COMPLETED PROSECUTIONS - Hunting Act/Badgers Act/Animal Welfare Act

Updated 11August 2023 - Alan Kirby MSc

ANALYSIS OF PROSECUTIONS OF ORGANISED ENGLAND/WALES HUNTERS UNDER HUNTING ACT 2004

In separate table [above, or see on CSHA website], 'acquitted' means person was tried of offence and found not guilty. 'Dropped' means the charges were discontinued either before or during the trial. Another table available details organised hunters prosecuted under other animal protection laws in the period.

Note that the table covers only prosecutions of persons known to be affiliated with organised, though not necessarily 'registered', Hunts. In one case where the Hunt as a body corporate was prosecuted, the Hunt is treated as a 'person'. Note also that this analysis does not include any of the significant number of cases where persons were investigated but not charged – even if they were arrested.

The table details all known completed Hunting Act prosecutions launched - and police cautions issued - against persons affiliated to organised Hunts in England/Wales since the Hunting Act came into effect on 18-2-2005.

A 'case' here means where one or more persons have been prosecuted for Hunting Act offences regarding one incident. If the same person is charged and prosecuted simultaneously for Hunting Act breaches in separate incidents then this is treated as two or more cases.

- 146 'persons' from organised Hunts have been charged with a total of 219 charges for HA offences [8.1 persons per year, 12.2 charges per year]. 4 persons have been charged twice, two three and one four times.

- 61 of the 219 charges resulted in conviction or caution [27.9%].

- 56 of the 171 charges that went to trial resulted in convictions [32.7%].

- 45 of the 50 Hunts to have members charged [includes cautions] are fox hunts, 2 deer and 3 hare.

- 44 persons [including Heythrop FH as body corporate] of the 146 charged [30.1%], were convicted or accepted police cautions, of a total of 61 proven HA offences.

- 52 of the 219 charges were re. the big Heythrop trial. Excluding that case, there have been 167 HA charges against organised hunters [9.3 per year].

- The Hunt Monitors Association - all volunteers, most POWA members - provided evidence for 61 of the 219 HA charges against organised hunters [27.9%,].

- League Against Cruel Sports monitors [mostly employees] provided evidence for 58 of the 219 HA charges [26.5%].

- Evidence for the other 98 charges was provided by a mix of other volunteer monitors, sabs, members of the public, the RSPCA, IFAW and police [45.2%]

- 49 people of the 101 whose charges went to trial were acquitted of ALL their HA charges after trial/appeal [48.5%].

- 55 people of the 146 charged escaped conviction after ALL their HA charges were dropped, either before or during trial [37.7% of all charged]. This does not include cases where the charges were dismissed by the judge, which count as acquittals.

- Thus, 86.2% of all Hunting Act charges against organised hunters have not resulted in conviction, giving a conviction rate of a mere 13.8%.

-106 of the 219 Hunting Act charges made were dropped either before or at trial [48.4%]. 40 of these related to the big Heythrop trial in 2012.

Analysis of all completed cases shows that, in those 18 years:-

- Just 70 completed illegal hunting cases [3.9 per year] have been brought against 146 persons from 50 dif- ferent organised Hunts. [Includes 1 whole Hunt [counted as a 'person' in table and henceforth here].

- Over half [50] of all the cases have been brought by the main prosecuting authority, the CPS, and they have lost or dropped 34 of them [68%] so their success rate is just 32%. They dropped 11 cases before trial [22% of total CPS cases]. Given how very reluctant the CPS has proved to bring Hunting Act cases at all – and presuming cases really have been dropped for sound legal reasons - this is an indication of how very difficult the extremely high evidential bar set by the Hunting Act is to successfully surmount.

- Just 28% of Hunting Act cases brought by the CPS against organised hunters have resulted in at least one conviction [14 out of 50], compared with 83.6% for all crime [2020/21 figure]. Also, 47.1% of Hunting Act charges have been dropped by the CPS pre-trial [40 out of 85] compared with just 10% for all crimes. [2017-18 figure, the latest we have been able to find.]

- LACS has brought 12 Hunting Act cases as private prosecutions and achieved at least one conviction in 5 of them [42.5%].

- The League Against Cruel Sports used to prosecute their own cases, with a little more success, but changed policy a few years ago and decided to pass them to the CPS instead. It did, since then, entrust one case to the RSPCA, which failed. Subsequent to the policy change, the LACS did bring one case which the CPS had declined. Charges were dropped at trial after the defence challenged the impartiality of the League's expert witness.

