Ban both Fox Hunting and Football

[Mr T.]

First case falls as master and hounds cleared
By Auslan Cramb, Scotland Correspondent
(Filed: 11/12/2004)

The first huntsman accused of breaching the ban on foxhunting in Scotland was cleared yesterday of deliberately hunting with hounds.

Trevor Adams, 46, joint master of the Duke of Buccleuch's Foxhounds, was charged with hunting a fox with 20 hounds, two months after the sport was outlawed. But a sheriff found that he was "searching" for foxes, not hunting them.

Under the ban imposed north of the border, hunts can use hounds to flush foxes from cover to be shot by waiting marksmen. They only break the law if they deliberately chase and kill a fox in open country.

At Jedburgh sheriff court, Sheriff Kevin Drummond said he accepted that Mr Adams was operating a "pest control" service over farmland near Kelso on Oct 16, 2002.

He added: "I have found he was searching for foxes for the purpose of flushing them from cover in order that they might be shot. He acted to ensure that that was done."

Alex Fergusson, rural affairs spokesman for the Scottish Tories, said the ruling vindicated hunt supporters who warned that the legislation was "unenforceable and unnecessary".

He added: "This ruling has shown that it will be virtually impossible to prosecute anyone, as flushing out foxes for the purpose of control has been proved to be entirely different from hunting for all legal purposes."

Outside the court, Mr Adams, a staunch campaigner against the ban, said he had never been accused of a crime before and was "very relieved", adding: "I am very glad that justice has prevailed and I am looking forward to getting on with my life. I will continue in my job as a huntsman for the Buccleuch Foxhounds and will continue to offer the pest control service the landowners and farmers have requested from us.

"I am personally very pleased that our interpretation of the new form of hunting has been supported by this judgment."

All 10 Scottish hunts are still operating, and twice as many foxes are being killed each year by the "fox control" method of flushing them to waiting guns.

Mike Hobday, the spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said there was no evidence that Mr Adams was chasing a fox with a pack of dogs and it was right that he had been found not guilty.

But he added: "The message to other people in Scotland is very clear: if you go out and deliberately chase a fox with a pack of dogs, you will be brought to court and if there is evidence that you chased a fox with a pack of dogs, you will be convicted."

The Crown had argued that after the hounds passed two marksmen carrying shotguns without a shot being fired, they were effectively hunting. But Sheriff Drummond said it was up to the Crown to establish that an accused person had deliberately hunted a wild mammal with dogs.

The case was brought after Ian Hutcheson, 50, a tenant farmer, called the police after hounds crossed his farm.

He told the court: "It was basically hunting from what I saw and heard. I phoned the police because I thought hunting was banned, like the rest of Scotland thought."

But Mr Adams told the court the hounds were only out of his control for about five minutes.

[Mr T.]

250 hunts to mount mass protest on first day of new ban
By Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 11/12/2004)

The ban on foxhunting will be met on its opening day by a mass protest involving more than 250 hunts across the country, it emerged last night.


Simon Hart: policing the ban will be 'an absolute nightmare'

The Countryside Alliance said that on the very first hunting day after the ban becomes law, Saturday, Feb 19, the hunts will gather as normal. But in a major change of tactics, they will not seek to break the law in a mass exercise of civil disobedience.

Instead, huntsmen and women will go about their business "lawfully and sensibly", said the Countryside Alliance, the pro-hunting umbrella organisation.

It added that, together with the Council of Hunting Associations, it would seek to keep the infrastructure of hunting in place while legal challenges against the ban proceeded.

But Simon Hart, chief executive of the Alliance, made clear that the aim was to show that enforcing and policing the ban will be "an absolute nightmare".

"What will happen on the 19th will be a very clear message: what's been done by Parliament is completely ridiculous; it disregards evidence and principle."

Later, an Alliance spokesman made clear that although "now is not the time or place" to break the law, that threat by many individual hunters remained. In any case, the operation now planned will come under intense scrutiny from Labour MPs who forced through the ban.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last night insisted that the ban was "clear and enforceable".

However, there have been widespread concerns about how to enforce legislation which means it will still be legal to ride to hounds to hunt rabbits or rats.

Hunts can also go drag-hunting to chase a scent.

