Huntsman in court

[Ferret Master]

Hi,

 

I'm sure a fair few of you are aware of the current court case where the huntsman and whipper in for the Quantocks Staghounds are in court facing charges under the hunting act brought forward by the LACS scumbags.

 

This is copied from my CA e-mail for those who are interested:

 

For four days this week Richard Down, huntsman of the Quantocks Staghounds, and Adrian Pillivant, who was acting as his whipper-in, have been in Taunton Magistrates' Court facing a private prosecution by the League Against Cruel Sports under the Hunting Act.

 

 

LACS's barrister opened the case by claiming that Down and Pillivant had been party to a 'traditional' stag hunt on 16th February 2006, with the aim of chasing one deer until it came to bay. The evidence produced to support this came from two LACS employees, Ed Shephard and Graham Floyd, who filmed the Quantock Staghounds that afternoon. They presented video evidence of Richard Down encouraging two hounds into a coombe and, a short time later, two groups of deer appearing one of which was pursued by two hounds at a distance of about 200 yards. They also claimed to have heard two shots from a shotgun a little over an hour later. Professor Patrick Bateson gave evidence that deer might not cause serious damage to grass for grazing although he accepted that deer were large animals which required significant amounts of food.

 

Richard Down was the first witness for the defence and explained that the Quantock Staghounds had been asked to deal with a large group of hinds grazing on improved grassland at Crowcombe Park. They had started at about 11.45am with three guns present and had flushed deer from two covers killing four hinds cleanly before the LACS employees had arrived. The deer in the video evidence were being flushed back towards the three guns and, although they did not come within range of them on that occasion, they were re-found and two more were shot as heard by the LACS employees. A series of witnesses including the three guns, the landowner, local farmers and Quantock Staghounds Chairman Nick Gibbons confirmed the events of the day.

 

Although LACS insinuated that the evidence presented by the defence, including the number of deer killed, was untrue, they had no evidence to the contrary. The facts of the case are therefore agreed. What is not is whether the hunting carried out by the Quantocks on that day adheres to the conditions of 'Exempt Hunting'.

 

There are any number of interpretations of the first part of the 'fifth condition' of the flushing exemption that: "reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that after being found and flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person". This is the issue that will now be taxing the judge. We believe that the Quantock Staghounds were fulfilling that, and all the other conditions, of 'Exempt Hunting'. Even if the judge does not agree that their hunting was exempt Richard Down and Adrian Pillivant obviously believed that what they were doing was legal, and if the judge agrees that their belief was 'reasonable' then they should anyway be found not guilty.

 

The interpretation is not a simple matter. In fact it is a question that has led to the judge delaying his verdict until at least the week after next. In the meantime we can at least be happy that this case is costing LACS tens of thousands of pounds, yet whatever the outcome the Quantock Staghounds are absolutely determined that they will continue their crucial role in the management of the Red Deer of the Quantocks.

 

 

 

 

Good luck to the men. I met the master on a young shots day in 2005 and he seemed like a nice chap who intended to hunt within the new laws.

 

And as for the LACS I hope this case costs them thousands and makes them think twice about harrasing country people especially considering the living conditions of the deer that live on their reserves. LACS DEER MANAGEMENT

 

FM

[pin]

Good luck to them!

 

LACS boil my blood, they don't have animal interests at heart, only finding more horribly damaged spinster loners with too many cats to carry on their persecution of legal hunting activities to proliferate their misguided values in the vain hope they will be somehow compensated by finding anyone who wants to talk to them.

 

 

WRONG

[Poacher]

Good luck to the men. The LACS are so mis-guided its incredible, i read an article once about how the old head of the organisation changed his opinion on fox hunting stating it was a good method of fox control, and he approved of it, but only after he had resigned though

[digger]

Good lad FM, hopefully this will indeed cost the League Against Common Sense many thosands of pounds.

Being filmed on private grounds is, I believe, an infringement of civil liberties ? I may well be wrong on that but I do think there are grounds for antis recycling their cameras

With out a doubt with people like you we wont roll over and give in

Still working on getting the photos of anti hunt " sabs " and creating a web site including addresses and phone numbers so as they have sown so shall they reap.

Top man FM

[lurcherboy]

Again, good work FM

 

 

 

 

LB

[Ferret Master]

Cheers chaps.

 

PM me the site when it is complete digger so I can have a look.

 

FM

[dunganick]

"two shots from a shotgun"

 

not a rifle?

 

i know shotguns can be used on deer, but in very unusual circumstances.

 

Glad the Lacs have their evidence in order

 

glad its working out for us lot for a change.

[Ferret Master]

Nick, a shotty is normally used when the deer are brought to bay. It's used like a slaughtering tool rather than a sporting weapon.

 

FM

[pavman]

We should not underestimate the importance of such cases. It sounds like this was a well planned and executed legal operation, a view not shared by the LACS. Lets hope the Beak see’s it that way as well

[Gully]

Looks like they lost. £500 fine each.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6729983.stm

[pavman]

Quote, The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting

 

District Judge David Parsons

 

and there in lies the problem

[al4x]

Thats a shame but and this is bearing in mind I'm pro hunting and actually agree with doing everything to carry on hunting, but a lot of hunts have pretty much been exploiting every loophole possible and following my local one I've not actually seen anything different going on compared to before the ban. (except the presence of a golden eagle!) OK these got a fine but its a small fine and will have cost the LACS a packet and is in a way a kick in the ******** to the government as it shows its being treated as a very minor offence by the court. So all in all its a win win situation and hopefully its drained the LACS of some funds.

[pin]

Quote, The defendants were hunting for sport and recreation to continue their way of life and are disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing that they were exempt from hunting

 

District Judge David Parsons

 

and there in lies the problem

 

Indeed. However bad a conviction is, and the £500 a man fine (plus £1000 towards costs) still comes nowhere near what it will have cost the LACS to bring the prosecution.

 

District judges decisions do not set precedent, so this actually didn't achieve anything for the LACS.

 

Let them keep bringing these expensive prosecutions, the less money they have the less dangerous they are

[Gully]

As this is a private prosection do these to now have criminal records?

[pin]

I believe so, criminals in the eyes of the law

[Gully]

well there's the catch then. These two can't afford to get caught doing this again and considering their positions in the hunt it's going to be a bit tricky for them. I'm sure they and a lot of people involved in hunts have SGC & FAC and another conviction won't look too good.

[pin]

Indeed, there is that.

 

Such a stupid law, you can be as cruel as you like as long as you don't do it with dogs - what a nonsense

[al4x]

my guessing is hunt supporters will pay the fine and heres just hoping they aren't into shooting. Fundamentals are yes its a stupid law but its there and people know what they are doing when they break it, its just the more stupid the fine and more it goes round and round tying up court time the more chance of it being repealed.