The Hunting Act 2004

Under the Hunting Act 2004, it is an offence to hunt wild mammals with dogs (unless that hunting is exempt). If a person has with him or her a dog and is hunting a wild mammal he is guilty of an offence.

The Act creates five offences:

• Hunting a wild mammal with a dog,
• Permitting land to be used for hunting a wild mammal with a dog,
• Permitting a dog to be used for hunting a wild mammal,
• Participating in, attending, facilitating or permitting land to be used for the purposes of a hare-coursing event,
• Entering/permitting/handling a dog in a hare-coursing event.

A person found guilty of an offence under the Hunting Act “shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.” 

The fine for Level 5 offences (committed after 2015) is unlimited, but the average fine for breaches of the Hunting Act was estimated in 2022 to be just  £406 (over the preceding five years).

As noted in a 2023 Wildlife & Counrtryside Link report on wildlife crime, in a notorious case members of the Avon Vale Hunt were filmed digging up a fox and throwing it to a pack of hounds. The footage was shown on national television and drew significant attention to continued illegal hunting. However even with the clear video evidence the two men convicted were fined just £833 and £384 for illegal hunting offences, in addition to one receiving an 18-month community order and 200 hours of unpaid work for causing unnecessary suffering contrary to the Animal Welfare Act.

Under the Hunting Act 2004, “wild mammal” includes, in particular:

• a wild mammal which has been bred or tamed for any purpose,
• a wild mammal which is in captivity or confinement,
• a wild mammal which has escaped or been released from captivity or confinement,
• any mammal which is living wild.

Certain forms of exempt hunting are very closely defined in Schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 (as so often, a number of these protect the shooting industry):

• Stalking and flushing out a wild mammal for certain purposes, with a view to its being shot forthwith, and not using more than two dogs.
• Use of not more than one dog at a time below ground in the course of stalking or flushing to protect birds for shooting.
• Hunting rats.
• Hunting rabbits.
• Retrieval of shot hares.
• Flushing a wild mammal from cover in connection with falconry.
• Recapture of an accidentally escaped wild mammal.
• Rescue of a wild mammal believed injured using not more than two dogs and no dog below ground.
• Observation and study of a wild mammal, using not more than two dogs and no dog below ground.  

Dogs can’t go underground to find the foxes unless they’re threatening wild birds or birds kept for shooting – only one dog can go underground at any time.

A person must:

• shoot the fox quickly after the animal has been found

• carry proof you own the land you’re shooting on or have written permission from the landowner.

According to legal guidance published by the Crown Prosecution Service excuses used by hunts to evade prosecution include:

• Trail hunting

  Defendants claim that they were trail hunting and that an accident occurred where the dogs chased a wild mammal out of their control.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the accused ought to be aware their hounds were pursuing the scent of a wild mammal scent, and they did not do anything to stop them (or even did something to encourage them) when he had the opportunity to do so.

• Exempt hunting

  Defendants claim that they were hunting under one of the exemptions provided by Schedule 1 of the Act and therefore they were not committing any offence.

  Examples of exemptions that have been used in this type of defence are the “flushing to guns” exemption and the similar ‘falconry’ exemption. These involve arguing that the dogs were simply being used to flush out the prey so that it can be hunted by a bird of prey or shot.

  The “observation and research” exemption is another example and is often used in stag hunting cases, since stag hunts do not do trail hunting.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that any of the conditions needed to be able to claim a particular exempt hunting were not abided with (for example, the condition that the mammal needs to shot as soon as it is flushed out).

• Temporary lapse

  Defendants claim that they were hunting legally all day (so-called ‘trail hunting’) and for a moment they had a temporary lapse when they saw the hounds chasing a fox and they did not do as much as they could to stop them.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on showing a modus operandi from the beginning of the hunt which is more consistent with illegal hunting than with trail hunting, for example hunts searching for the scent for a long time in copses or woods which are unlikely to be the areas where a scent has been laid.

• Wrong identification

  Defendants claim that they were not the offenders identified in video evidence.

  Those involved in hunts, for example the Huntsman and the Whipper-in, may wear the same type of clothes. If one of them is charged and the other not, they may claim this defence.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on providing additional recognition from the eye witnesses, or by detailed forensic analysis of the footage that allows the elimination of alternative suspects for example, only the Huntsman uses the horn.

