Parliament of the United Kingdom |
|
| Long title | An Act to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes. |
|---|---|
| Statute book chapter | 2004 c 37 |
| Territorial extent | England and Wales[2] |
| Dates | |
| Royal Assent | 18 November 2004 |
| Commencement | 18 February 2005[3] |
| Status: | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Revised text of statute as amended | |
The Hunting Act 2004 (c 37) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The effect of the Act is to outlaw hunting with dogs (particularly fox hunting, but also the hunting of deer, hares and mink and organised hare coursing) in England and Wales from 18 February 2005. The pursuit of foxes with hounds was banned in Scotland two years earlier under legislation of the devolved Scottish Parliament, while it remains legal in Northern Ireland.
Contents |
Many earlier attempts had been made to ban hunting. Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons.[4] The Labour government appointed the Scott Henderson Inquiry[5] to investigate all forms of hunting. Opponents of hunting claimed that the membership of the committee was chosen to produce a pro-hunting report.[4] The inquiry reported its view that "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue."[6]
Twice, in 1969 and in 1975, the House of Commons passed legislation to ban hare coursing, but neither bill became law. Three further private member's bills were introduced by Kevin McNamara in 1992 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill), by Tony Banks in 1993 (Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill), and by John McFall in 1995 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill)—all of which failed to go on to become law.[7]
The Labour Party came to power in 1997 with a manifesto saying, "We will ensure greater protection for wildlife. We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned."[8] A new private member's bill, introduced by Michael Foster MP, received a second reading with 411 MPs voting in support, but failed due to lack of parliamentary time.[9] The Burns Report in 2000 concluded that forms of fox hunting "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox",[10] but (in line with its remit) did not draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue. In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[11] Following the Burns inquiry, the Government introduced an 'options bill' which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and self-regulation. The House of Commons voted for a banning bill and the House of Lords for self-regulation. The 2001 general election was then called and the bill ran out of parliamentary time.[12]
Following a series of evidence hearings in 2002,[13] on 3 December 2002, DEFRA Minister of State for Rural Affairs Alun Michael introduced a bill which would have allowed some licensed hunting.[14] The Commons passed an amendment proposed by Tony Banks to ban hunting entirely, but the bill was rejected by the House of Lords.[15]
A bill identical to the one passed by the House of Commons in 2003 was reintroduced to the Commons on 9 September 2004. It received Royal Assent as the Hunting Act 2004 on 18 November 2004 when Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons, invoked the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, with the bill not having received the approval of the House of Lords who had preferred an Act that regulated hunting with dogs.[16] The Parliament Acts are rarely invoked, the Hunting Act was only the seventh statute since 1911 enacted under their provisions.[17]
The final passing of the legislation was considered very controversial with the unelected House of Lords criticised for being undemocratic block on the legislation [18] with other newspapers and broadcasters condemning Tony Blair's Labour administration for giving in to what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers.[19] MPs of all parties voting for the legislation asserted that hunting caused unnecessary suffering and said that they represented the majority of the public who favoured a ban on hunting with dogs. Their assertion of majority support for the thrust of the legislation seems to have some basis in evidence, a September 2002 survey commissioned by The Daily Telegraph indicated that a majority of people (57%) agreed with the statement that 'hunting with dogs is never acceptable'. [20] A survey by MORI for the BBC carried out in February 2005 found that there was a plurality (47% supporting, 26% opposed) of support for the new legislation, but not an absolute majority.[21]. Subsequently, polling conducted by Ipsos MORI in 2010 has shown 76% opposition to repealing the Hunting Act with only 18% support for repeal. This poll also showed 71% of rural residents wanted to see fox hunting remain illegal [22]
Attempts by pro-hunting groups (such as Jackson v Attorney General) to challenge the Act by questioning the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 in the High Court and Court of Appeal failed, and the ban took effect on 18 February 2005. The House of Lords agreed with the lower courts in a judgment delivered in October 2005.[23]
A separate application for judicial review was made to the High Court of England and Wales, arguing that the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual human or property rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and under European Community law, that is the free movement of goods and services.[24] Some believed that there was a possibility that the challenges could obtain a degree of compensation for some of those adversely affected, although the Scottish courts did not reject the equivalent Scottish law, the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which also lacked any compensation provision.[25] The application was successively dismissed by the High Court in July 2005,[26] the Court of Appeal in June 2006[27] and the House of Lords in November 2007.[28] An appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was ruled inadmissible.[29]
The 2010 general election resulted in a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties. Under the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement, the government aims to give the House of Commons a free vote "to express its view" on repealing the Hunting Act 2004.[30] In November, a number of MPs told the BBC that a vote is not planned before early 2012.[31]
Police forces have said, on a number of occasions, that enforcement of the Hunting Act 2004 like much wildlife crime is a low priority for them, although they say that they will enforce the law. However, the Police's UK National Wildlife Crime Unit has said that policing of hunting should be a priority for forces in some areas of the country, most notably the South West. [32] Animal welfare groups like the RSPCA, IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports continue monitoring hunts that they believe may be breaking the law and, in some cases, taking private prosecutions themselves.[33]
To the end of 2010 there have been over 180 convictions under the Hunting Act 2004.[34] Pro-hunt groups claim that there have only, been seven successful prosecutions resulting in the conviction of hunt staff. The most recent successful prosecution of a registered hunt was in October 2011, against two members of the Fernie Hunt.[35] They say that the Hunting Act 2004 is being used to deal with poaching offences[36], but Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said in a written answer to Parliament in June 2011 that "it is not possible to separately identify those specific cases proceeded against under the Hunting Act 2004 related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations."[37] Animal welfare groups have criticised this interpretation of the statistics.[38]
In February 2009, following Exeter Crown Court's acquittal of Tony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, overturning his conviction in the Taunton Deane Magistrates' Court, the High Court dealt with a request by the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether defendants have a right to say they are "innocent until proved guilty" when claiming the defence of hunting under an exemption, and what is meant by "hunting". In its judgment, the court ruled that the burden of evidence in "exempt hunting" cases was on the prosecution to prove that the conditions of the exemption had not been met, and that searching for a mammal was not an offence. This confirmed the acquittal of Tony Wright. The court concluded that for the offence of "hunting a wild mammal" to take place there must be an identifiable mammal.[39] Subsequently three pending prosecutions against hunts, including one brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports, were dropped[40] and a further two cases which did reach court were thrown out at the conclusion of the prosecution cases when the District Judges ruled that there was no case to answer.[41]
A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.[42]
The meaning of the Hunting Act 2004 is a matter of substantial public dispute. The Countryside Alliance claim that the Act is unclear,[43] while the League Against Cruel Sports argues the opposite.[44] The difference between the two centres around the alternative views that the Act contains either "tightly drawn exemptions" or "glaring loopholes."
For example, letters from Countryside Alliance officials to a series of local newspapers around the UK in early 2006 say, "The Act makes it an offence to hunt a mouse with a dog but not a rat, you can legally hunt a rabbit but not a hare. You can flush a fox to guns with two dogs legally but if you use three it's an offence. You can flush a fox to a bird of prey with as many dogs as you like."[45] The sections below examine whether such exemptions allow loopholes.
The Hunting Act 2004 bans activities that Parliament believed to be cruel sports and permitted activities that it believed to be necessary for land managers. Parliament accepted the view that, where rats and rabbits were pests, hunting them was legitimate.[46] MPs did not believe that there was any necessity to use dogs to hunt mice[47] and believed that hare hunting was cruel, which is why these activities were not exempted from the Act.
These two exemptions do not make it possible for "traditional" hunting to continue. Rabbits tend to stay very close to their warrens and will go underground at the sight of dogs, thus not providing the chase that hunts need.[48]
Traditionally, in some upland areas, foxes were flushed by packs of dogs to be shot.[49] This activity is still permitted in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.[50] However MPs, in making law for England and Wales, decided that this activity did result in unnecessary suffering, not least because it is more difficult to control a large number of hounds in dense woodland where this activity used to take place.[51]
This exemption was claimed by one stag hound packs in the Exmoor area. In an appeal judgment following the conviction of two stag hunt officials, the judge said that such hunting conducted primarily for recreation was illegal.[52]
Many traditional hunts have bought birds of prey and say that they are using hounds to flush foxes so that the bird of prey can hunt them. The Act requires that the intention must be "for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal."[53] Many experts, such as the Hawk Board, deny that any bird of prey can reasonably be used in the British countryside to kill a fox which has been flushed by (and is being chased by) a pack of hounds. If this view proves to be correct, then it is unlikely that such a use of dogs is lawful.[54]
Expert opinion on the limitations of flushing foxes to birds of prey will be available to advise courts considering such cases, when they are litigated. For now, the question of what is lawful remains to be determined.
Hunting below ground takes place with terriers. The Act outlaws hunting with terriers (also known as terrier work) with a narrowly drawn exemption, described by the Minister, Alun Michael MP as existing "for gamekeepers".[55] The Act requires that any hunting below ground must comply with a number of conditions:
Despite this, many fox hunts continue to use terriers on a regular basis. Three people, not associated with hunts, have pleaded guilty to offences under the Hunting Act 2004 for hunting with terriers and a fourth was found guilty after a trial.[56]
In a private prosecution under the Act brought by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) who had observed two hare coursing events in villages near Malton, North Yorkshire in March 2007 organised by the Yorkshire Greyhound Field Trialling Club, the District Judge in Scarborough magistrates court clarified that the club was mistaken in believing that because the dogs they had been using were muzzled, the practice was legal.[57]
The Hunting Act 2004 does not stop, and was not intended to stop, 'drag hunting' where hounds are trained to follow an artificial scent, because no animal is chased.[58] According to a High Court decision, hunting does "not include the mere searching for an unidentified wild mammal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it."[39]
Section 15 provides that the Act came into force at the end of the period of three months that began on the date on which it was passed. The word "months" means calendar months.[59] The day (that is to say, 18 November 2004) on which the Act was passed (that is to say, received royal assent) is included in the period of three months.[60] This means that the Act came into force on 18 February 2005.
The equivalent Act in Scotland similarly makes it illegal to chase or deliberately kill mammals with dogs. There are a number of differences between the two Acts:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||