- The RSPCA has brought 6 HA cases and gained at least one HA conviction in 3 of them [50%].

The RSPCA attracted such vitriolic propaganda from the pro-hunt side after the very large and expensive Heythrop Hunt case in December 2012 that that they appointed the former Chief Inspector of the CPS to examine their prosecutions policy. Stephen Wooler reported in September 2014. He said that, among other things, monitoring evidence showed beyond doubt that Hunts were extensively flouting the ban. But he determined that the rewards of prosecuting them, partly because of the paltry fines levied, too small to justify the cost to the RSPCA. He urged the CPS to bring more Hunts to justice and also said the Society should press for the Hunting Act to be strengthened. Although the RSPCA decided soon afterwards to prosecute one HA case that the CPS declined, it seems the socety has now ceased prosecutions of organised hunters. The RSPCA is yet to clearly call for strengthening of the Hunting Act, unlike POWA, IFAW, LACS and the HSA.

The great majority of HA cases have relied on evidence from hunt monitors, and some from sabs, but only a vanishingly small proportion of those reported by them, with video evidence, have resulted in prosecutions, even though both understand that their evidence needs to be very robust to make it even worth reporting. Their experience is that to obtain evidence sufficient to convict, even when hunting is conducted pretty blatantly in front of them and filmed, is extraordinarily difficult. This is partly because what the Hunting Act allows Hunts to do looks, at least to those not steeped in the ways of their practices, so like the actual hunting of live quarry that it is very hard to convince police, prosecutors or courts that this is precisely what they are doing. There is little doubt that ‘trail hunting’ was invented by Hunts with advice from lawyers specifically to provide cover for continued live quarry hunting.

It remains to be seen whether or not the surprising conviction of the director of the Master of Fox Hounds Association for encouraging Hunts to break the Hunting Act in a series of webinars a couple of years ago has had, or will have, any influence in persuading the CPS and courts to place less credence in the evidence of hunters and bring and convict more Hunting Act cases - also given that several others of the senior hunters who gave information and advice to Hunts in those webinars did, albeit less blatantly, likewise seemed to connive in recommending means likely to avoid prosecution whilst still hunting live quarry. Or what effect Hankinson’s acquittal on appeal may have. To date, major institutional landowners who withdrew Hunts’ ‘trail hunting’ permissions after the MFHA Director’s conviction have thankfully not yet restored such permits.

Such landowner bans will really only be of value if landowners take significant action against any Hunts that flout them. The extent to which these landowners are aware of Hunts continuing to use their land regardless, or of what, if any, action they are likely to take should they become aware of this happening is as yet unknown.

A fairly recent conviction for illegal fox hunting [November ‘22] might give an indication of how one of these major landowners may respond. This was of the Huntsman of the South Shropshire FH. The offence was committed while hunting on National Trust land. Very unusually, the offender pleaded guilty.

It remains very easy for Hunts to trot out seemingly feasible, and by now well-rehearsed, excuses. See 'Reform not repeal' on the Campaign to Strengthen the Hunting Act website [ csha.org.uk ] for an explanation of why this is so and the manifold ways Hunts have found to evade prosecution or conviction whilst continuing to chase and kill wild mammals. See also IFAW's excellent report 'Trail of Lies' which exposes 'trail hunting' to be a clever, but false, alibi, custom-designed to allow Hunts to carry on live quarry hunting whilst minimising their chances of being sanctioned.

6 persons have successfully appealed a Hunting Act conviction [the Huntsman of the Exmoor FH, in 2009, 3 from the Grove & Rufford FH in 2018, the JM/Huntsman of the South Dorset FH. but the hunt side got a huge benefit from the first one. 'Searching' was declared by the High Court judge not to be 'hunting' within the meaning of the Act [though DEFRA had previously stated it was] and the judge emphasised that illegal hunting must be proved to be intentional. He also stressed that, if the accused claims to have been 'Exempt Hunting' the onus is on the prosecution to prove it was not exempt.

Disposals for those convicted of Hunting Act offences have been as follows;-

Fines – 47, Conditional Discharges – 2, CSO – 1, Cautions - 5 [excludes one originally fined but later acquitted on appeal].

