In light of recent decisions by various land owning bodies (but not yet Forestry England or the Ministry of Defence) to stop licensing so called ‘trail hunting’ on their land we are outlining how we see the current situation. This information relates to OUR VIEW of the legal situation in England and Wales where the bulk of hunts operate. The law in Scotland and Northern Ireland is different.

Access to land in England and Wales is seriously restricted and requires there to be a right of way or landowner permission. The Gov UK website outlines the various types of rights of way and they are listed below:

• footpaths – for walking, running, mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs
• bridleways – for walking, horse riding, bicycles, mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs
• restricted byways – for any transport without a motor and mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs
• byways open to all traffic – for any kind of transport, including cars (but they’re mainly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders)

From the above it will be seen that horse riders and quad bike users are NOT permitted to use footpaths but can use bridleways and both types of byways. The only other way in which horse riders and quad bike users would be permitted on land is with the landowner’s permission.

The law in relation to dogs is more complex. Dogs that ‘worry’ livestock are dealt with by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 but this currently includes an exemption in section 1 (2) Ab for “a pack of hounds”.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 includes a provision in section 3(1) of the 1991 Act (as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that if any dog is dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property, the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence. That offence becomes an aggravated offence, and is triable either way, if the dog injures any person or an assistance dog while out of control. Section 10 (3) says that a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so.

Clearly there is considerable scope for interpretation and argument under both these acts.

Trespass is essentially a civil matter covered by the law of tort. Entering another’s land as a trespasser, remaining after permission to be present has been removed or abusing the right of entry (ie by not adhering to any conditions placed on entry) is actionable by the landowner or lawful occupier. They can sue for either damages or an injunction to prevent a repetition or both.

Finally there is the situation where an individual enters or is on land as a trespasser whilst in possession of a firearm. This is covered by section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968 and is rightly a very serious offence.

If a hunt does not have permission to enter land to ‘trail hunt’ or to use dogs to ‘flush foxes to guns’ then clearly no firearms would be needed.

As hunts are regularly monitored by various organisations and as the police are frequently in attendance in considerable numbers the normal excuses for failing to tackle wildlife crime will be hard to support.

There is no doubt that the supporters of hunting will strive to do everything they can to overturn the court’s decision in relation to Mark Hankinson. They have supporters in very high places and ‘spidery’ letters will be on their way to government ministers as we write this blog.

The pressure to enforce the law must be kept up. Without fear or favour.