lurcherboy Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 The second day of the League Against Cruel Sports prosecution of Tony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, in Barnstaple Magistrates court saw the prosecution complete their case and the defence commence. First on the stand was our old friend Prof. Stephen Harris of Bristol University who repeated his claims that foxes do not cause serious damage to livestock and added a new twist with his views on ‘fox shoots’. Apparently driving foxes to shotguns was the preferred method for urban fox control until the 1980s and the 1969 Camberley Rabies outbreak is a model for fox shooting. Prof. Harris’s evidence was certainly not decisive, but Tony Wright’s may have been. Tony spent four hours on the stand firstly taken by his own barrister, David Williams Q.C., through the day in question. He then faced lengthy, detailed and increasingly desperate cross-questioning from the prosecution. His evidence was clear, consistent and convincing. He explained the plans for the day, which were agreed with his Master and the Exmoor’s marksman. Five foxes were found and hounds were stopped on four occasions. On a fifth the Exmoor’s marksman shot a fox. The Exmoor’s Master, Felicita Busby, was the final witness. She confirmed that they had permission to be on the land they hunted and were doing so at the request of farmers who had lost lambs to fox predation. The defence case may be completed tomorrow or on Thursday morning with David Williams’ closing address. There may also be further representations from both defence and prosecution counsel on points of law. The District Judge has indicated that he may be able to give a written judgement and verdict on Friday. LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirky640 Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 has this country not got more pressing issues to worry about than a few folk chasing a fox with a pack of dogs ? homless drugs related crime child molesters ilegal imagrints putting brittish industrie back om track etc they should spend there time on something more constructive imo sorry about spelling but you all know i cant by now !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case., from an academic point of view. Hopefully, the Exmoor is found not guilty, then the case will have cost the LACS loads of money and will make them think twice about harrassing people in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 I'm with kirky! This country has a hell of a lot more to worry about than a few people killing the odd fox. The thing that gets my back up so much is the fact that these people love animals more than they love human beings, they must or they would devote their time to preventing the thousands of instances of child molestation, rape and assault that occur each and every year in this country. These people are horribly hypocritical with it, they all contribute to the death of animals in some way no matter how many five bean and chickpea casseroles they eat The major problem here is that they can't see past the rage they feel when they see cute fluffy mr fox get ****** in one way or another, their obsession blinds them to the reality of the situation, down come the blinkers and it ceases to be an excercise in anything moral and becomes a consumption which is incredibly unhealthy. Everyone is allowed their view, I just feel sorry for these people. If you asked a shrink they would tell you that someone exhibiting this behaviour needs professional help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Ah, the statistics from Hansard indicate, 700 hours of debate on Fox Hunting and 3 hours on Iraq (as of Feb 2005). This has never been about the poor ickle foxes - this is about Guardian reading numpties out of Islington wanting to tell the Countryside how to run itself and it's a class thing - all huntsmen being seen as toffs. But seriously, could I give a toss? Absolutely not, I have far more important things to worry about, and so too should the rest of the inhabitants of this Country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Says it all really The only people with moral high ground here are the bhuddists, not your fake kensington-rah-rah-rah chickpea and lental bhuddists, but the propper sort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertyandlivelihood Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Could someone tell me where the best news updates are for this case?? I have been trying to keep up with it but no one seems to report throughout the case, more worried about the final result it seems. I hope he is found not guilty and that it is made headline news so people realise what a joke the law is. Sorry but thats my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Theres not much more info about. Seems its a private prosecution and I can't see him being found guilty as it seems they were hunting to the law and the only fox that died was shot. Police and CPS had already decided there was no evidence there so I can't see this judge being any different! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Theres not much more info about. Seems its a private prosecution and I can't see him being found guilty as it seems they were hunting to the law and the only fox that died was shot. Police and CPS had already decided there was no evidence there so I can't see this judge being any different! No offence if anyone here works there, but the CPS are a bunch of spineless fools. They couldn't find evidence to prosecute with both hands if it were stapled to their **** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning GTS Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Could someone tell me where the best news updates are for this case??I have been trying to keep up with it but no one seems to report throughout the case, more worried about the final result it seems. I hope he is found not guilty and that it is made headline news so people realise what a joke the law is. Sorry but thats my view. I thought your name would have been a clue! the Countryside Alliance web sit is reporting on this case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) huntsman pursued foxes across Exmoor in "wilful disregard" of the Hunting Act, a court was told today. Exmoor Foxhounds huntsman Tony Wright, 52, appeared in court in a private prosecution brought by the League Against Cruel Sports. Wright, of Exmoor Kennels, Simonsbath, Exmoor, pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing to a charge of hunting a fox on April 29 last year contrary to the Hunting Act 2004. It is the first prosecution in England relating to a fox or stag hunt to be brought under the Act. Prosecuting for the League, Richard Furlong told district judge Paul Farmer, sitting at Barnstaple Magistrates Devon: "This is not about whether the Act is right or wrong, or whether it is fair. It remains the law of England and Wales and he has broken that law." Mr Furlong alleged Wright, an employee of Exmoor Foxhounds, hunted two foxes with hounds in circumstances which were in "clear breach" of the Act. Save for the fact only two hounds were used, his activities appeared to be "traditional hunting", said Mr Furlong. The court watched a video of the day's activities made by the League's education and sanctuaries officer Edmund Shepherd. Wright had two defences available to him which had to be proved on the balance of probabilities - that what took place was lawful within terms of exemption within the Act, or that he reasonably believed he was engaged in exempt hunting. "We say from his conduct on that day you can be sure on the balance of