The Government has reiterated its intention to ban trail hunting.
I appreciate this is a very contentious issue, so I am going to write this piece entirely on the basis of the legislation as it currently stands.
It is now twenty years since the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004, which prohibits the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unless that hunting is exempt. The "unless that hunting is exempt" caveat covers a multitude of sins and it would be entirely accurate to say that even with the best will in the world, exempt hunting - e.g. using dogs to flush wild mammals from cover with the intention of shooting them - can rapidly and unintentionally evolve into unlawful activity.
I have previously discussed the 2004 Act in some detail. Quoting from my earlier article: "The legislation, as currently formulated, is difficult to enforce as there are a myriad of perfectly valid and plausible defences. If the Government wishes to retain the Act and have it applied in the spirit as originally intended, it might be an appropriate time to take another look at the wording.
"The court, remember, can only apply the legislation that is in force. Personal feelings and emotions should not feature."
As a result of the poorly drafted legislation prosecutions under the 2004 Act are actually very rare. In the year ending 30th June 2023 there were 46 prosecutions, of which only 14 resulted in a conviction. I have never been involved in such a prosecution.
Hunts have changed their practices in an effort to remain within the law. One way of achieving this is 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, make efforts to call the hounds off.
There is suggestion that some Hunts use trail hunting as a front for illegal hunting. In 2020 Mark Hankinson, then director of governing body the Masters of Fox Hounds Association (MFHA), was recorded apparently giving advice to members about the deployment of such a "smokescreen".
Speaking on a Zoom webinar, 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."
He added: "Trail hunting needs to be highly visible, it needs to be credible and those involved need to be robust when questioned."
Hankinson was convicted of intentionally encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence under the 2004 Act. However, he was cleared following an appeal at Southwark Crown Court, with the court accepting that the offending comments had actually been advice about what to do if lawful trail hunting was disrupted by saboteurs.
Despite Hankinson's conviction being set aside, the Government seems in little doubt about there being a more sinister side to trail hunting.
Earlier this week a DEFRA spokesman told the PA news agency: "We are committed to a ban on trail hunting, which is being exploited as a smokescreen to cruelly kill foxes and hares."
If we accept trail hunting at face value then we have a load of country folk, riding horses and quad bikes, exercising hounds and getting all excited about chasing a smelly rag across the fields.
They are using their horses, their quad bikes, their hounds, their smelly rag and their land in order to achieve this. If that is all they are doing, then they are doing so perfectly legally.
Is it right for the Government to take that away from them? Is it right for the Government to say "well actually you can't ride your horses and quad bikes over your fields, whilst exercising your hounds and chasing after a smelly rag"?
No comments:
Post a Comment