Hunting Act Conviction

[Greywolf]

Just heard about this, so make sure you have a landowners permission before bagging a rabbit or two

Hunting Act conviction

Merseyside police has secured the UK’s first ever conviction for offences under the Hunting Act 2004 - but it was not a person who was following hounds on horseback.

In the early hours of 5 June 2005, PCs Boyd Francis and Sean Kelly arrested 19-year-old Adam Pengilley of Liverpool as he was leaving the Leverhulme Estate in Merseyside. Mr. Pengilley was in possession of two lurchers and lamping equipment.

He admitted that he had been hunting rabbits on the estate without permission from the landowners and therefore his hunting with dogs was not exempt. Mr. Pengilley was charged with offences against the Hunting Act 2004 and pleaded guilty at South Sefton Magistrates Court on 6 October 2005. He was fined £155 with £35 costs.

PC Andy McWilliam, Wildlife Officer for Merseyside Police, said: "Nationally, organised hunts have been the main focus of attention; however the Hunting Act is a useful tool to combat poaching-type offences, which are more of a problem in our area. We will not tolerate this type of behaviour and will crack down on anyone believed to be responsible."

John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion said: "This conviction demonstrates to those who continue to hunt wild mammals that those caught breaking this law will be brought to justice."

Lamping is a form of pest control involving the shooting of foxes and ground game at night with the aid of powerful lights. Hunters’ lamps can illuminate areas up to 300 metres away and are sometimes fixed to a vehicle. The reflection of the light in the eyes of the quarry startles them and helps direct the lampers’ aim.

Taken from http://www.nfucountryside.co.uk/news-1721.htm


Greywolf

 

[R-J]

first off, an expensive dog walk!

secondly,

He admitted that he had been hunting rabbits on the estate without permission from the landowners and therefore his hunting with dogs was not exempt. Greywolf

am i being daft (those who know me, shhhh!), but if he had permission would he have been exempt from the townies meddling act 2004?

 

[beachlover]

John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion said: "This conviction demonstrates to those who continue to hunt wild mammals that those caught breaking this law will be brought to justice."
Greywolf

Forgive me for being a mite cynical, but isn't the animal policeman trying to suggest to Joe Public that "hunting wild mammals" is against the law? Spin, or what?????

 

[running bare]

i am wrong or was that act brought in solely to stop hunting with dogs!!???
tom

 

[Buckshot]

if he had permission would he have been exempt from the townies meddling act 2004?

I think rabbits are exempt from the act so he's really been caught poaching rather than hunting - if you see what I mean... Although it appears the act doesn't make a distinction.
So yes, he would have been OK if he had permission
Not sure about the night time - I think it's OK but I'm not sure...

Mark

 

[Lurch]

i am wrong or was that act brought in solely to stop hunting with dogs!!???
tom

The article is a little misleading.
Chummy was 'lamping' using dogs, lurchers probably.
Shine lamp on bunny, send dog, dog fetches back bunny.

 

[ilovemybed]

I think rabbits are exempt from the act so he's really been caught poaching rather than hunting - if you see what I mean... Although it appears the act doesn't make a distinction.
So yes, he would have been OK if he had permission
Not sure about the night time - I think it's OK but I'm not sure...

Mark

Yes, the hunting act specifically excludes rabbiting but it has to be with explicit written permission of the landowner (and I think it has to be at hand at the time you're stopped)

However, if he'd left his dogs behind he'd probably have been done under some other law about hunting or shooting on land without permission.

I bet if he had a clever solicitor he could have argued that he was lamping with his rifle, but he was just taking his dogs for a walk at the same time and they were innocent bystanders in the hunt. After all, the police need evidence that they were used in the hunting - you can't be arrested for intention to hunt.

Still, if he was doing what they accused him of doing, good on him for admitting it. Doesn't matter if it's morally right or wrong - it's against the law.

 

[Adi]

Because this person did not have permission to be on the land nor to hunt over it, it can’t be considered he was carrying out pest control so in definition he was hunting, in this case poaching.

The police arrested this male with what they felt was the most appropriate offence and the CPS made a case for it and it went to court. The man was found guilty setting a precedence for future cases.

When a law is written it is only a guideline for reasonable people to follow, they are not written in stone and are very flexible and have to be tested in a court of law, this case has been tested and now if you are caught in the same circumstances the courts will find it easier to prosecute you.

 

[Kane]

He wasn't found guilty he admitted it - good poaching catch by the police, not too bothered which act they used to nail him if he didn't have the sense to take legal advice then he's a stupid poacher.

Kane

 

[Longstrider]

A poacher is a poacher is a poacher. Running lurchers on land where you have no right to be or to "go in pursuit of game" is a criminal act whether it's considered to be "hunting" or not. He's lucky that he was using dogs, not a gun. Even the use of an air rifle for this sort of activity will lead to a prosecution for Armed Trespass (a far more serious charge to face), so the dogs saved his bacon a little I'd say. Catch 'em and bag 'em means poachers as well as rabbits where a 'keeper is concerned.

 

[Adi]

He wasn't found guilty he admitted it - good poaching catch by the police, not too bothered which act they used to nail him if he didn't have the sense to take legal advice then he's a stupid poacher.

Kane

Firstly he admitted it, he pleaded guilty so the courts found him guilty.

Secondly this man did not have good legal representation (he admitted the offence to the police whilst in there custody, went to court and got fined) because this was the first ever conviction under the Hunting Act 2004, so it was a test case and if he had good legal representation he would have been advised to plead not guilty for that reason and that reason alone.