It is also not an offence to unintentionally kill a fox.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is now drawing up national guidelines on how forces should implement the ban.

But Alistair McWhirter, Acpo's rural spokesman and the chief constable of Suffolk, has already said that the police would not be using undercover officers to monitor hunts. "That would be totally disproportionate to the offence," he said.

The hunting ban was forced through last month in hugely controversial circumstances when the Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, invoked the rarely-used Parliament Act to override the opposition of the House of Lords. The Countryside Alliance has now launched a legal challenge over the use of the Act, which may come before the High Court in late January or early February. A separate appeal over infringement of human rights will be made once the ban comes into force.

But yesterday, the alliance unveiled plans to keep the hunts going in the short period following the start of the ban and the end of the hunting season.

More than 250 hunts across the country will assemble as usual on the morning of Feb 19 in the first phase of the operation.

Tim Bonner, the alliance's spokesman, yesterday confirmed that for the time being, large-scale "civil disobedience" plans had been shelved.

These had involved hunters openly breaking the new law and then turning themselves in en masse to the police, to show how unworkable the law was.

But yesterday, Mr Hart told Radio 4's World at One that everyone would be hunting within the law: "Anybody who suggests this is going to be an exercise in law breaking is going to be very much mistaken.

"It will be done lawfully, it will be done sensibly and will also send another message that the hunting community is viewing what is happening as a temporary setback, a temporary ban introduced as a result of a cock-up by Alun Michael [the rural affairs minister] and one which will be rectified."

[Mr T.]

Sheriff's ruling will flush out the zealots and class warriors
By Alan Cochrane
(Filed: 11/12/2004)

Commentary

The most politically-charged, ill-conceived and badly drafted - and that was just the view of some of those who passed it - pieces of legislation in devolved Scotland's short history had its first day in court yesterday.

And - surprise, surprise - it appears to have worked to the benefit, incredibly, of those many had feared would be hammered by its provisions. At least that is the conclusion that most will draw from the judgment of Sheriff Kevin Drummond in the case of huntsman Trevor Adams.

The sheriff did not accept that Mr Adams was "hunting" with his hounds, rather he was using the dogs to flush a fox from cover towards guns that would despatch it - behaviour that is not illegal under the Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002.

In the event, this particular fox escaped but Mr Adams didn't, initially at least, being reported for prosecution after an anti-hunting farmer complained to the police.

But while there was widespread relief among the hunting fraternity that the Crown hadn't proved their case to Sheriff Drummond's satisfaction, there are also surely few who would argue with Tory MSP Alex Fergusson.

Mr Fergusson chaired the Scottish Parliament's rural affairs committee that rejected the anti-hunting legislation but which then saw this verdict overturned by the parliament.

Last night, he said that the act had been a waste of parliamentary time and of taxpayers' money and he added that the ruling had shown how difficult it was to prosecute anyone, as flushing out foxes for the purpose of control has been proved to be entirely different from hunting.

"What this ruling has done is vindicate those of us who said all along that this legislation would be unenforceable and was unnecessary," he said.

But some senior Scottish legal experts reckon that the sheriff's ruling goes much further than this.

One leading QC said last night that the provisions in the Act whereby hounds could be used to flush foxes towards guns actually gave fox control a firm legal basis for the very first time.

This is hardly what the authors of the legislation had in mind. Mind you, their main concern was not foxes at all; it was class warfare.

If old Reynard had been their main worry they wouldn't have bothered drafting their Bill, since more than 1,000 foxes a year are now being killed under the new super-efficient way of doing these things, compared to half that number under the clearly incompetent old way.

And, as authorities better than this one have recorded elsewhere, the quality of the fox population has been falling drastically since the change in the law.

Old and infirm foxes were the main victims when hounds did the killing but nowadays younger, fitter animals are falling prey to the guns.

The main author of the legislation, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, was relaxed about the sheriff's judgment yesterday, saying that foxes were now being killed humanely.

What is certain to be the case, however, is that the zealots in the animal rights movement, who urged Lord Watson on every step of the way, will not be happy with the court's decision.

They will be furious and although they were pretty quiet last night watch out for further attempts by them to amend the existing legislation to close what they will undoubtedly see as the "flushing" loophole.

