Fernie prosecuted under Hunting Act

[swanseajack 227]

Fernie Hunt pair guilty over Hunting Act breaches

 

 

Published on Thu Jan 13 10:12:54 GMT 2011

 

TWO employees of the Fernie Hunt have been fined after they were found guilty of breaching the ban on hunting.

 

Huntsman Derek Hopkins (45) and terrierman Kevin Allen (51) were accused of hunting a wild mammal with a dog and interfering with a badger sett or being reckless as to whether their actions would damage it.

 

Representing the pair during the course of the seven-day trial, Philip Mott QC argued that the hunt had been following a scent trail and not fox hunting, and that the badger sett was not occupied.

 

But at its conclusion yesterday (Wednesday), magistrates at the Harborough Court found Hopkins and Allen guilty on both counts.

 

Hopkins, of Welham Lane, Great Bowden, was fined a total of £850 and ordered to pay £1,250 costs plus a £15 surcharge.

 

Allen, of Nether Green, Great Bowden, received fines totalling £650 plus £900 costs and a £15 surcharge.

 

The trial centred on a hunt which took place near Stonton Wyville on January 27 last year and which was filmed by members of anti-hunt group, the League Against Cruel Sports.

 

Diana Cottrell, prosecuting, said the footage showed hounds marking the site of a badger sett where a fox had gone to ground, having been chased by the hunt.

 

The hunt was not following a scent trail, said Ms Cottrell, but actively hunting a fox in breach of the ban.

 

Ms Cottrell said that once at the sett, Allen was called over by Hopkins, who was on horseback, and instructed to introduce a terrier to flush out the fox so it could be hunted again.

 

The fox is then seen to bolt from the hole before being followed by the hounds - further evidence of illegal hunting said Ms Cottrell.

 

Allen said in evidence that he had been instructed to flush out the fox so it could be caught in nets and shot - a legal practice.

 

But after studying the video, magistrates said they could see no evidence of nets being placed over entrances to the sett to trap the fox and accepted the prosecution version of events.

 

Ms Cottrell said evidence of hair, dung heaps and bedding showed that the sett was occupied and this was also accepted by magistrates.

 

Addressing Hopkins and Allen, chair of the bench Ron Harris said: “We believe the fox went to ground as a result of being pursued. We believe the hounds were kept in the immediate area so they may be able to follow the fox should it bolt. We believe you were illegally hunting a fox.â€

 

In mitigation, Mr Mott QC said: “There was no intentional interference with a badger. This is very far from the kind of case of causing harm to a protected animal. These are men of good character with no previous convictions.â€

[Buch 145]

Frigging rediculous. Seems to have been a couple of hunt prosecutions this year. :thumbdown:

[swanseajack 227]

Frigging rediculous. Seems to have been a couple of hunt prosecutions this year. :thumbdown:

This is the third successful prosecution under the Hunting act.

[goldfinch2007 2,332]

these lads have a fecking criminal record now .hows yer patt pup jack

[slogger 13]

Those anits use really good cameras ....hope your not thinking what i am thinking

 

 

Pm me if you want an anti anti sabateur ..... I do a really good secret squirell act ...the cameras i gain will do for payment

Edited January 15, 2011 by slogger

[gonetoearth 5,144]

take the necessary action to limit there tactics it ain't hard

[herdwick 52]

I understood that a prosecution under the hunting act was on a par with a traffic offence and doesn't mean a criminal record.

Is this right or am I mistaken?

[gonetoearth 5,144]

I understood that a prosecution under the hunting act was on a par with a traffic offence and doesn't mean a criminal record.

Is this right or am I mistaken?

if they have been done under the wildlife act as well disturbing Mr B different matter

[Buch 145]

Frigging rediculous. Seems to have been a couple of hunt prosecutions this year. :thumbdown:

This is the third successful prosecution under the Hunting act.

 

Its not mate. Its the 3rd prosecution on a hunt. There have been quite a few on people coursing. Didnt one of the Devon huntsmen get done a month or so back?