Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
This article was printed in a legal magazine. Not sure which one. I got it from one of my LACS contacts.
Deliberate challenges to hunting law
Summary
Following the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring
charges against George Morrison, who turned himself in after his dog
killed a mouse and a mole, Christopher Price tells Debbie Legal why
such deliberate challenges to the Hunting Act are irrelevant to the
authorities
Full Text
Retired police officer and secretary of Border Hunt, George Morrison
reported himself to the police when his dog flushed a mole from behind a
horse trailer and swiftly killed it in June last year. Two months later,
he again turned himself in when the same dog chased a mouse from behind
the washing machine in his home before killing it. Morrison's aim, on
both occasions was to demonstrate that the Hunting Act 2004 was a
'ridiculous law'.
Neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service brought proceedings
against him, even though he has, according to Christopher Price, a
solicitor at Country Land & Business Association, 'committed an offence
under the Hunting Act' by hunting a mouse and a mole. The reason,
explains Price is that 'The Act makes it an offence to hunt any wild
mammal unless the hunter shows he reasonably believed that his hunting
was exempt', and Morrison did not suggest this was the case.
Price explains that the exemptions 'fall into two broad categories:
those that are concerned with the species which is being hunted, and
those which are concerned with the motivation of the hunter'. In other
words, the hunting of rats and rabbits is exempt hunting, if the consent
of the occupier of the land where it takes place is sought, but the
hunting of mice and moles is not. The hunting will also be exempt if it
is done 'for one or more specified purposes'.
According to Price, 'the motivation of the accused is irrelevant when
assessing the welfare implications of his acts; what matters is the
effect on the animal', but the Act makes no reference to this issue and
is therefore irrelevant in animal welfare terms. Price believes that 'it
is presumably this absence of any element of harm that has led to the
reluctance of the prosecuting authorities to take action in respect of
even the most blatant breaches of the Act, such as Mr Morrison's.'
Price reveals that to date, there has been only one instance of a
prosecution under the Hunting Act, and it 'does not appear to have
involved a fox being harmed at all, in fact it seems to have escaped
unscathed', although in this case the conduct was 'of the type generally
associated with "traditional" hunting.'
Morrison is just one of many who have 'set out to deliberately challenge
the police or the League Against Cruel Sports to bring a prosecution'
explains Price. Giles Bradshaw, a North Devon farmer for example is
troubled by deer damaging his land. He uses dogs to flush out the deer
but his hunting is not exempt under the Act because he refuses to use no
more than two dogs for the flushing out, and does not shoot the deer as
soon as possible after they have been found or flushed out. Bradshaw has
recently upped the ante; he has 'taken to hunting on the League Against
Cruel Sports deer sanctuary in the hope of getting himself prosecuted.'
Relevant Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Published Date
08 September 2006
Deliberate challenges to hunting law
Summary
Following the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring
charges against George Morrison, who turned himself in after his dog
killed a mouse and a mole, Christopher Price tells Debbie Legal why
such deliberate challenges to the Hunting Act are irrelevant to the
authorities
Full Text
Retired police officer and secretary of Border Hunt, George Morrison
reported himself to the police when his dog flushed a mole from behind a
horse trailer and swiftly killed it in June last year. Two months later,
he again turned himself in when the same dog chased a mouse from behind
the washing machine in his home before killing it. Morrison's aim, on
both occasions was to demonstrate that the Hunting Act 2004 was a
'ridiculous law'.
Neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service brought proceedings
against him, even though he has, according to Christopher Price, a
solicitor at Country Land & Business Association, 'committed an offence
under the Hunting Act' by hunting a mouse and a mole. The reason,
explains Price is that 'The Act makes it an offence to hunt any wild
mammal unless the hunter shows he reasonably believed that his hunting
was exempt', and Morrison did not suggest this was the case.
Price explains that the exemptions 'fall into two broad categories:
those that are concerned with the species which is being hunted, and
those which are concerned with the motivation of the hunter'. In other
words, the hunting of rats and rabbits is exempt hunting, if the consent
of the occupier of the land where it takes place is sought, but the
hunting of mice and moles is not. The hunting will also be exempt if it
is done 'for one or more specified purposes'.
According to Price, 'the motivation of the accused is irrelevant when
assessing the welfare implications of his acts; what matters is the
effect on the animal', but the Act makes no reference to this issue and
is therefore irrelevant in animal welfare terms. Price believes that 'it
is presumably this absence of any element of harm that has led to the
reluctance of the prosecuting authorities to take action in respect of
even the most blatant breaches of the Act, such as Mr Morrison's.'
Price reveals that to date, there has been only one instance of a
prosecution under the Hunting Act, and it 'does not appear to have
involved a fox being harmed at all, in fact it seems to have escaped
unscathed', although in this case the conduct was 'of the type generally
associated with "traditional" hunting.'
Morrison is just one of many who have 'set out to deliberately challenge
the police or the League Against Cruel Sports to bring a prosecution'
explains Price. Giles Bradshaw, a North Devon farmer for example is
troubled by deer damaging his land. He uses dogs to flush out the deer
but his hunting is not exempt under the Act because he refuses to use no
more than two dogs for the flushing out, and does not shoot the deer as
soon as possible after they have been found or flushed out. Bradshaw has
recently upped the ante; he has 'taken to hunting on the League Against
Cruel Sports deer sanctuary in the hope of getting himself prosecuted.'
Relevant Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Published Date
08 September 2006