# DPP v. Anthony Wright



## zigzagzig (2 April 2009)

[Paragraph 14] The case stated, dated 3 September 2008, poses the following questions for the opinion of this court:

    "(1) whether the combined effect of section 101 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, and the provisions of the Hunting Act 2004, are such as to place a burden on the defendant to prove the exemptions set out in Schedule 1 to the Hunting Act 2004?

    (2) whether the term "hunt" a wild mammal with a dog used in section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 includes the activity of searching for a wild animal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it?

Mr Justice Maddison ruled:

[Paragraph 90] For these reasons, our formal answers to the questions posed in the case stated are:

Question 1: No, but there is an evidential burden on the defendant.

Question 2: No.

[Paragraph 37] In our judgment, for the reasons which we have indicated, the term "hunts" a wild mammal with a dog, as used in section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004, does not include the mere searching for an unidentified wild mammal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it. That said, the question whether a person "hunts" a wild mammal with a dog is heavily fact specific, and we do not attempt to define by reference to particular hypothetical factual circumstances when hunting takes place for the purpose of the 2004 Act and when it does not.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

Yeap it's fine to use dogs to hunt for deer.  I am aware of that 

Does that mean that it's ok to pursue deer with dogs then?


----------



## zigzagzig (2 April 2009)

"In our judgment, for the reasons which we have indicated, the term "hunts" a wild mammal with a dog, as used in section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004, does not include the mere searching for an unidentified wild mammal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it."

Ergo, as I've been repeatedly telling you, what you do isn't hunting and the Hunting Act doesn't apply.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

But I wasn't talking about 

"the mere searching for an unidentified wild mammal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it."

So what is the relevance of that?

I was discussing deliberately flushing out and chasing an identified animal.


----------



## Bunce (2 April 2009)

That judgment says it is not illegal to search for an unidentified animal.  It's ridiculous to use it to suggest it isn't illegal to chase an identified animal.  You quite clearly either do not have a clue what you are talking about or are deliberately trying to sow confusion.

It is illegal to chase wild mammals with dogs.  End of.

What was key in the unfortunate acquittal of Tony Wright was that he was found to have taken reasonable steps to ensure the foxes were shot.  Without this finding if he had merely intended to chase he would have been found guilty.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

It is illegal to chase wild mammals with dogs.  End of.
		
Click to expand...

Not quite true.  He did chase them.

You can chase them as long as you take reasonable steps to shoot them dead too.

It's this killing that is the key requirement.


----------



## combat_claire (2 April 2009)

The key finding in fact is that the burden of proof shifts from the defendant to the prosecution and now matches every other offence in the UK legal system

I see Bunce still hasn't found either the time or the inclination to read Schedule 1 and familiarise himself with what the Act actually says.


----------



## zigzagzig (2 April 2009)

The Wright case certainyl kicks your Exmoor jaunts into touch where the deer are scared by the sight of your dogs.

As for you shooing deer away from your copse, the Wright case tells us:

"It is uncontentious that, whatever "hunts" means in section 1, hunting is by definition intentional." What's more, any prosecution would need to prove "to the criminal standard" what the defendant's intention was. 

You've already said that you don't consider what you do to be hunting. Even if the quarry is identified you lack the necessary intention to be convicted under the Act.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

Zig zag you asked me and I responded in the context of my exmoor jaunts.

You really are arguing in a highly dishonest manner by trying to apply that to my woodland activities on my farm.

Why can't you just argue the point instead of making stuff up all the time.

It's rather pathetic.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

"As for you shooing deer away from your copse"

Sooooooo funny you cannot bring yourself to use the word flush lol!!!!!

My intention is to flush them out and chase them with more than two dogs.  Does that help?


----------



## Bunce (2 April 2009)

On the contrary the deliberate use of dogs to chase wild mammals is illegal.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

On the contrary the deliberate use of dogs to chase wild mammals is illegal.
		
Click to expand...

Not according to ziggy zaggy!

Just because I intend to chase the wild mammals and do chase them according to him its fine.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

What he is saying bunce is that if I decide that chasing deer with my dogs is ok then I can and whatever law you might pass it is basically tough sh1t.

Don't you get it?

 :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:


----------



## woolly (2 April 2009)

No!!!!! each case will be fact specific and given the particular 'facts' of any case will be interesting to see what convictions emerge.


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

No!!!!! each case will be fact specific and given the particular 'facts' of any case will be interesting to see what convictions emerge.
		
Click to expand...

ok so are we saying that given the fact of some one deliberately using dogs to pursuing deer we have no way of knowing if he is breaking the law or not?

That's what I don;t get.  It says it is illegal; to pursue a wild mammal with a dog and yet it seems it might not be.

Seriously confusing!

Is it against the theft act to steal?


----------



## combat_claire (2 April 2009)

No!!!!! each case will be fact specific and given the particular 'facts' of any case will be interesting to see what convictions emerge.
		
Click to expand...

Or as in recent cases to see which the CPS decide not to pursue further...


----------



## woolly (2 April 2009)

granted!


----------



## combat_claire (2 April 2009)

There really are some interesting legal questions to be asked both in the court cases that are still upcoming and the legal challenges. Exciting times...


----------



## woolly (2 April 2009)

the word deliberate will be hard to prove I should imagine...
Ok here is a theoretical example
I am a female walking my 86KG Irish Wolfhound in a wood known to have deer... I may do so knowing my dog loves to chase deer and what my dog loves makes me happy. I am wearing bright coloured clothing, hairspray, make up a skirt and perfume and just for extra warmth a nice rustly waterproof....all whilst whistling a merry tune ... Not the conventional garb of a 'hunter/stalker' not the conventional action.
My dogs sees some deer and chases them...I call to my dog to come back using a tone I would reserve to usually encourage him... Have I negatived my actions with words????? Prove deliberate.... It is hard and I agree with you. In court the above fictitious situation would come down to me swearing on oath that I did not mean for my dog to chase deer.... which in that situation I could not do as it would be perjury but to the 'witness' its seems unlikely. 
To steal I can't comment but think there is a fine line between permanently depriving someone of something and just taking it.... A lawyer would have to clarify that as I am not legally qualified.
It is indeed confusing up to a point!


----------



## Hebegebe (2 April 2009)

It can be confusing I grant you but seeing as I go out with the express intention of flushing out and chasing the deer I'm not sure it is in my case.

Unless of course as zig zag claims it isn't against the law.

It seems that four years on even the most basic questions as to what is and isn't legal under this law remain beyond some people's grasp.


----------



## woolly (2 April 2009)

The law is an odd creature and yes I agree..... the Act says its illegal in the situation you suggest but who can comment of the vastly imaginative canons of construction used by a court????  Either way its a farce and although my dog is now deceased, pre ban he chased deer to his hearts content. He never caught one... too big, too heavy and the deer always came back for more so obviously unaffected!
Post ban of course we prevented him from being illegal and ourselves breaking the law!


----------



## wurzel (2 April 2009)

On the contrary the deliberate use of dogs to chase wild mammals is illegal.
		
Click to expand...

So, do I break the law then?

I deliberately use my dogs to chase deer off my fields.

It is so confusing.


----------



## gails (5 April 2009)

Simply put, the law is an ass


----------

