Policing and enforcement
- Police resources are stretched already. They will not be able to enforce the law?
- What will happen if the dogs taking part in a drag hunt kill a fox?
- Are you expecting Civil Disobedience?
- What will happen to Magistrates who sign up to the Countryside Alliance’s Hunt Declaration?
- How will police cope with large numbers of hunters defying the law?
- What representations has Defra received from the police?
- Is it correct that people can be imprisoned for failure to pay a fine?
- Is the police power of arrest when an offence is about to be committed unprecedented?
- Aren't the police powers of search/seizure etc draconian
- Why does the power of arrest only apply to some, but not others, of the offences?
- Doesn't the absence of imprisonment creates a loophole enabling a badger baiter to claim he was putting a dog below ground to search for a fox (rather than a badger) to avoid the possibility of imprisonment?
- £5,000 is an inadequate penalty for illegal hunting. Why is a custodial sentence not being considered?
Police resources are stretched already. They will not be able to enforce the law?
The Association of Chief Police Officers has indicated that it believes that the level of resources needed to police the new law would not be significantly different from that previously needed to deal with anti-hunt protesters. The provisions of the Act are clear and easily understood, and no more difficult to enforce than other equivalent legislation. The police’s job is to enforce laws and it is for Chief Constables to determine their operational priorities in the light of government targets and available resources.
Enforcing the Act does not mean that every alleged breach will necessarily be prosecuted through the courts. The police and prosecuting authorities take all relevant factors into consideration, such as the nature and seriousness of the breach, the competing calls on their time and resources and the public benefit to be gained, before deciding whether to press ahead with a prosecution as opposed to issuing a warning and retaining details on file for consideration in relation to future breaches.
What will happen if the dogs taking part in a drag hunt kill a fox?
Drag-hunting is an established sport that is regulated according to very clear rules laid down by the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association (MDBA). The MDBA has confirmed that the inadvertent pursuit of a fox during drag hunting is a very rare occurrence, and that the killing of a live mammal is specifically against its rules.
The provisions of the Act, in any case, are clear and easily understood – innocent bystanders who witness an illegal hunt, farmers whose land is used against their will, or people, including those engaged in drag hunting, whose dogs chase a fox against their wishes will not be guilty of a crime. This is because people will only be hunting when they themselves intend to use their dogs to pursue the quarry animal.
Are you expecting Civil Disobedience?
The Government believes that the vast majority of people are law-abiding, and there has been no evidence of widespread civil disobedience since the Act came into force. It remains to be seen how many people deliberately choose to break the law in the future.
What will happen to Magistrates who have signed up to the Countryside Alliance’s Hunt Declaration?
This is a matter for the Lord Chancellor and the Department for Constitutional Affairs to consider. Magistrates are fully aware of their duty to obey the law, and of the Lord Chancellor’s disciplinary powers if they disregard it or fail to uphold it.
How will police cope with large numbers of hunters defying the law?
As hunting people say they take pride in being law abiding, there is no reason to think that the vast majority will not continue to obey the law, as they have so far. The Government believes that the police will ensure that there is no mass flouting of the law. Many pro-hunt people are now adopting ways of riding with their dogs within the law. The Government welcomes this in principle, and looks to these people to demonstrate unequivocally that their actions are not a ruse to continue hunting illegally. The rule of law is essential to a constitutional democracy and all reasonable people will recognise that they simply cannot pick and choose which laws to obey.
What representations has Defra received from the police?
Ministers have discussed the provisions of the Act with police representatives, including Alistair McWhirter, the Chief Constable of Suffolk and rural spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. The police have made it clear that they consider the Act to be enforceable. Of course, the police, as on any issue, are concerned about the level of their resources but they respect the decisions of Parliament.
Is it correct that people can be imprisoned for failure to pay a fine?
The penalties for offences under the Act do not include imprisonment. A person found guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction in a magistrates’ court to a fine of up to £5,000. Deliberate failure to pay a fine imposed by a court could make the person liable to a penalty of imprisonment for contempt of court, but that is a matter for the courts.
Is the police power of arrest when an offence is about to be committed unprecedented?
A general power to make an arrest in anticipation of an offence being committed is available for all offences carrying a penalty of 5 years or more imprisonment. There is also a long list of offences which do not carry a penalty of 5 years imprisonment where this power is available because of the nature of the offence. The Government considers that the offences created by the Act justify the use of this power. It would be ludicrous if a policeman could not prevent an offence which is clearly about to happen such as illegal hunting or participation in hare coursing.
Aren't the police powers of search/seizure etc draconian
The powers of search and seizure given to the police are very similar to those contained in other animal related legislation - such as the Deer Act 1991, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 - all of which were enacted under the last Conservative government. They go no further than is necessary to ensure proper enforcement.
Why does the power of arrest only apply to some, but not others, of the offences?
The purpose of the power to arrest is to enable the police to stop any illegal hunting and hare coursing that they encounter. The power of arrest, therefore, can be used to deal with those actually involved in illegal hunting or hare coursing. Those committing the other offences, such as permitting land to be used for illegal hunting, can be dealt with by means of a summons.
Doesn’t the absence of imprisonment creates a loophole enabling a badger baiter to claim he was putting a dog below ground to search for a fox (rather than a badger) to avoid the possibility of imprisonment?
As the use of a dog below ground is banned, other than in limited circumstances in order to protect birds for shooting, this loophole is effectively closed.
£5,000 is an inadequate penalty for illegal hunting. Why is a custodial sentence not being considered?
The Government believes that the prospect of a fine of up to £5,000 will be sufficient to deter illegal hunting. Where hunting results in a cruelty offence under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Court could impose a prison sentence of up to six months.
Page last modified:
25 August, 2005
Page published: 28 September, 2004