Hunt Act - Criminal Assistance

[Judgemental]

Out of academic interest does anybody know if a landowner or farmer has ever been charged, cautioned or indeed found guilty under Section 2 of the Hunting 2004, i.e. knowingly permitting a hunt to hunt illegally.

Hunting: assistance
(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1..

This is an interesting point, the wording of the act says as above, "A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him".

Does that mean a tenant farmer cannot be held liable? In other words he can knowingly let somebody hunt illegally but not be charged because he does not own the land.

That also begs the question, if land is owned by a trust, with multiple trustees, as is often the case and one knowingly permits illegal hunting, does that incriminate all the others?

 

[Judgemental]

Out of academic interest does anybody know if a landowner or farmer has ever been charged, cautioned or indeed found guilty under Section 2 of the Hunting 2004, i.e. knowingly permitting a hunt to hunt illegally.

Hunting: assistance
(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1..

This is an interesting point, the wording of the act says as above, "A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him".

Does that mean a tenant farmer cannot be held liable? In other words he can knowingly let somebody hunt illegally but not be charged because he does not own the land.

That also begs the question, if land is owned by a trust, with multiple trustees, as is often the case and one knowingly permits illegal hunting, does that incriminate all the others?

At the time of posting there have been 80 views and no postings, that is not surprising given that to my knowledge, there have been no prosecutions, cautions etc under the Hunting Act 2004, so far as Landowners are concerned.

What is surprising, is that the ladies of this forum have remained remarkably silent.

None have commented that the Act is exclusively in the masculine.

The statute seemingly does not make it an offence for a female to have committed any offence under the act, because reference is always exclusively to HE throughout the Act!

It is surprising, bearing in mind the Labour Party's avid and obsessive subservience to The Equality Act 2010.

 

[irish_only]

Do you think we girls should contact all the supportive farmers and see if they would like to gift the land to us

 

[JanetGeorge]

I believe tenant farmers were not mentioned because:

1. last time Labour tried to stop hunting on tenanted land it got the into ALL sorts of legal bother; and/or

2. Labour thought it had sold off all the tenanted farms owned by Local Authorities;

and/or

3. Tenant farmers are poor, down-trodden victims of wealthy Tory landlords!

In practical terms, prosecuting a landowner would be FAR more difficult than prosecuting a huntsman (and they haven't had much joy with that!) After all, first you'd have to prove there WAS illegal hunting (by successfully prosecuting the huntsman) and then that the landowner KNEW!

 

[Judgemental]

I believe tenant farmers were not mentioned because:

1. last time Labour tried to stop hunting on tenanted land it got the into ALL sorts of legal bother; and/or

2. Labour thought it had sold off all the tenanted farms owned by Local Authorities;

and/or

3. Tenant farmers are poor, down-trodden victims of wealthy Tory landlords!

In practical terms, prosecuting a landowner would be FAR more difficult than prosecuting a huntsman (and they haven't had much joy with that!) After all, first you'd have to prove there WAS illegal hunting (by successfully prosecuting the huntsman) and then that the landowner KNEW!

Mrs George good morning, always a pleasure when you respond to one of my posts.

"(by successfully prosecuting the huntsman)" - I have quoted you above, do you then concur with my view that legally, the Hunting Act 2004 does include ladies or huntswomen?

Moreover huntswomen hunting over tenanted land, with the permission of the tenant?

 

[Judgemental]

Do you think we girls should contact all the supportive farmers and see if they would like to gift the land to us

Irish_only this is a very interesting subject, as are the legal implications.

Could a court convict a lady for hunting live quarry? The Hunting Act 2004 does not mention anything in the feminine.

I don't believe any lady huntswomen have been cautioned or charged with illegal hunting.

Of course this could be dealt with by Statutory Instrument but then at the same time, so could a host of other amendments, such as Section 8.

 

[irish_only]

Out of academic interest does anybody know if a landowner or farmer has ever been charged, cautioned or indeed found guilty under Section 2 of the Hunting 2004, i.e. knowingly permitting a hunt to hunt illegally.

