Hunt supporters angry after police fail to charge activist who planted tracker device
Campaigner could only be prosecuted if she meant to steal vehicle, officers tell target of alleged offence
POLICE have been criticised after an anti-hunt campaigner allegedly caught planting a tracker on a huntswoman’s trailer was released without charge.
The incident has prompted calls for the Home Office to close a loophole in the law as hunt supporters fear it could appear to give the green light to anyone to install a tracker on another person’s vehicle without consent.
The loophole was identified after Mary Wynne-Jones, 68, from Market Drayton, Shropshire, interrupted a hunt monitor she claims was trying to fix a tracker to her Land Rover and trailer on her return from riding with the Wynnstay Hunt, which straddles the Cheshire and North Wales border, on Dec 6 last year.
The woman claimed she was thinking about buying a trailer and wanted to see if she could manage one. But after inspecting her vehicle, Mrs WynneJones discovered a tracker in the trailer chassis and called police.
The female suspect, identified by hunt supporters as a hunt monitor known to them, is said to have admitted to Mrs Wynne-Jones and police that she had placed the tracker.
Mrs Wynne-Jones said: “She told me it was uncharacteristic and a spur of the moment thing.”
But Mrs Wynne-Jones then received a letter from PC Perrin, of Rhos police station, saying: “As the female made it quite clear the alleged tracker was NOT placed there to commit theft, no crime has been committed.” He added other offences had been considered “but these circumstances did not fit any”.
Mrs Wynne-Jones said: “I think it has to be an illegal act for someone to put a tracker on someone’s vehicle without their consent. It was obviously intended to follow me so saboteurs could find out where I was going hunting, which is a legal activity. This should be a criminal offence.”
When contacted by the Telegraph, the woman identified by Mrs WynneJones as allegedly planting the tracker denied doing so, but admitted she had considered such an action. She said: “I have thought about tracking – I’ve looked into it. I honestly don’t know whether tracking a car is illegal. I think it’s a bit of a grey area. But I haven’t done it and I’m not aware of anyone who has.”
She added: “For us, it’s about finding the hunts that are hunting illegally. 85 per cent of the population don’t want foxhunting. People like it less and less – they have the hunts coming on to their private land and going into their villages and they don’t want them.
“The problem is that the 2004 Hunting Act has a lot of loopholes and they exploit them to the maximum.”
Trackers have been previously spotted on vehicles of hunt supporters and marksmen involved in the official badger cull, but this is thought to be the first time an alleged perpetrator has been caught in the act.
Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, who is contacting Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, about the legal loophole, described the episode as “incredibly sinister and worrying.”
He said: “The repercussions go way beyond hunting. It is concerning that anyone could so easily be the victim of stalking. Most would agree this is a shocking violation of privacy which could put people in serious danger. Action needs to take place to address what looks like an unacceptable loophole.”
North Wales Police declined to comment on a specific case but said: “A private individual placing a tracker on another person’s vehicle is not in itself a criminal offence. However a course of such conduct may constitute a criminal offence in certain circumstances. If damage is caused or there is an intention to steal the vehicle, they would also be criminal offences.”
Lawyers believe the criminal law has not caught up with the use of GPS trackers in Britain. Rupert Jones, a criminal barrister in Birmingham, said: “There is definitely a gap in the law.
The vehicle interference offence only applies when the intention of the installer is that the car is to be stolen.
“The concerning situations are when someone installs a tracker to work out where someone lives, or what their daily habits are, with an intention of committing another offence against them or their property.”
Nicholas Hall, a criminal barrister in London, said: “Given the increasing popularity of trackers, it may be new laws will be introduced in future to capture this specific type of behaviour.”
The Home Office declined to comment on the situation.
‘Most would agree this is a shocking violation of privacy which could put people in serious danger’