• No intent proven

  Defendants claim that although their dogs may indeed have hunted a wild mammal, there has not been proof that they intended their dogs to do so, or that they could have done anything to stop them since they were far away from the dogs when the chase took place.

  This defence relies on a 1969 ruling by the House of Lords that guilty intent is important in criminal acts in establishing guilt in all ordinary cases.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the actions of the defendant equated to encouraging his dogs to chase a wild mammal, for example by the use of the hunting horn, or that the defendants deliberately allowed the dogs to be out of control when they realised that they were on the scent of a wild mammal.

• No connection with offenders

  Defendants claim that they were not aware that someone else was committing an offence under the Hunting Act, and the fact they may have been recorded together with the offender is coincidental.

  This is sometimes used when the offender is a terrierman. Prior to the Hunting Act, terriermen would follow the hunt and, where a mammal had gone underground, they would use dogs to flush it out enabling the chase to continue.

  The Act places stipulations on flushing out mammals as part of the exemptions under Schedule 1. A terrierman may be prosecuted if they do not abide by these stipulations.

  There is no real role for the terriermen in trail hunting and, where terriermen still follow hunts, the hunts may claim that they are not connected with their activities.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the terrierman had been summoned to the scene of the crime by the defendant, and that the crime could not have been committed without the collaboration of the defendant.

• No specified mammal was hunted

  The Administrative Court in the joined cases of DPP (Crown Prosecution Service CCU South West) v Anthony Wright; and The Queen on the Application of Maurice Scott, Peter Heard & Donald Summersgill vTaunton Deane Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin) ruled that the term ‘hunts’ under the Act does not include the mere searching for an as yet unidentified wild mammal.

  Defendants may claim therefore that there is no evidence that their dogs were chasing a wild mammal.

  Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the mammal is specified, for example by footage that can identify the wild mammal, and that because the mammal can be specified, the offence started with the earlier searching for it.

The Hunting Act 2004 allows what has become known as ‘trail hunting’ – allegedly following an animal-based scent laid in advance of a hunt. It is widely recognised as the exemption under which most illegal hunting takes place, and the most widely used to confuse police and the courts.

‘Trail hunting’ supposedly involves people on foot or horseback following a scent (typically fox-based, which of course means dogs will not know an artificial scent from a real one) along a pre-determined route (of any length) with hounds or beagles. It is supposed to effectively replicate a traditional hunt but without a fox being chased, injured or killed.

Hunts are supposed to have a ‘trail layer’ (usually on a quad bike) who goes ahead of the hunt to ‘lay the trail’, but witnesses on the ground say any ‘trail layers’ rarely if ever ‘trail lay’ for more than a few hundred metres and it’s impossible to know both where a ‘trail’ is allegedly being laid or (which is far more likely) a rag is merely being dragged along the ground to give the illusion of ‘laying a trail’.

‘Trail layers’ won’t notify those in control of the hounds where the trail is, allowing the hunt to claim ignorance if the hounds ‘leave the trail’ and an animal does get killed.

Hunts are legally supposed to immediately call off dogs if they start hunting a wild mammal, but it is very difficult to prove or disprove in court whether they have actually done this.

• ‘Trail hunting’ is a sham. While many hunts now promote their ‘hunting’ as following a scent, the truth is that the vast majority of hunts are using ‘trail hunting’ as a disguise for illegal hunting and are hunting wild animals as they have always done.

No. The Administrative Court in the joined cases of DPP (Crown Prosecution Service CCU South West)  v Anthony Wright; and The Queen on the Application of Maurice Scott, Peter Heard & Donald Summersgill v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court (2009) ruled that the term ‘hunts’ under the Hunting Act 2004 does not include the mere searching for an unidentified and unidentifiable wild mammal.

Section 3(2) of the Hunting Act 2004 says that a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits a dog which belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of a section 1 offence.

Section 11(4) provides that for the purposes of the Act a dog ‘belongs to someone’ if they:

• own the dog,
• is in charge of the dog,
  
• has control of the dog.

This is similar to the terminology used in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Yes, the Hunting Act removed an exemption in the Protection of Badgers Act that allowed hunts to block setts.

Before the Hunting Act 2004 came into force a conditional exemption in Section 8 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 allowed hunts to earth stop and sett block to prevent a fox ‘going to ground’ in a badger sett (the Act says “obstructing any entrance of a badger sett for the purpose of hunting foxes with hounds”).  This exemption was withdrawn when the Hunting Act came into force.