Hunting: assistance
(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1..

This is an interesting point, the wording of the act says as above, "A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him".

Does that mean a tenant farmer cannot be held liable? In other words he can knowingly let somebody hunt illegally but not be charged because he does not own the land.

That also begs the question, if land is owned by a trust, with multiple trustees, as is often the case and one knowingly permits illegal hunting, does that incriminate all the others?

Interestingly, I remembered today that one farm that was always a very good meet, post ban we were no longer allowed on. The reason? The farm is tenanted and the landlord forbade it. The Landlords wife, however, continues to hunt with another pack.

 

[Alec Swan]

Interestingly, I remembered today that one farm that was always a very good meet, post ban we were no longer allowed on. The reason? The farm is tenanted and the landlord forbade it. The Landlords wife, however, continues to hunt with another pack.

That's a bit odd, and perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye! As a tenant farmer, and I've checked my most recent tenancy agreement, dated 1926! there is no mention of hunting. It is, however, my understanding that more recent tenancy agreements forbid any act where the question of legality may crop up.

As a tenant farmer, I have the ability to self-authourise my own grant for the use of firearms, so presumably, I also have the right to allow others to ride over my land. Should they be given permission to hunt within the law, but then choose to do otherwise, I fail to see how that could be my responsibility.

J_M, I suspect that a court would view the word Huntsman, or 'men, and would be construed as being a homo sapien, as in sexless!! (God forbid that we are!)

Alec.

 

[irish_only]

Alec, the tenants were always hugely supportive. Landlord is a bigwig in the forces.

 

[JanetGeorge]

"(by successfully prosecuting the huntsman)" - I have quoted you above, do you then concur with my view that legally, the Hunting Act 2004 does include ladies or huntswomen?

Of course it includes women, be the Masters or huntsman, or hunt followers. VERY few laws specifically spell out that the law applies to both men and women!

Alec, the tenants were always hugely supportive. Landlord is a bigwig in the forces.

That would explain it. There was a certain amount of worry at the time the Hunt ban was enacted that landowners could be prosecuted. In many walks of life, a criminal conviction is the end of a career! Our hunt got around it by getting a 'permission form' signed which specified that the hunt must always ONLY hunt within the law on that landowner's property (whatever it did elsewhere!)

 

[Judgemental]

Of course it includes women, be the Masters or huntsman, or hunt followers. VERY few laws specifically spell out that the law applies to both men and women!

Or so one would think.........

Would the CPS really want to test this one before a Crown Court, with really good Counsel and with the potential to go to the Court of Appeal.

My sources tell me that the Police would be very reluctant to charge or indeed caution a female under the Hunting Act 2004. Especially in the light of the Equality Act 2010.

In order for a Judgement of guilty to be sustained against a female, the Hunting Act 2004 should have included the female of the gender, because there are Huntsmen and Huntswomen.

 

[Herne]

Out of academic interest does anybody know if a landowner or farmer has ever been charged, cautioned or indeed found guilty under Section 2 of the Hunting 2004, i.e. knowingly permitting a hunt to hunt illegally.

I am not aware of it having happened, but I could not swear that it hasn’t.

This is an interesting point, the wording of the act says as above, "A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him".

Does that mean a tenant farmer cannot be held liable? In other words he can knowingly let somebody hunt illegally but not be charged because he does not own the land.

No. You need to read a bit further on.

Section 11, Interpretation. Subsection 2.

For the purposes of this Act, land belongs to a person if he-

(a) owns an interest in it.

(b) manages or controls it, or

(c) occupies it.

That also begs the question, if land is owned by a trust, with multiple trustees, as is often the case and one knowingly permits illegal hunting, does that incriminate all the others?

No. The key is in the word “knowingly”. The one(s) that knew might be liable, the one(s) that didn’t wouldn’t.

What is surprising, is that the ladies of this forum have remained remarkably silent.

None have commented that the Act is exclusively in the masculine.

The statute seemingly does not make it an offence for a female to have committed any offence under the act, because reference is always exclusively to HE throughout the Act!

