Government must act to uphold the will of the people and strengthen the Hunting Act
The reason the Hunting Act contains loop-holes big enough to drive a pack hounds
through, is firstly because of Tony Blair's seven year prevarication
over his 1997 manifesto commitment, secondly the Home Office refusal to agree to
the inclusion of a proper definition of 'hunting with dogs', and finally the
House of Lord's abdication of its role of scrutiny and improvement of the Bill
because the majority of its members objected to the principle of banning the
hunting of wild animals for sport. The Hunting Act now needs strengthening so
that it does exactly what it says on the can.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The Hunting Act is in place. Don't we just need it to be enforced?
Four years since the ban came into
force, it is absolutely clear that hunts are continuing to send their
hounds into cover where they know or ought to know wild mammals will
be found. Whenever they are caught chasing a fox or hare, they
inevitably say they were "trail hunting", and the pursuit was an
"accident". This situation must be rectified. The
insertion of a reckless behaviour clause into the Act would mean that the
claim of an "accident" could no longer be used, as hunters would be
guilty of an offence if they "caused or permitted" their hounds to
chase live quarry.
Would a reckless clause mean that all dog owners would be at risk of
prosecution?
No because the reckless behaviour
clause will only apply to persons who, 'while in charge of a pack of dogs used for the purpose of
simulating the hunting of a wild mammal, causes or permits those dogs to
chase, injure or kill a wild mammal of a species which he knows or ought to
know is likely to be found and chased, injured or killed by those dogs at that
location’. Responsible dog owners would
have no need to fear the law.
Would the addition of a reckless behaviour clause to the
Hunting Act be sufficient?
It is also necessary to close the
loopholes currently being exploited by hunters.
The Gamekeepers exemption is being used
as a cloak for terriermen to continue to operate within foxhunts as they always
have.
The Falconers exemption is being exploited
by fox hunters as it does not limit the number of dogs which may be
used to flush quarry to a bird of prey. During the cubhunting season,
when packs of hounds are traditionally held
in a cover and trained to kill fox cubs, foxhunts now take
out a bird of prey, and claim, if challenged, that the hounds are flushing
foxes from the cover to the bird of prey. In the opinion of hunt monitors, this
is utterly false and the birds are incapable of killing a fox. The
falconers themselves strongly object to what the hunters are doing, and they
also wish to see this loophole closed.
Also the exemptions which allow the retrieval of a shot hare and
the hunting of rats or rabbits are being exploited by beagle
packs because there is no limit on the number of dogs which
may be used for these activities. Hunts suspected of using an
entire pack of beagles for illegal hare
hunting simply claim to be operating under one or other of these
exemptions whilst mink hunts claim their packs are hunting rats.
(see 'At a Glance Guide', http://www.powa.org.uk/glance.html
for details of proposed amendments)
Where is the evidence of widespread law breaking by the hunts?
Hunt monitors and members of the public have made a considerable number
of complaints to the police of illegal hunting which they have witnessed and
filmed. The overwhelming majority of these have been rejected, sometimes
in the early stages by the police, sometimes by the Crown Prosecution Service
after the police have gone to considerable trouble compiling the evidence.
The issue always comes back to proving "intent", when the
hunters have claimed an accident. The level of evidence currently being demanded to satisfy the needs of the Act are almost
impossible to achieve.
Doesn't a call to strengthen the Act
just play into the hands of the hunters?
On the contrary. The thing that the hunters
fear the most is a strengthening of the Act. This is illustrated by the
words of pro-hunt Conservative MP David Maclean, when addressing
the crowd at the Peterborough Festival of Hunting in 2007. Mr Maclean
said "'This law will be toughened up if Labour wins another election.
It is essential that we get political and help Vote OK to get the pro-hunting
MPs into parliament.'
Do the public wish to see the Act strengthened?
Polls consistently show that the
general public remain overwhelmingly in favour of hunting being prohibited and
also that this opinion is shared by the majority in rural areas. The
public are aware of the level of lawbreaking currently taking place,
and a poll conducted by the Exeter Express & Echo on 15th
January 2009 asking if the Hunting Act should be strengthened resulted in a
vote of 86% in favour of strengthening, and only
14% against.
Won't the police use the assertion that the Act is currently too weak as
an excuse not to bother to enforce the ban?
Police officers who have been working
closely on the hunting issue have agreed to meet with John McDonnell
MP and explain how a strengthening of the Act, as suggested by POWA, would make
their job far easier, and aid enforcement considerably.
At the present time public money is being wasted,
as police officers work hard compiling evidence of illegal hunting, only to
have the cases come to nothing as the CPS reject them on the grounds of the
difficulty of proving "intent". A stronger Act would aid both
police and Crown Prosecution lawyers in getting illegal hunting successfully
prosecuted.
The police are also concerned about the safety of
hunt monitors who try and gather evidence of illegal hunting, and who suffer
verbal and physical abuse from hunt supporters. A more clear cut law with
less onerously demanding levels of evidence being required (i.e. which is
needed at present to try and show actual "intent") would mean the
monitors would be in a less dangerous position.
POWA's legal advisor has carefully considered and endorsed the
proposed amendments and fully supports POWA's contention
that these five simple changes to the Hunting Act will help strengthen
the current legislation and make it far easier to enforce.
(See 'At a Glance Guide', http://www.powa.org.uk/glance.html )
Will the recent High Court Ruling on the Hunting Act 2004 have an effect on POWA’s campaign?
POWA's lawyers have advised that the recent High Court Ruling confirms that hunting is an 'intentional' act. The court ruled that 'intention' has to be proven in order to achieve a conviction for hunting a wild mammal with a dog. The hunters claim that all incidents of hunting are 'accidental'. Therefore, POWA's campaign to amend the Act and include a reckless behaviour clause is a sensible way forward to securing more prosecutions. POWA's campaign will continue to encourage MP's to Build on the Ban & Strengthen the Act.