Given that there are now seven Greens and six Trotskyists in the Scottish Parliament now - the vast bulk of whom weren't there last time - as well as a plethora of class warriors on the Labour and SNP benches, the animal rights activists might well receive another sympathetic hearing.

However, given the huge amount of parliamentary time the measure took up two years ago and the adverse publicity it brought the parliament, there is unlikely to be a majority either of MSPs or among ministers to go down that road again.

They have learned the lesson that what Scottish voters want is better public services, not pernicious legislation like outlawing foxhunting.

At least we must hope they have!

[Mr T.]

Gotta love Matt:

[m.fox]

I am a fox ban the hunt

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by m.fox

I am a fox ban the hunt

Then learn ecape and evasion - or at least how to run! You're either gonna get shot or mulla'd.

Your call.

[Mr T.]

Blair accused of encouraging delay to Hunting Act
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 24/12/2004)

Tony Blair was accused of committing a "constitutional outrage" yesterday when it emerged that he will encourage the courts to delay implementation of the Hunting Act.

In a highly unusual move, the Government has told the Countryside Alliance that it will allow its application for a High Court injunction stopping the law coming into force as intended on Feb 18. Animal rights campaigners were infuriated by the proposal, which would enable Labour to fight a general election campaign in the spring without a pro-hunting civil disobedience campaign going on in the background.

The Countryside Alliance claimed that Mr Blair's decision could delay implementation of the hunting ban for several years, although it is also possible that the court could decide to snub the Government and refuse the injunction application.

The alliance is mounting two legal challenges to the hunting legislation, which passed into law last month but which is not due to come into force until February.

At a two-day hearing starting at the High Court on Jan 25, it will claim that the Hunting Act is invalid because it was passed using the Parliament Act of 1949, which some lawyers maintain is itself invalid.

If the alliance loses, it will apply for an injunction delaying implementation of the Hunting Act pending appeals to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the House of Lords.

Yesterday Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, confirmed that the Government would not try to stop the alliance getting an injunction at this stage. "It's for the court to decide whether to accept the terms of an injunction," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The alliance will also challenge the Act on the grounds that banning hunting would involve a breach of human rights.

This case, which will also involve the alliance seeking an interim injunction until all appeals are exhausted, could take even longer than the first because it could go to the European Court of Human Rights.

According to the alliance, government lawyers have indicated that they will not challenge its application for an injunction at any stage in either of the two legal cases.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the Labour former minister and one of the leaders of the anti-hunting campaign in Parliament, said that he would be demanding a Commons statement on the matter as soon as the Christmas recess was over.

He said he would demand an assurance "that the Government is not colluding with the Countryside Alliance against the Parliamentary Labour Party."

Mike Hobday, a spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said he was "shocked and appalled" by the Government's plan.

"It is a constitutional outrage," he said. "The Government has an obligation to the public and to Parliament to uphold and vigorously defend an Act of Parliament.

"This decision has enormous implications because if the Government is establishing the principle that an Act of Parliament can be put on hold for months or even years just because someone takes out a court case against it, then the entire legislative system will descend into chaos."

A legal attempt to challenge the validity of the 1949 Parliament Act has failed in the past and many lawyers believe that the Countryside Alliance's case will also be rejected by the High Court.

Last week the law lords ruled that one of the Government's key anti-terrorist measures contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. But they were powerless to overturn the relevant Act of Parliament.

Yesterday Mr Michael said the Government did not want the hunting ban to come into force in February.

Originally it proposed an 18-month delay, but that proposal was blocked by pro-hunting peers.

[Mr T.]

Police chief admits officers won't know if hunts are breaking the law
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
(Filed: 09/01/2005)

A police chief has admitted that his officers will struggle to identify an illegal fox hunt when the Government's ban comes into force next month.

Nigel Yeo, the assistant chief constable of Sussex Police, expressed his concerns about enforcing the ban on hunting with hounds in a letter to Alastair Jackson, the director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association.

Mr Yeo is spokesman on public order for the Association of Chief Police Officers and responsible for providing guidance on implementing the Hunting Act. He points out in his letter that because drag hunting will still be legal, as will using hounds to flush out a fox towards a gun, it will be difficult to tell when the law is actually being broken.