The maximum fine allowed for any one offence was, until a few years ago, £5,000. It has since been made unlimited, as with all Level 5 offences. The average levied on conviction where a fine was imposed [for 56 offences] has been £485. The highest levied has been £3,000, the lowest £100 [2% of the then maximum]. The South Dorset Huntsman/JM was fined £6,000 – but he was later acquitted on appeal.

Even on the rare occasions where organised hunters are convicted, the sanctions imposed are generally pretty slight and, because they are not ‘recordable’ offenders do not acquire a criminal record. This also means any convictions are not added to an existing criminal record. Additionally, offences not being ‘recordable’ means that police do not keep specific records of alleged Hunting Act offences.

It is not, therefore possible to know how many alleged Hunting Act offences have been reported to police, how many were investigated at all or how many accused hunters have been interviewed or arrested. There may even be some cases where hunters have been charged without this becoming public knowledge and later had their charges dropped. But any such instances are likely to be very few and the completed prosecutions table above probably does capture all cases where HA charges have been brought. Records of prosecutions where offender appeared at least once in court are kept by the court service.

The Hunting Act, unlike other animal protection legislation, and unlike the equivalent Act in Scotland, has no provision for prison sentences. Six offenders have escaped with just a caution or a Conditional Discharge.

The Act has provisions for confiscation of animals and equipment used in the commission of Hunting Act offences, but these have never been used against organised hunters, though a number of 'lurcher brigade' offenders have had their dogs taken from them and have even had their vehicles seized and crushed.

If any reader is aware of any error or omission in the table or this analysis, please let the compiler, Alan Kirby, know, including as much detail as possible. alank2424@gmail/com

Number of Hunting Act cases completed [A], charges made [B], offences convicted/cautioned [C] per year -

Note that in the last eight years there have been just nine convictions for offences under the Hunting Act, though, since the webinar scandal a couple of years ago, the CPS seem significantly keener to prosecute HA offences. Seven of those 9 convictions have been in the last 20 months.

In March 2016, 2 staff members of the Jedforest FH were charged with illegal hunting under the Scottish Act [2002]. Trial began 16-3-17 and was spread over several weeks. They were both convicted and fined. This was only the third time that Scottish Act had been used against organised hunters. There had previously been no convictions of organised hunters in Scotland in the 14 years of its existence. There have been just two, both failed, cases since then. Later that year, the Scottish government, following the Lord Bonomy Review, announced that it intended to strengthen the Act.

But it was not until 2023 that a revised, somewhat beefed up, Act actually made it to the statute books. Reservations have been expressed about how effective it will be, but this is yet to be properly tested.

On 14-2-18 the Labour Party announced that they would strengthen the Hunting Act 2004 [England & Wales], if elected. Despite the subsequent leadership change this commitment has not been revoked. However, the Party lost the 2019 election decisively.

Boris Johnson, who was previously a vocal supporter of live quarry hunting, said on his elevation to PM he did not mean to repeal the Hunting Act. His short-lived successor, Liz Truss, though a strong hunt supporter, didn't set policy on the issue, nor has her recent successor, Rishi Sunak. He is known to be a supporter of blood sports, especially shooting.

The CEO of the Countryside Alliance when the Hunting Act was passed was Simon Hart. He was the main organiser of the ‘Hunting Declaration’ in 2004, when a claimed 60,000+ hunters/ supporters signed pledges to ignore a ban on live quarry hunting. He became a Tory MP in 2010 and is now in Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet, serving, appropriately enough, as Chief Whip.

Despite this and that a few Conservative MPs are still suggesting repeal might be attempted, most now seem happy to 'let sleeping dogs lie' - given that Hunts remain largely immune from prosecution and that even in the very rare cases of convictions, the sanctions are, to them, paltry.

However, antis were surprised when a £6k fine was levied on the South Dorset FH Huntsman for a Section 1 HA offence in October 2022, though he was later acquitted on appeal. The previous largest was £3,000 [on a multi-millionaire], the only other case exceeding £1,000. If such penalties become usual, this might change hunter attitudes to routinely flouting the law somewhat, though prosecution and conviction rates would probably need to increase sharply for this to have any major effect on behaviour.

Last updated – 31-8-23

ORGANISED HUNT MEMBER PROSECUTIONS UNDER OTHER ANIMAL PROTECTION ACTS

The table below details all known prosecutions of hunters from organised Hunts in England and Wales since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force, under animal protection Acts other than the Hunting Act.