probabilities, and even beyond a reasonable doubt, what Anthony Wright did was unlawful and he knew it was unlawful," Mr Furlong told the judge. When the hounds found foxes what took place was neither stalking nor flushing them out of cover - the terms used in the Act to create the exemption. What happened was a "prolonged period of pursuit" of the foxes by hounds in Mr Wright's charge which the League said was hunting within the Act and not covered by the exemption. Mr Furlong said no reasonable steps were taken to have the foxes shot dead as soon as possible by a competent person - which was really the whole basis of exempt hunting. "Exempt hunting is not hunting at all - it is finding, flushing and shooting," said Mr Furlong. He said there was a man present on a quad bike with a gun bag slung over his back, but at no stage was he seen to produce any gun. And at the time the hounds were pursuing the foxes, he was not in any position to shoot them. Reasonable steps to ensure a fox was shot dead as soon as possible after being found or flushed required a "line or lines of guns," said Mr Furlong, adding "there was nothing of the sort." He said the hounds were not being called off by horn or whip, nor were they under close control of Mr Wright to ensure they did not obstruct someone from shooting a fox. While hunting the second fox, Mr Wright was encouraging the hounds in their pursuit with staccato horn calls traditionally used to "egg on" hounds, not call them off. Mr Furlong said the object of the exercise was shooting, and it did "violence to common sense" to argue that Mr Wright and his followers were engaged in a shooting exercise. He added: "They were of course engaged in a hunting exercise." He said Wright's conduct on the day indicated "a cynical attempt to pay lip service to the legislation, by having one man on a quad bike present with a gun bag, by using no more than two hounds, and by having carriers hidden in a box". "The object of the meet that day, and indeed the eventual outcome of the meet, was for Mr Wright to provide a traditional spectacle for paying customers," said Mr Furlong, adding: "cruelly and deliberately Mr Wright pursued his ends in wilful disregard of the law." Mr Shepherd, who produced the video to the court, said that when the hounds found and chased the first fox the huntsman was nowhere to be seen, and he heard no shots, or attempts to stop the pursuit. A video of the day's activities, shot by League education and sanctuaries officer Edmund Shepherd, showed two occasions on which foxes were pursued across Exmoor by two hounds. Mr Shepherd told the court he heard no attempt by huntsman Tony Wright to call off the hounds, no one was in position to shoot the foxes and he heard no shots. The trial was adjourned to tomorrow. Edited August 2, 2006 by henry d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Eh two hounds? That's not exactly a "pack" is it - that's just a pair. I can't see how they will win in their private prosecution and they are mugs for bringing what they obviously hoped would be their "test" case when the case is rather flimsy on the facts. Strange they would pick such a weak case - under normal cirumcumstances one could envisage an appeal but if I was them I would save my money. Maybe they got impatient. Bored, bored, bored by it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Eh two hounds? That's not exactly a "pack" is it - that's just a pair. I can't see how they will win in their private prosecution and they are mugs for bringing what they obviously hoped would be their "test" case when the case is rather flimsy on the facts. Strange they would pick such a weak case - under normal cirumcumstances one could envisage an appeal but if I was them I would save my money. Maybe they got impatient. Bored, bored, bored by it all. Couldn't agree more Mungler, the fact that this case IS SO WEAK really underlines the fact that the ban is riddled with loopholes.....I'm surpirsed the CPS even bothered, no doubt they were under orders... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 .....I'm surprised the CPS even bothered, no doubt they were under orders The CPS did not. It's a private prosecution by the LACS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 .....I'm surprised the CPS even bothered, no doubt they were under orders The CPS did not. It's a private prosecution by the LACS. Aah Ummm..... Think I'll rest my case then.... Oops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatingisbest Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 more than once i have been attacked by dogs in local parks, the owners have not said a word or attempted to stop the dog! It seems that all of these 'anti hunting groups' care more for animals than people. I feel disgusted and cannot believe that this country has sunk this low, patriotism is virtually non existant, 10 years ago, everyone was proud to be british, for me it become opposite. Its ridiculous!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Link Well they found him guilty but his fine was £500 and it cost them 65K to get that far best bit is he can appeal and waste even more of their money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 No mention of if he had to pay costs, if he didn't then this is a victory in a lot of ways really. Let them keep bringing private prosecutions @ 65k a shot, we will soon find out how many people are willing to fork out 30k every time they want to smack someone on the wrist for killing a fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Its a great shame that the Exmoor Foxhounds lost this case. The resultant publicity and "spin" put on this result by the LACS, won't do the hunting reform case a lot of good. The strong argument has always been that the Ban is unenforceable. This case proves that it is not and will put pressure on the CPS to support more of the LACS complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 the only plus point is if it makes the law look enforceable so they don't tighten up any of the loopholes in it. After all its a private prosecution so doesn't have much relevance. Hope it costs them another 65K though when he appeals it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Master Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 The only fox killed on the day was one shot by a marksman. They were prosucuting for a 'prolonged chase' which apparently wasn't exempt hunting. Fight the ban, hunt on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the ferreter Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 No mention of if he had to pay costs, if he didn't then this is a victory in a lot of ways really. Let them keep bringing private prosecutions @ 65k a shot, we will soon find out how many people are willing to fork out 30k every time they want to smack someone on the wrist for killing a fox. had to pay £250 costs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Master Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Good. The league have less than 5000 members now and soon its all going to get expensive with all this twaddle plus the fact that their expensive digital cameras and video cameras keep getting smashed when they turn them on people enjoying a days hunting and following. I wonder why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 That is truly ridiculous. Well, the law is an ***. Funny that such an important case was left to a magistrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 There seems to be a mix up in the reports, I thought the case was heard before a District Judge, who is full time and legally qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.