A national hunt leader has been convicted of giving a webinar of more than 100 hunters tit-bits of advice on how to conceal the illicit, intentional hunting of foxes.
Mark Hankinson, 60, of Frampton Farm, Sherborne, Dorset, was convicted of intentionally encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence following a trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday, 15th October 2021.
It is an offence under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 for a person to do any act with the intention that it encourages or assists in the commission of another offence. The maximum penalty is an unlimited fine on summary conviction.
In this case Hankinson was accused of encouraging and assisting the commission of offences under the Hunting Act 2004. You can read a lot more about the Hunting Act 2004 in our earlier article on the subject. In the briefest terms, it is an offence to intentionally hunt a fox with dogs. To stay within the law Hunts (claim to) lay an artificial scent trail, which the hounds can pursue as an alternative to a fox. This is known as trail hunting. The trail is laid by a person (the trail layer) walking (or riding) the intended route of the hunt, dragging a scented rag along the ground as they go.
No offence is committed if the hounds take after a fox that coincidentally strays onto the trail, as long as the hunters are unaware that the fox is being chased or, if they are aware, they make efforts to call the hounds off.
District Judge Tan Ikram, the Deputy Chief Magistrate, heard that Hankinson, the director of governing body the Masters of Fox Hounds Association (MFHA), committed the offence during his participation in two Zoom webinars back on 11th and 13th August 2020.
Footage of the webinars, which audience members were told "to keep between ourselves", was obtained by anti-hunt campaign group Stop The Cull. Stop The Cull approached the League Against Cruel Sports for advice. The League passed the footage to an ITV News reporter, but legal concerns meant they were wary about publishing it. In the meantime a second anti-hunt campaign group, the Hunt Saboteurs Association, released footage of the webinars publicly.
Once the footage was in the public domain the League made a formal complaint to Devon and Cornwall Police, which began an investigation into possible offences committed during the webinars. Hankinson's prosecution was a result of that investigation.
Some of Hankinson's comments in the webinar gave the impression that he was encouraging the staged use of trail hunting as a disguise - or "smokescreen" as he called it - for illegal fox hunting.
In one of the webinars, Hankinson said: "We need to have clear, visible, plausible trail laying being done throughout the day.
"It's a lot easier to create a smokescreen if you've got more than one trail layer operating, and that is what it's all about, trying to portray to the people watching that you're going about your legitimate business."
Hankinson added: "Trail hunting needs to be highly visible, it needs to be credible and those involved need to be robust when questioned."
He went on to describe how Hunts should obtain "credible and robust" evidence to support the idea that a trail had been laid and help refute any subsequent allegations of illegal hunting.
Hankinson suggested that trail layers should be of sufficient calibre to stand in court and give a credible account of how the trail was laid.
Tellingly, Hankinson said the following: "So coming back to the sort of modus operandi of the day. The trail layers: In my view, you need to have at least one trail layer out there, particularly if you've got the presence of undesirables."
For his part Hankinson maintained the webinars were about the practicalities of legitimate trail hunting. He denied his comments were encouraging or condoning the illegal hunting of foxes with hounds.
However, having pored over Hankinson's words very carefully the Judge was of the opinion that he had indeed been encouraging the use of trail hunting as a guise to cover illegal hunting.
Judge Ikram said: "In my judgment he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as a cover for old-fashioned hunting,
"Perhaps most incriminating was the advice that trail laying had to be as 'plausible' as possible. There would be no need to suggest that [a trail layer] was needed unless it was a sham or a smokescreen."
The Judge added: "As he himself said, he was speaking to 'like-minded people' and could therefore speak freely. He did not expect his words to be recorded and released into the public domain.
"It was clearly advice and encouragement to commit the offence of hunting a wild mammal with a dog. I am sure he intended to encourage the commission of that offence."
Hankinson, who has no previous convictions, was fined £1,000.
He was also ordered to pay £2,500 towards prosecution costs and £100 surcharge.
Speaking after the verdict Chris Luffingham, the League's director of campaigns, said: "This means the edifice of respectability that the hunting community has carefully constructed around trail hunting has been completely smashed to pieces.
"Trail hunting is nothing but a fiction. We have been saying this for years and now it's truly gratifying that the truth has come out in court. Any excuse of the use of trail hunting in the future is not worth the paper it's written on."
Prior to this case I was indifferent on the subject of hunting. I have never sat on a case involving the Hunting Act 2004. I live in a fairly rural area with several Hunts nearby, but I do not know anyone actively involved in hunting. Being of a fairly libertarian mindset, my attitude was always "well if they want to dress up, blow horns and ride horses around the countryside then that's their business" - as long, of course, they were complying with the legislation in force.
My opinion has now changed and not for the better. I find it quite worrying that 17 years after the Hunting Act 2004 came into force, an organisation that represents virtually every Hunt in Britain, the MFHA, is colluding with its members in an effort to cover up any instances of their illegal wrongdoing.
Next time I see the Hunt, it will always be at the back of my mind that perhaps they aren't following the legislation. Perhaps they are going out with the full intention of having their hounds kill a fox.
Update (20/7/22): Mark Hankinson has appealed his conviction. Read the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment