Another damning video, another dropped case
Somerset Wildlife Crime's story shows how the law protects hunting - whether it intends to or not
Despite clear footage of hounds chasing a fox across a field, Dorset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided against taking members of Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt to court. And the monitors that captured the footage are angry.
Hounds behind a fox
Somerset Wildlife Crime monitored the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale on 19th December 2020. During the meet, at Longburton in Dorset, the hunt monitoring group captured video of hounds apparently following the scent of a fox.
Footage from one camera shows a fox running across a field as three men standing next to a quad bike look on. Seconds later, the pack of hounds is seen finding then following the fox’s line across the field before going into cry. A second camera shows what Somerset Wildlife Crime says is the huntsman in the next field over, looking in the direction of the hounds and fox. An annotation to the video says the huntsman made “no effort to stop” the hounds.
Bobbie Armstrong, spokesperson for Somerset Wildlife Crime, told The Citro that:
Depending on who’s camera angle you’ve got, the hounds are between six and 11 seconds [behind the fox]. Bear in mind the huntsman’s got elevated position, unobstructed clear view across that field. … He’s looking straight across that field [with the fox and hounds].
For illegal hunting to take place, there’s no need for hounds to kill an animal. Hunting is defined in the Hunting Act as “the pursuit of a wild mammal”, with “one or more dogs... employed in that pursuit”. As a result, Somerset Wildlife Crime believed it had clear evidence of criminality.
The problem of intent
The Independent reported on 28th May 2021 that, after consulting with the CPS, Dorset Police dropped the case due to insufficient evidence. In particular, that evidence submitted by Somerset Wildlife Crime doesn’t show “intent”.
The stipulation of intent was established through Summersgill vs Taunton Deane Magistrates Court 2009 case law. And in practice, it means evidence must show suspects encouraging hounds in pursuit of quarry. A huntsman or other hunt staff failing to intervene in a pursuit doesn’t mean the standards for prosecution.
But Armstrong told The Citro that the huntsman is heard encouraging the hounds on during another clip. It shows two men holloaing in a field, a vocal cry that traditionally tells the huntsman the location and direction of quarry. A second camera, which annotation says is positioned “ahead of hounds and the holloa”, shows the pack ‘speaking’ with their heads to the ground. This would normally occur when hounds are picking up a scent. The footage shows the hounds continuing to cry until they run out onto a road, at which point they slow down and quieten. A horn is heard blowing in the distance, and the hounds return in the direction from which they first appeared.
Armstrong explained, however, that this later film never reached the CPS. At the request of police, the footage was submitted through filesharing website WeTransfer. The site provides information to the sender on whether recipients have downloaded files or not. As a result, Armstrong said the group could see that the investigating officer “never downloaded that link”. And that the officer “claimed later on he had absolutely no knowledge of [the] footage existing” after the CPS decided not to take the case up. Armstrong said she had personally asked the officer to review the later footage.
These problems ultimately led the CPS to reviewing the case based on what Armstrong describes as “preliminary clips”. This is what was meant when the Independent quoted Somerset Wildlife Crime as saying that the investigating officer sent “only partial evidence to the CPS”.
Taking statements
Apart from issues arising from the footage, there were also problems around witness statements. The Independent highlighted how Dorset Police refused to take witness statements from members of Somerset Wildlife Crime. And Armstrong told The Citro that Dorset Police told the group this decision was taken because “it wasn’t considered likely to add anything evidentially to the case”. But, she explained, this glosses over the nuances of hunting and how it can “breach the Hunting Act”.
When The Citro approached Dorset Police for comment on the issue, it provided the same statement sent to the Independent. We’ve included it here in full:
Dorset Police received a report at around 1pm on Monday 21 December 2020 in relation to an illegal fox hunt in the Longburton area near Sherborne. It was reported that the hunt occurred on Saturday 19 December 2020.
Officers carried out an investigation and reviewed all available footage. Following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, a decision was made not to bring any charges in relation to this case.
Dorset Police will investigate any alleged breached of the Hunting Act 2004 and other legislation and will work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to determine if a case could be taken to court.
Any alleged breach of the Hunting Act 2004 is investigated by a dedicated wildlife crime officer who has received specific training and guidance in this area.
Hunting mammals with dogs has been illegal since 2004. A few, very specific, exemptions apply.
There has been no change to the policy about taking statements. It is considered on a case-by-case basis what is needed evidentially to secure a conviction and if required, officers will take a statement from witnesses.
We would urge anyone with clear evidence of such offending to please report it to us and supply any footage with a time, date and location for where it occurred.
There is no legal requirement for witness statements to accompany an investigation. This appears to go both ways. However, the Hunting Act is a notoriously difficult piece of legislation with which to prosecute, due to the high evidential bar it sets. Hunts also exploit outsiders’ lack of knowledge about hunting to cover their tracks. Hunt monitors and saboteurs are therefore ideally placed to help demystify and clarify what’s really happening in the fields.
What the future may hold
Armstrong is realistic about the difficulties of the Hunting Act, especially given that hunting offences are “at the bottom of their list [of] priorities”. She told The Citro that Somerset Wildlife Crime has worked with local police forces over many years to build an archive of evidence against local hunts, submitting footage that doesn’t necessarily display illegal hunting but fleshes out their actions.
But this is the second time that the group has provided apparently damning footage that’s failed to prosecute the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt. In January 2020, a magistrate found huntsman Mark Doggrell not guilty after Somerset Wildlife Crime filmed his hounds chasing a fox through a churchyard.
The Citro asked what monitoring’s repeated dead ends may mean for the future of Somerset Wildlife Crime. Armstrong said:
You’ve got to do something. … If we can’t get co-operation of the police force, if we are going to have a police force that runs and hides behind the apron of the CPS… Then I’ll go back to sabbing.
Want to support The Citro? Click here to contribute.
Headline image via Somerset Wildlife Crime