Unfortunately, JM, this is another case where you have not singlehandedly managed to spot the glaringly obvious mistake that all others have failed to see.

Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978

6. Gender and number.

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;
(c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.


It’s pretty logical, really. If every Act of Parliament had to faff around with he/she/it/they on every occasion when they were used in every single clause, then they would all become even more helplessly cumbersome than they are now.

So, He means She as well in all clauses of all Acts, unless the clause specifically sets out that it only refers to one gender.

I’m petty sure that there is also more recent legislation covering the inclusion of transgender, cross-gender, hermaphrodites etc.

In practical terms, prosecuting a landowner would be FAR more difficult than prosecuting a huntsman (and they haven't had much joy with that!) After all, first you'd have to prove there WAS illegal hunting (by successfully prosecuting the huntsman) and then that the landowner KNEW!

Correct.

Of course this could be dealt with by Statutory Instrument but then at the same time, so could a host of other amendments, such as Section 8.

No, it could not. We have been here before…

Under Section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004, the only changes to it that are enabled to be made by Statutory Instrument would be to vary classes of Exempt Hunting contained in Schedule 1.

That's a bit odd, and perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye! As a tenant farmer, and I've checked my most recent tenancy agreement, dated 1926! there is no mention of hunting. It is, however, my understanding that more recent tenancy agreements forbid any act where the question of legality may crop up.

Hunting is most usually counted under Sporting Rights in tenancy agreements.

Generally speaking, if the landlord withholds the sporting or hunting rights then he can prevent the Tenant from allowing the hunt to enter. If he doesn’t, he can't.

For the purposes of the above paragraph, words importing the masculine gender include the feminine

Or so one would think.........

Would the CPS really want to test this one before a Crown Court, with really good Counsel and with the potential to go to the Court of Appeal.

My sources tell me that the Police would be very reluctant to charge or indeed caution a female under the Hunting Act 2004. Especially in the light of the Equality Act 2010.

In order for a Judgement of guilty to be sustained against a female, the Hunting Act 2004 should have included the female of the gender, because there are Huntsmen and Huntswomen.

I am afraid you need to sack your sources. See Interpretation Act 1978 above.

Mrs George good morning, always a pleasure when you respond to one of my posts.

What about when I do...?

 

[Judgemental]

What about when I do...?

~~~yawn~~~

 

[Herne]

?

I presumed that if you asked the question, it was because you wanted to know the answer...

 

[JanetGeorge]

?

I presumed that if you asked the question, it was because you wanted to know the answer...

You misunderstand JM, Herne! When he poses a 'question' it is usually phrased so people can agree with him - not tell him why he's wrong!

 

[Judgemental]

You misunderstand JM, Herne! When he poses a 'question' it is usually phrased so people can agree with him - not tell him why he's wrong!

You kindly answered my question concerning the issue of tenants and landowners.

As for ladies and the Hunting Act that is, I have to admit, a small dalliance on my part.

I am very gentle with Herne but he needs to understand, that where I the hunted quarry and he was a hound, he would have problems when hunting a fox because in actual fact I might be a Roe deer or indeed perhaps a hare.

Better not take him fishing; otherwise he might think I am a red herring, poor sole.

 

[Herne]

You misunderstand JM, Herne! When he poses a 'question' it is usually phrased so people can agree with him - not tell him why he's wrong!

It is interesting that it is seemingly ok for him to liken me to a hound hunting riot, but when I likened him to a hound speaking on a false line it was decried as an insult...

 

[JanetGeorge]

It is interesting that it is seemingly ok for him to liken me to a hound hunting riot, but when I likened him to a hound speaking on a false line it was decried as an insult...

One suspects that JM doesn't know quite enough about hunting to understand how similar the two 'sins' are! Or else it's one rule for JM - and another for everyone else!!

 

[Hunters]

One suspects that JM doesn't know quite enough about hunting to understand how similar the two 'sins' are! Or else it's one rule for JM - and another for everyone else!!

JanetGeorge = I'm with you & also thought that Herne's explanation very self explanatory & logical in the law sense.