Law and Rights
The various Hunts came out on Boxing Day - BBC 26th December. Twitter came alive with comments that, if they have a majority after the 2015 general election, the Conservative Party would, at some stage, allow a free vote on whether the Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed.
The Act does not prevent hunting other that of wild animals with dogs and even that is lawful if carried out in accordance with the conditions of an exemption. Section 1 makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the hunting is exempt.
Exempt hunting is dealt with in Schedule 1. Perhaps the most interesting of the nine exemptions relates to Stalking and Flushing Out. Provided that 5 conditions are met, stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting. The third condition limits to a maximum of two the number of dogs used in stalking or flushing out. The fifth condition requires the animal stalked or flushed out to be shot dead by a competent person in the event that the stalking / flushing out is successful.
Section 4 creates a defence where the defendant shows that he reasonably believed that the hunting was exempt. Section 3 creates offences of assisting hunting - for example, by knowingly permitting the use of land. Note - read section 3 in conjunction with section 11(3). The penalty for an offence under the Act is a Level 5 fine and the offences are summary (i.e. triable by the Magistrates' Court).
One interesting fact about the Hunting Act 2004 is that it was enacted using the Parliament Acts 1911-49. This led to an interesting challenge heard in the House of Lords - Jackson v Attorney-General [2005] UKHL 56 where it was argued that the Hunting Act 2004 was legally invalid because the Parliament Act 1949 was also invalid having been enacted using the Parliament Act 1911 which did not permit an Act such as that of 1949 to be enacted without the consent of the House of Lords (as a legislative body). This ingenious argument was rejected.
Crown Prosecution Service information on the Hunting Act 2004 states:
"The issue of hunting is a contentious one and this was reflected in the debates during the passage of the legislation through Parliament. Prosecutors review all cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. This is the Full Code Test which is applied to offences under this Act."
A number of prosecutions brought under the Act are referred to in this Wikipedia entry.
The relevant - (and different) - Scottish legislation is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. See the archived material on the older website of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
There is no doubt that the Hunting Act 2004 is controversial but, for all the problems inherent in the legislation and with enforcement, it currently represents the law on the subject. The present coalition government had a similar plan to offer a free vote in the House of Commons on this matter. For political reasons, the vote has not taken place to date. One wonders whether a future similar promise will meet a similar fate?
Case law:
DPP v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin) where the Administrative Court gave a restrictive interpretation to the Act ruling that the term 'hunts' under the Act does not include the mere searching for an as yet unidentified wild mammal. Hence once a hunt begins, only a person who engages or participates in the pursuit of an 'identified' wild mammal is guilty of an offence.
- 2010 International Whaling Comission Conference
The International Whaling Commission (IWC), an international commission currently consisting of 88 member nations, was established under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) in 1946 to regulate "whaling" (the hunting of whales)...
- Just Wondering ... Sentencing Of Justin Lee Collins
The Guardian asked - "Why did Justin Lee Collins get such a lenient sentence?" Justin Lee Collins - a comedian and TV presenter - was sentenced to 140 hours unpaid work in respect of an offence involving harassment of Anna Larke with...
- The Supreme Court And Its President: Some Interesting Issues For The Future
UK Supreme Court, LondonOn Monday 10th October, Joshua Rozenberg wrote an article published in The Guardian - "Nine men, a Lady and the Master." The article asked who would replace Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers as President of the Supreme Court. ...
- New Year 2011 - What Lies Ahead And A Toast To Health And Peace
2011 is with us. What will it bring? One of the fascinations of law is that we do not entirely know but the year began in very difficult economic circumstances. Sound management of the economy is now crucial and it is interesting that,...
- New Code For Crown Prosecutors
A new Code for Crown Prosecutors came into force 22nd February 2010. The Code is made by virtue of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 s.10. On this occasion it has been issued in 12 languages. The two-stage test has been retained: 1] Is...
Law and Rights
Riding to Hounds ~ the Hunting Act 2004
The Act does not prevent hunting other that of wild animals with dogs and even that is lawful if carried out in accordance with the conditions of an exemption. Section 1 makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the hunting is exempt.
Exempt hunting is dealt with in Schedule 1. Perhaps the most interesting of the nine exemptions relates to Stalking and Flushing Out. Provided that 5 conditions are met, stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting. The third condition limits to a maximum of two the number of dogs used in stalking or flushing out. The fifth condition requires the animal stalked or flushed out to be shot dead by a competent person in the event that the stalking / flushing out is successful.
Section 4 creates a defence where the defendant shows that he reasonably believed that the hunting was exempt. Section 3 creates offences of assisting hunting - for example, by knowingly permitting the use of land. Note - read section 3 in conjunction with section 11(3). The penalty for an offence under the Act is a Level 5 fine and the offences are summary (i.e. triable by the Magistrates' Court).
One interesting fact about the Hunting Act 2004 is that it was enacted using the Parliament Acts 1911-49. This led to an interesting challenge heard in the House of Lords - Jackson v Attorney-General [2005] UKHL 56 where it was argued that the Hunting Act 2004 was legally invalid because the Parliament Act 1949 was also invalid having been enacted using the Parliament Act 1911 which did not permit an Act such as that of 1949 to be enacted without the consent of the House of Lords (as a legislative body). This ingenious argument was rejected.
Crown Prosecution Service information on the Hunting Act 2004 states:
"The issue of hunting is a contentious one and this was reflected in the debates during the passage of the legislation through Parliament. Prosecutors review all cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. This is the Full Code Test which is applied to offences under this Act."
A number of prosecutions brought under the Act are referred to in this Wikipedia entry.
The relevant - (and different) - Scottish legislation is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. See the archived material on the older website of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
There is no doubt that the Hunting Act 2004 is controversial but, for all the problems inherent in the legislation and with enforcement, it currently represents the law on the subject. The present coalition government had a similar plan to offer a free vote in the House of Commons on this matter. For political reasons, the vote has not taken place to date. One wonders whether a future similar promise will meet a similar fate?
Case law:
DPP v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin) where the Administrative Court gave a restrictive interpretation to the Act ruling that the term 'hunts' under the Act does not include the mere searching for an as yet unidentified wild mammal. Hence once a hunt begins, only a person who engages or participates in the pursuit of an 'identified' wild mammal is guilty of an offence.
- 2010 International Whaling Comission Conference
The International Whaling Commission (IWC), an international commission currently consisting of 88 member nations, was established under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) in 1946 to regulate "whaling" (the hunting of whales)...
- Just Wondering ... Sentencing Of Justin Lee Collins
The Guardian asked - "Why did Justin Lee Collins get such a lenient sentence?" Justin Lee Collins - a comedian and TV presenter - was sentenced to 140 hours unpaid work in respect of an offence involving harassment of Anna Larke with...
- The Supreme Court And Its President: Some Interesting Issues For The Future
UK Supreme Court, LondonOn Monday 10th October, Joshua Rozenberg wrote an article published in The Guardian - "Nine men, a Lady and the Master." The article asked who would replace Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers as President of the Supreme Court. ...
- New Year 2011 - What Lies Ahead And A Toast To Health And Peace
2011 is with us. What will it bring? One of the fascinations of law is that we do not entirely know but the year began in very difficult economic circumstances. Sound management of the economy is now crucial and it is interesting that,...
- New Code For Crown Prosecutors
A new Code for Crown Prosecutors came into force 22nd February 2010. The Code is made by virtue of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 s.10. On this occasion it has been issued in 12 languages. The two-stage test has been retained: 1] Is...