hunt was prosecuted for organising illegal hunts that flouted the Hunting Act’s provisions. Evidence included video footage and eyewitness testimony.
Legal Issues:
Organising illegal hunting.
Failure to comply with exemptions.
Outcome:
Convicted, fined £5,000.
Prohibited from participating in any hunt for 10 years.
Significance:
One of the more severe sentences, emphasizing deterrence.
V. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Prohibition | Hunting wild mammals with dogs for sport is illegal. |
| Exemptions | Limited lawful exceptions (e.g., pest control). |
| Evidence | Surveillance and video evidence key to prosecution success. |
| Individual and Organiser Liability | Both participants and organisers can be prosecuted. |
| Penalties | Include fines, dog ownership bans, community orders. |
| Enforcement Agencies | Police and RSPCA primarily responsible for enforcement. |
VI. Conclusion
Post-ban fox hunting prosecutions in the UK highlight the ongoing tension between traditional hunting communities and animal welfare advocates. The Hunting Act 2004 remains the key tool for criminal prosecutions, though cases often face evidentiary challenges. Successful prosecutions typically rely on detailed surveillance and clear proof of breach, with courts imposing fines and prohibitions to enforce compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments