When Justice Runs from the Hunt: Failed Prosecutions Expose Systemic Bias

Since Labour published its animal welfare strategy just before Christmas, pro-hunt lobbyists, including the British Hound Sports Association, the Countryside Alliance, and sympathetic MPs in the Conservative and Reform UK camps, have launched increasingly desperate attacks. Their message? That the new proposals demonstrate ignorance of “country life” and that rural communities overwhelmingly support fox hunting.

But beyond the familiar rhetoric lies a recurring and misleading claim: that because only a handful of convictions have occurred under the Hunting Act, hunters must be law-abiding. Tory MP Stuart Anderson recently argued in Parliament that with just 44 convictions since the 2004 ban, hunters clearly follow the law.

In reality, at least 59 convictions covering 78 charges under Section 1 of the Hunting Act have been secured, with Protect the Wild aware of an additional eight cases yet to reach court. Crucially, these convictions only occurred because dedicated wildlife defenders painstakingly collected and submitted evidence, often at personal risk, to the authorities.

Why convictions are so rare

A closer look at the system reveals why Hunting Act prosecutions frequently fail:

• Low priority: Wildlife crimes are treated as minor, summary-only offences heard in magistrates’ courts. Resources for investigations and prosecutions are limited.
• Lack of will: Many cases never reach court due to police or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) inaction or procedural mistakes.
• Police bias: Hunt members often belong to privileged communities, and evidence shows some police forces have historically deferred to them, as documented in the Warwickshire Hunt case.
• High evidential bar: The CPS often demands near-impossible proof that hunters intentionally breached the Act. Hunts exploit the “trail hunting” loophole, claiming any mammals killed were accidental.
• Exemptions: The Hunting Act allows for exceptions — such as hunting with up to two dogs for supposed “research” or “flushing to guns” — which are routinely misused.
• Intimidation: Witnesses, often local residents, frequently feel unsafe coming forward, undermining prosecutions.

Ten case studies that expose the system

1. Exmoor Foxhounds (2005) – The first Hunting Act conviction was later overturned on appeal, establishing a precedent that made future prosecutions even harder: the CPS must prove not only intent but also that a specific mammal was targeted.
2. Vale of White Horse Hunt (2022) – Clear footage of deliberate fox hunting led to dismissal due to Wiltshire Police and CPS errors, including unavailable witnesses.
3. Royal Artillery Hunt (2021) – MOD Police charges against huntsman Charles Carter were dropped due to a one-day late submission of files.
4. Holderness Hunt (2019) – CPS dropped a case despite video evidence of a vixen being torn apart.
5. Devon & Somerset Staghounds (2024) – Stag chased and killed on camera, yet police refused to bring the case to court. Exemptions for “observation” with two dogs were misused.
6. Kimblewick Hunt (2020) – Thames Valley Police declined to prosecute despite footage showing a fox killed and fed to hounds.
7. Puckeridge Hunt (2021) – Drone footage showed a huntsman encouraging hounds to kill, but the defendant claimed he was following a trail, leading to acquittal.
8. Belvoir Hunt (2023) – Huntsman John Holliday acquitted despite video showing fox pursued and killed, highlighting the impossibility of proving intent.
9. Wynnstay Hunt (2022) – Case collapsed because the key witness feared retaliation from violent hunt members.
10. Dunston Harriers (2022) – Acquittals followed claims of lack of control over hounds and prior trail-laying.

These examples show that the low number of convictions does not equate to compliance. Time and again, hunters escape justice through loopholes and legal technicalities.

The way forward

Protect the Wild advocates for a ban on trail hunting and the closure of exemptions, alongside a new “recklessness” clause that would hold hunts accountable for allowing hounds to pursue mammals, whether or not intent can be conclusively proven. Rob Pownall of Protect the Wild sums it up:

“Time and again, cases collapse not because hunts are innocent, but because trail hunting provides a ready-made loophole. Even when foxes are clearly chased and killed on camera, prosecutions fail because intent is almost impossible to prove under the current legislation.”

Wildlife is still at risk every day. Protect the Wild urges supporters to get involved: join local hunt saboteurs or monitors, read reports, and sign petitions pushing for a proper ban on hunting.

British wildlife deserves defenders who won’t compromise. Protect the Wild continues to expose cruelty, investigate violations, and campaign for legislation that works, all thanks to ordinary people giving what they can to support fearless advocacy.

If you believe British wildlife deserves defenders who won’t compromise, become a monthly supporter today.