Any solicitor worth his salt would have seen the significance of this case and would have tried to rip the case apart.

The winners are the CPS for sneaking this case through, expanding this new law to include poaching by lamping.

Edit: I do not condone this mans actions, he was trespassing and stealing game this is poaching if he was armed he is committing aggravated trespass not armed trespass. He should have been arrested and he should have been charged.

My point is the police and CPS has used a new law against this man instead of well established and tested laws already set for this purpose. They have stretched the meaning of this law took it through court as a test case setting a precedence. This should have been tested by both the legal teams to decide whether it was appropriate to charge this man this offence.

 

[The Joker]

Rabbits and such like will soon be so easy to catch, because they will be so bound up in red tape, you'll be able to walk and pick them up.

 

[jamesoconnor]

my father has the full sporting rights to land between east kilbride and hamilton, around 1400 acres. a few weeks ago when the farmers fields had been cut i went out to have a look at the land for him as he intended to decoy over it the next day. one of the fields that had been cut had cattle in it unfortunately so we couldn't shoot it. this though never stopped the fella who was in the field in a hide shooting over the cattle!!! he even had a pigeon magnet among the cattle. i could have throttled him, as if the farmer was to even think that this was us, as you all know, that would be the end of any shooting on his land!! goes to show what poachers could do when they have no respect to other peoples sporting rights, and more importantly cattle and property!!

regards
james

 

[Kane]

Firstly he admitted it, he pleaded guilty so the courts found him guilty.

Secondly this man did not have good legal representation (he admitted the offence to the police whilst in there custody, went to court and got fined) because this was the first ever conviction under the Hunting Act 2004, so it was a test case and if he had good legal representation he would have been advised to plead not guilty for that reason and that reason alone.

Any solicitor worth his salt would have seen the significance of this case and would have tried to rip the case apart.

The winners are the CPS for sneaking this case through, expanding this new law to include poaching by lamping.

Edit: I do not condone this mans actions, he was trespassing and stealing game this is poaching if he was armed he is committing aggravated trespass not armed trespass. He should have been arrested and he should have been charged.

My point is the police and CPS has used a new law against this man instead of well established and tested laws already set for this purpose. They have stretched the meaning of this law took it through court as a test case setting a precedence. This should have been tested by both the legal teams to decide whether it was appropriate to charge this man this offence.

I meant he wasn't tried by a court after pleading not guilty and found guilty after his defense was submitted but I couldn't be bothered to type all that in ...

Kane

 

[dragonferret]

As a former underkeeper on a cumbrian sporting estate it is in my expirience that when a poacher admitts to poaching rabbits he has really been after bigger game ie deer usually red / fallow deer . If they catch one they have the dogs pull it down and the dogs will chew on its back leg until they get to the deer to slit its throat , then they often will hide the carcas in the bracken or such like and come back for it the folowing day . Knowing there is more chance of getting off with it if they are caught with a couple rabbits than a deer .

 

[Lurch]

if he was armed he is committing aggravated trespass not armed trespass.

How do you figure? Surely if he had a gun then it is armed trespass, aggravated trespass if he has any other kind of weapon?

 

[R-J]

As a former underkeeper on a cumbrian sporting estate it is in my expirience that when a poacher admitts to poaching rabbits he has really been after bigger game ie deer usually red / fallow deer . If they catch one they have the dogs pull it down and the dogs will chew on its back leg until they get to the deer to slit its throat , then they often will hide the carcas in the bracken or such like and come back for it the folowing day . Knowing there is more chance of getting off with it if they are caught with a couple rabbits than a deer .

dude, thats a bit of a sweeping generalisation !

 

[arctic hobo]

The article is a little misleading.
Chummy was 'lamping' using dogs, lurchers probably.
Shine lamp on bunny, send dog, dog fetches back bunny.

In which case, what is suspiciously referred to as "lamping equipment", that which sends a chill up the spine of the reader, and doubtless the relevant law enforcement officer... is, er, a lamp. I love the spin they put on these things

 

[bambodoggy]

When a law is written it is only a guideline for reasonable people to follow, they are not written in stone and are very flexible and have to be tested in a court of law, this case has been tested and now if you are caught in the same circumstances the courts will find it easier to prosecute you.

So next time you're out poaching a few bunnies make sure you've left your hound at home! lol


Seriously....isn't there a legal obligaion to keep bunny numbers down? If only we were in the US then the poor guy could counter sue the landowner for having too many rabits that "made" him have to hunt them! lol

Bam.

 

[Longstrider]

A little OT here, but... Dragonferrets statement is actually not that inaccurate from my experience. Poachers tend not to be the storybook "old boy, just out for a rabbit for the pot" types at all, and they will generally take whatever game they can bring down. If there are deer there, and the dog is big enough to take them, then the poachers will usually take them.
The case for keeping the rabbit numbers down is not a legal requirement as long as they do not interfere with a neighbours land. It only becomes a requirement to control the rabbits if they are living on your land but feeding/burrowing and generally making a nuisance of themselves on someone elses property. You can have as many rabbits living on your land as you like as long as they do not "trespass" beyond your boundary and trouble your neighbours.

All in all, I have to say that I agree with the fact that this seems to be a case of the wrong law being used to deal with an offence that already has laws covering it. The penalty imposed on this poacher seems pretty typical of those imposed under the previously existing laws, so other than making the point that they "have this law and aren't afraid to use it", it seems that they have almost used a sledgehammer to crack a nut.