Experience in Scotland
- Why were Scottish MPs able to vote on this Act even though their constituents will not be affected by its provisions?
- What are the effects of the Scottish Act?
- How does the Scottish Act differ from the Hunting Act?
- Have there been any legal challenges?
- Have there been any prosecutions?
- Does this have any implications for the Hunting Act in England and Wales?
- Isn’t it true that there has been an increase in the shooting of foxes in Scotland as a result of the Act?
Why were Scottish MPs able to vote on this Act even though their constituents will not be affected by its provisions?
It is the right of every member of the House of Commons to participate and vote. It is also the right of Scottish Lords to attend and vote in House of Lords debates. Scottish Lords were among those who opposed the Act and who voted against the proposal to defer its commencement.
What are the effects of the Scottish Act?
The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 makes it an offence deliberately to hunt a wild mammal with a dog but provides for various exceptions. These cover roughly similar ground to the exemptions in Schedule 1 to the Hunting Act, but with significant differences in detail.
How does the Scottish Act differ from the Hunting Act?
One key area of difference relates to the exemption permitting the use of dogs for stalking and flushing from cover. The Scottish Act does not limit the number of dogs to be used and has been interpreted as allowing hunting for almost any reason so that full scale hunts have continued under the guise of flushing foxes to guns. The wording of the exemption for stalking and flushing out in the Hunting Act is much more tightly drawn and does not allow the chasing of wild mammals after they have been found or flushed out.
Have there been any legal challenges?
Since the legislation was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2002, there have been two separate challenges on a variety of human rights and constitutional law grounds. Both petitions were dismissed in the Outer House of the Court of Session and one of the petitions has also been dismissed on appeal following an Hearing in the Inner House in 2003.
Have there been any prosecutions?
There have been a number of high profile prosecutions. The Master of the Duke of Buccleuch's hunt was acquitted of unlawful hunting, essentially on the grounds that the Procurator Fiscal was not able to prove that in all the circumstances of the case, the defendant had been acting outside the scope of the exemption for stalking and flushing out in the Scottish Act. Rulings in other cases are still awaited. In addition, two individuals have been prosecuted and found guilty of allowing and encouraging their dogs (Lurchers) to chase and kill hares. Fines have been imposed in these cases by the Sheriff.
Does this have any implications for the Hunting Act in England and Wales?
No. The stalking and flushing out exemption in the Hunting Act 2004 is substantially different from that in the Scottish Act, and the Government has stated that it does not believe that the acquittal would happen in a similar case in England or Wales.
Isn’t it true that there has been an increase in the shooting of foxes in Scotland as a result of the Act?
There have been a number of high profile prosecutions. Recently the Master of the Duke of Buccleuch's hunt was acquitted of unlawful hunting, essentially on the grounds that the Procurator Fiscal was not able to prove that in all the circumstances of the case, the defendant had been acting outside of the scope of the exemption for stalking and flushing out in the Scottish Act. Rulings in other cases are still awaited. In addition, two individuals have been prosecuted and found guilty of allowing and encouraging their dogs (Lurchers) to chase and kill hares. Fines have been imposed on these cases by the Sheriff.
Page last modified:
24 August, 2005
Page published: 28 September, 2004