POWA & Farming Today

Farming Today, Radio 4, 13/11/2008 Transcript of interview with Penny Little of POWA Interviewer: “All this week we are examining the impact of the Hunting Act four years after it was introduced in England & Wales. Yesterday we heard from the Middle Way Group which says the current legislation banning hunting with dogs is unworkable and wants it abolished. Penny Little is a spokesperson for the group Protect Our Wild Animals and disagrees. She spent yesterday monitoring one of her local hunts.” Penny Little: “Well I’ve seen today what I always see, I’ve seen nothing different to what I used to see, really & truly, before the ban took place except I’ve had possibly more hassle than I would have done then but we always have had hassle as hunt monitors. But every time one goes monitoring, and this doesn’t only apply to me, all hunt monitors will tell you the same, we see hounds being entered into cover, into maize fields, woodlands, copses, reedbeds, bramble cover, all the places where foxes are found and all the places where hounds have always been entered into in order to find a fox to chase, so to say that the law is currently being treated with contempt would be an understatement” Interviewer: “Hunts would point out though that there have been very few prosecutions and even fewer successful ones.” Penny Little: “It’s because good evidence goes to the Crown Prosecution Service many, many times, and I could give you really superb examples of that but the Crown Prosecution Service come back and say the hunt claim it was an accident, they say they didn’t intend to” Interviewer: “What’s wrong though with the law itself?” Penny Little: “ Well there are a few things that do need adjustment in the law and some of the exemptions are too loose but the number one problem with the law is that it doesn’t contain a reckless behaviour clause which means if any hunt, for example, a hare hunt that claimed it had laid a trail and chased a hare or a fox hunt that claimed it had laid a trail and chased a fox would give the inevitable excuse that this had happened accidentally.” Interviewer: “So they would say we were supposed to be following a pre-laid trail but in fact the hounds got the scent of a fox and accidentally obviously do what hounds will always do and followed that.” Penny Little: “Well they would say that but I would draw their attention to the way drag hunts behave, proper drag hunts, who lay trails away from the cover where one would find wild animals that would be disturbed by hounds behaviour.” Interviewer: “So how would changing the law to include this reckless behaviour section change that?” Penny Little: “Because when people witnessed, for example, foxes being chased by hounds that is an offence in itself and saying it was an accident would not get you out of trouble. So that would make a very, very significant difference.” ................................................................

Farming Today, Radio 4, 14/11/2008 Transcript of interview with Barrister Pete Weatherby Interviewer: “This month has seen the start of the new hunting season and this week we’ve been asking what impact the hunting act has had four years after it was introduced in England & Wales. As we’ve heard, there are claims from both supporters and opponents of hunting that the Act is flawed. Now the Act states that a person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog unless his hunting is exempt. Pete Weatherby, a barrister from Garden Court North Chambers in Manchester explained why it is so difficult to get a successful prosecution.” Pete Weatherby: “Well it’s partly because of the drafting of the Act and it’s partly because of the activity itself. For example, the main offence that’s created of hunting a wild mammal with a dog, if you’re merely spectating then you’re not committing the offence unless it can be proved that by spectating you’re either encouraging or aiding and abetting the offence itself.” Interviewer: “And equally if you’re following a trail but the hounds get distracted by the scent of a real fox then that’s accidental.” Pete Weatherby: “Well there has to be intent, it has to be an intentional pursuit of an animal, so if it can be established that it’s accidental then you are correct.” Interviewer: “And that’s very difficult to prove isn’t it so is this just a tricky area where proof is very difficult to find or is the Act actually badly drafted?” Pete Weatherby: “Both in effect. The Act certainly could do with being tightened up but it’s also an area which is very difficult to get convincing proof and also it requires support from the community which in some areas will undoubtedly be lacking and also resources from the police and the prosecuting authorities.” ..............................................................

Farming Today, Radio 4, 14/11/2008 Transcript of interview with Labour MP John McDonnell Interviewer: “The Labour MP John McDonnell has submitted an Early Day Motion calling for the tightening of the Act.” John McDonnell: “In the recent period I’ve been approached by a large number of individuals who are hunt monitors and by different organisations who are concerned that the Act that we put in place to ban hunting is being used by some to continue hunting and to continue what I think is a brutal treatment of foxes. There are devices being used to get round the intent of the legislation and in that case I think we need to look at it again and tighten it up.” Interviewer: “What’s happening then that shouldn’t be?” John McDonnell: “Well the one practice that seems to be regularly brought to my attention is this trail hunting which is an attempt by some to get round the legislation by pretending that they’ve laid a trail, that they’re not hunting foxes, this is just almost like drag hunting but they come across accidentally foxes and as a result of that the hounds will seize upon them and rip them apart etc. Now if you look at the practice of drag hunting properly there’s been no instances of that at all but with this trail hunting there’s been regular reports that foxes have been hunted down and I think it is a device that’s being used to get round the legislation. So, to avoid that, what I’m suggesting is that we amend the legislation to ensure that there is a recklessness clause so that if someone is behaving recklessly and therefore avoids the intent of the original Act in that way, they should be prosecuted.” Interviewer: “Earlier this week we spoke to the Middle Way group of MP’s and they say that this legislation is so flawed that it would be better just to start again. Isn’t that perhaps a more sensible approach rather than trying to alter it after the fact.” John McDonnell: “No because I think the legislation has been generally quite successful but you’ll always find people who will try different devices that undermine or get round the law and what we simply need to do is introduce a very simple amendment to introduce a recklessness clause so the law is absolutely explicit and we don’t allow this sort of device to be used.” Interviewer: “Do you have Government support for this?” John McDonnell: “Well  I’ve put an Early Day Motion down in Parliament which is a way in which to test support and I want to now engage in a discussion with Ministers. I think there’s a real view that the hunting legislation took a long time, there was a long discussion, we thought we’d got it right, we clearly haven’t in this instance and I think there’s a general view emerging within Parliament that we need to make sure that the intent and the spirit of the law is properly applied and if that requires a minor amendment let’s get on with it.” Interviewer: “Politically though would Ministers want to have that fight all over again right now?” John McDonnell: “Well look at the opinion polls, 77% of the people that were interviewed in a Mori poll this year, when they were asked ‘do you want to scrap the existing legislation’ said definitely not, they would support it. So there’s still overwhelming support to ban hunting. Once it’s explained to people that we banned hunting but there’s this group of people who are trying to use a device to get round the law most of them I think would support us because they supported the original Act.” ...................................................................