Foiled: RSPCA’s bid to use dog fight laws in war on fox hunts
A JUDGE has thrown out an attempt by the RSPCA to prosecute fox hunters using fierce laws designed to stop dog fights.
The ruling is a blow to the charity, which has routinely brought cases against country sports enthusiasts under the Animal Welfare Act because this carries stiffer penalties than the Hunting Act – including imprisonment.
But a landmark decision by District Judge Kevin Gray last week saw a case collapse against six men and a woman because the prosecution was using the wrong law.
Following an undercover investigation by the RSPCA, the six were accused of hunting foxes, badgers and deer using lurchers.
But after almost four weeks of evidence and legal argument at Newton Abbot Magistrates’ Court in Devon, Judge Gray ruled there was no case to answer.
He concluded that taking a dog into the countryside ‘does not constitute fighting as defined in the Animal Welfare Act’ even if the intention is to kill another animal.
Jamie Foster, a pro-hunting solicitor, said it highlighted the way the RSPCA was ‘breaching not just the spirit but the letter of the law’.
The charity has already come under attack from critics who say it pursues needless prosecutions against huntsmen and pet owners.
Clive Rees, one of the lawyers defending two of the six accused, said: ‘The RSPCA routinely charges hunting folk with animal fighting under the Animal Welfare Act.
‘Judge Gray has now ruled, as we argued, that was wrong.
‘The decision was that Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act was confined to animal fighting and was not – as the RSPCA suggested – any fight between a lurcher and a fox in the context of a hunt. The proper way to charge hunting offences was under the Hunting Act 2004. If the charge could not be brought within that legislation it could not succeed.
‘Offences against the Hunting Act cannot result in a prison sentence or a ban against keeping dogs – while the Animal Welfare Act can.’
The Mail on Sunday understands that the charity will be lodging an appeal with the High Court this week in an attempt to have Judge Gray’s decision overturned. His ruling upheld an earlier understanding of the law. The Protection of Animals Act 1911, which the Animal Welfare Act replaced, stated clearly that only captive animals could be subjected to fighting.
A Countryside Alliance spokesman said: ‘There is no excuse for wildlife crime, but prosecuting people for the wrong offences simply means they will not be convicted or pun- ished. Unfortunately the RSPCA has a long history of trying to extend laws by campaigning in the courts.
‘It would be far better handing over prosecutions to the Crown Prosecution Service.’
An RSPCA spokesman said the charity intended to seek further clarification of the law. He said: ‘We always act fairly, impartially and with integrity as a prosecutor following the guidance laid down in the CPS code for Crown Prosecutors.
‘Last year, the RSPCA published a comprehensive review of its prosecution activity which showed claims made by the Countryside Alliance that we target the hunting community were completely unfounded.’
Two months ago, MPs launched a probe into whether it was appropriate for a charity to bring legal action, which could see the RSPCA stripped of its powers to prosecute.