"You will be aware that one of the recommendations for people who intend to continue country pursuits is that they stop fox hunting once it becomes banned on 18 February and convert to drag hunting or hunting of the 'clean boot' as it is referred to," Mr Yeo wrote.

"In preparing the guidance for the police service as I am bound to do, I would greatly welcome your assistance in any guidance I can give to police officers on how to identify the difference between these and fox hunting."

Mr Jackson replied: "With respect, I would consider it almost impossible for anyone to know if a pack of hounds was hunting a fox or a drag. I do not envy you your job."

Mr Jackson added that from February 18 his organisation would no longer have "disciplinary powers" and "hunts will not be regulated".

With 250 hunts preparing a mass outing on the day of the ban's implementation, police have approached dozens of hunt members for information. As The Sunday Telegraph revealed last month, some have been offered payments to act as informants.

Under the legislation, hunts will be able to meet legally by re-classifying themselves as drag hunts or "hound exercise clubs". They will not be able to use a pack to chase and kill an animal. Huntsmen will, however, be able to use two hounds to flush a fox towards a gun. They could also use the excuse that a fox was caught accidentally by hounds running out of control. Much confusion is expected to result from the fact that this will look little different from traditional hunting.

It is also unclear whether the ban will be introduced on the date expected. A "secret deal" between Downing Street and the Countryside Alliance, under which the Government will not oppose an application for a delaying injunction against the Hunting Act, has led many to believe that the sport has been granted a reprieve.

Constitutional lawyers say they know of no case where a similar order - to suspend an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament - has been granted.

Some hunt supporters are angry at the delay, believing that it will assist the Government by defusing the issue in the run-up to the general election, expected in May.

The Countryside Alliance will seek the injunction, which could delay the ban until September, if its first challenge to the legality of the Bill falls, as expected. The challenge to the 1949 Parliament Act will begin in the High Court on January 24. A decision is expected within a week or two.

If the High Court rejects the case, the Countryside Alliance will go to the Court of Appeal and seek an injunction from the High Court to suspend the operation of the Hunting Act until the case finishes.

At the same time, a human rights challenge to the ban will be launched. This will go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, via the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. If an injunction has been granted pending the Parliament Act case, the Alliance would apply to the High Court for another, pending the human rights case, which it says could last three years.

A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance said that Mr Yeo's letter showed that legislation to ban hunting was flawed and "practically unenforceable". "How on earth is a village bobby going to be able to tell if a hunt is acting legally or illegally," he said.

[Mr T.]

Antis will try to ban us, Paxman warns his fellow anglers
By Fiona Govan
(Filed: 02/05/2005)

The days of casting a dry fly to deceive the wily trout are numbered, according to Jeremy Paxman.

The BBC Newsnight interviewer, who is also a keen fisherman, has warned anglers that their sport will go the same way as foxhunting. He said: "We've got plenty of things to worry about in the fly-fishing world. I think that, long-term, some political attack is inevitable. We live in an urban and suburban society, which seems positively to enjoy a wilful ignorance about rural life."

Distancing himself from the pro-hunting lobby, Paxman added: "I don't hunt, I've never wanted to hunt and I don't care for a lot of people who do. But then I feel that way about football crowds.

"What I find most incomprehensible of all is the fact that much of the running on the hunting issue was made by politicians who are themselves fishermen."

He named Mike Foster, the Labour MP for Worcester, a prize-winning angler who initiated the foxhunting ban with a Private Members' Bill in 1997, and Martin Salter, the Labour MP for Reading West and parliamentary spokesman on fishing and shooting.

"Of course, they claim there's no connection between hunting and fishing," he told Trout and Salmon magazine.

"I think it has been an enormous failure of nerve and imagination of the fishing folk not to recognise that there is no logical distinction between chasing foxes, shooting pheasants and deceiving trout."

"We can go on endlessly about whether or not fish feel pain. But it is not a distinction that many of those who have campaigned to ban hunting recognise. They see it as part of the same process. The next target will be shooting. After that it will be fishing.

"The morally objectionable part, for the antis, is that you caught the thing for your own pleasure."

Paxman, who learnt to fish as a child on the River Ure in Yorkshire, is vice-president of the Wild Trout Trust.