Essex Police ignore allegations of illegal hunting
By Scott on 15 December, 2011
On the 12 December 2011 it was reported that the Essex and Suffolk Hunt had invaded a garden and savaged a fox they had been chasing. A witness, who is pro-hunt, stated that the fox had been clubbed to death by a huntsman.
Such reports always get and an immediate denial, and in this instance:
"They were hunting with a bird of prey and the pack accidentally picked up on the scent of a fox which attracted the hounds... there was no offence committed on the hunt, which was legal."
This would be laughable if it came from a huntsman but staggeringly it's from Essex Police.
The Hunting Act allows the use of a bird of prey but does NOT allow a hunt to run after, chase or pursue the wild mammal after it has been flushed out. Nor does it allow the dogs to kill the wild mammal.
Also employing (whether or not released to hunt) a bird of prey which does not ordinarily hunt that particular wild mammal is illegal. The Essex and Suffolk hunt are known to be using a European Eagle Owl. Eagle owls take small prey, generally up to the size of a rabbit not fully grown foxes.
Eagle owls are very difficult to get to hunt, and generally hunt best at dusk (or early morning) and only in quiet conditions; certainly not near packs of hounds.
If the reports of the killing are correct then an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
Unfortunately this isn't the first time that Essex Police have blatantly ignored allegations of illegal hunting. Whether they like it or not, Essex Police have a responsibility to uphold all laws and not just the ones they agree with.
Labels: Essex Police
Comments
Jake
29 December 2011, 22:11:14
@Chris Tasker - You'd need a pretty strong case for the RSPCA to take on a case as it is very costly to bring private prosecutions. All RSPCA prosecutions are criminal matters, however undertaken by a private body with no legal powers. Moving aside the legal nature of the prosecutions, it is excellent that the RSPCA are taking a stand. Lets hope the prosecution has an outcome of a guilty verdict.
Jake Knight
http://www.jaketheara.blogspot.com/
chris tasker
24 December 2011, 15:33:39
ny understanding from experience with the devon and cornwall police is that the law is so difficult to prove in a court of law that unless there is a virtual confession of guilt, they will not risk a prosecution. What appears to you and me as prima-facie proof of illegality is often not of the required standard of proof to convict in a court of law, especially when the hunt will have legions of very highly paid barristers on their side against a ( often) young and ineperienced public prosecutor without the same backup resources as the hunt. It was ever thus with the establishment so we should not be suprised, It is what makes the actual convictions so far so imortant....each one sets case precedent that can be used in a court of law in the future. That is why each prosecution needs from our point of view to be very carefully considered before taking up. the current heythrop case is backed by the RSPCA - nice to see them get off their backsides on the hunting issue, but you can bet your socks that there is a very strong case for them to get involved. Roll on the court case !
Daz
20 December 2011, 12:41:33
The bird of prey exemption is laughable. Can anybody tell me of a single independantly substantiated instance of a fox being killed by a bird of prey since the act came into force? I thought not. No owner of a bird of prey is going to fly it when if it should be unlucky enough to catch anything it is likely to be ripped to bits by a pack of hounds.
Scott is correct in the use of hounds and a bird of prey; they can be used to flush a fox, once they start chasing then they are illegally hunting.
I fail to understand why the legislation causes so many problems. After all it is written in black and white and to anyone who has had cause to study it, be it the hunting fraternity or those of us that police it,the law is clear. What causes the problems is obtaining sufficient proof to secure a conviction.
It is unfair to expect all police officers to be aware of the hunting act and it's exemptions, but in this case if all the police have done is speak to members of the hunt and take what was said to them as gospel truth without any proper investigation then they have failed in their duty.
Posts closed
