One vexatious Hunting Act prosecution is one too many

Countryside Alliance Director of Campaigns Tim Bonner writes: The sordid details of the case against Paul Whitehead and Ted Potter of the Lunesdale Hunt, which was thrown out on the first day of trial on Wednesday, serve to remind us exactly what a mess the Hunting Act is in. The long hours of League Against Cruel Sports 'covert surveillance' carried out by a strange mixture of hunt sabs and ex policemen. Police interviews with the defendants where the video did not work and no meaningful allegation was put to them. An extraordinary decision by the CPS to bring a prosecution, presumably under intense and improper pressure from LACS. The key LACS witness statement, which 'identified' the huntsman solely on the basis that he was 'close to the hounds', and at one point claimed a rock rolling down the mountain was a fox. The heavily edited video evidence, which arrived months late just a couple of weeks before trial. The LACS 'intelligence' report on the Lunesdale, which included a photograph of a totally different pack and huntsman. And of course then the desperate blame shifting as the whole ridiculous process fell apart in a few hours in court. It is too easy just to file this case with the list of other vindictive and wasteful prosecutions based on allegations by LACS and other animal rights organisations over the last 10 years, but we must not. It is too easy because the Lunesdale case was thrown out, with the benefit of the support of the Alliance and lawyer Stephen Welford, and because such cases remain thankfully rare, with just five coming out of the 2013/14 hunting season. We must not just file and forget, however, because even one case like this is totally unacceptable. The Hunting Act is such a bad law that it is now rare to hear even its original proponents defend it on the basis of animal welfare. However there are some who acknowledge its failings, but would rather not tackle the awkward job of repealing it. They use the 'successful' defence of hunts like the Lunesdale as justification for inaction. We must never allow this argument to go unchallenged. One such prosecution based on vexatious allegations is one too many, and anyone who thinks such cases are acceptable should try putting themselves in the shoes of the eight other hunt supporters currently awaiting trial on Hunting Act charges, every single one on the basis of allegations made by paid animal rights activists. Follow Tim on Twitter @CA_TimB