Schedule 2, Section 13 of the Hunting Act legislation says “Section 8(4) to (9) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (exception for hunting) shall cease to have effect“.

Exemptions were inserted into the Hunting Act 2004 to allow hunting to continue in much the same way as it did pre the Hunting Act 2004. These exemptions are repeatedly used by hunts to excuse illegal hunting.

• Stalking and flushing to guns: Two dogs may be used to flush a fox from cover so it can be shot for the purpose of protecting livestock, ‘gamebirds’ or biodiversity. The dogs must be kept under close control and the fox must be shot as soon as it breaks from cover – no further chasing is allowed. (Easily exploited and the ‘rules’ broken by hunts with no interest in ‘protecting biodiversity’).
• Rescue of an injured mammal: Two dogs may be used to capture a fox if the hunt believes it is injured and the hunting is undertaken to relieve its suffering. (In other words, illegally hunt a fox, injure it, and then ‘legally’ continue the hunt on welfare grounds…)
  
• Research and observation: Two dogs are allowed to be used for the purpose of or in connection with the observation or study of a wild mammal. (This exemption is widley used by stag hunts – NO peer-reviewed science has ever been produced by them.)
• Flushing to a bird of prey: An unlimited number of dogs can be used to flush a fox from cover to a bird of prey which will catch and kill it. (Used as an excuse for illegal hunting, and ususally involves hunts carrying a miserable-looking tethered Eagle Owl or small eagle.)
• Recapture of escaped wild mammal: An unlimited number of dogs can be used to capture a fox that has escaped from captivity (which will inevitably be a fox reared by the hunt and illegally released to a pack of hounds).
• Use of a dog below ground (terrier work): One terrier may be used below ground to flush out a fox to be shot for the purpose of ‘protecting’ birds being reared for shooting. (A terrier man must carry written permission from the landowner, but this is rarely (if ever?) enforced by police officers, and terrier men routinely accompany hunts well away from land used for shooting.)

No, they do not. In so-called traditional fox hunting one or more terriermen were employed by the hunt to kill foxes that had sought refuge underground (“gone to ground”), but terriermen have no legitimate role in a so-called ‘trail hunt’ as the hunt is not supposed to be chasing foxes at all.

Terriermen are still permitted to use a dog below ground but only to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds kept for shooting, livestock, or biodiversity (known widely as the so-called ‘Gamekeeper exemption’).

The Hunting Act 2004 creates a number of offences of hunting wild mammals with dogs, with some very closely defined exemptions.

The term “hunt” means:

• to pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food,
• to try to find by diligent searching and to pursue and capture,
• to pursue or approach stealthily or to move silently through,
• to drive (a bird or animal, especially a game bird) from cover.  

In England and Wales the Hunting Act 2004 allows only one dog to be used below ground and only in respect of foxes. In Scotland the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act is similar but also allows dogs to hunt mink underground.

The dog must be

• under control
• fitted with a device to allow tracking of the position of the dog below ground.

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act requires that once flushed, a fox must be shot or killed by a bird of prey. If an attempt to kill a fox results in the fox being injured but not killed, reasonable steps must be taken to kill the fox in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes the minimum possible suffering. The Act bans using a dog to search for, or flush a rabbit from below ground. 

Section 5(1) of the Hunting Act 2004 says that ‘A person commits an offence if he: Participates, attends, knowingly participates in a hare coursing event or permits land which belongs to him to be used for the purpose of a hare coursing event. A hare coursing event is a competition in which dogs are, by use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.’

Section 5(2) creates offences relating to involvement with a dog which participates in a hare coursing event:

Each of the following persons commits an offence if a dog participates in a hare coursing event:

1. any person who enters the dog for an event;
2. any person who permits the dog to be entered;
3. any person who controls or handles the dog in the course of or for the purposes of the event.

It is important to note that the issue of ownership of the dog does not arise in the definition of these offences.

(For more go to Protectors page > Hare Coursing and the Law)

Yes. Because rabbits are considered to be ‘pests’ they are not currently protected in the UK by Acts that ban hunting of wild mammals with dogs.

When the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 comes into force in summer/autumn 2023 it will longer be permissible to use a dog to search for, or flush a rabbit from below ground in Scotland. Under the new Scotland Act a dog may be used to find an injured rabbit but must not kill it.

No, it is not. The Hunting Act 2004 applies to deer. Stag and hind hunts rely on loopholes in the Act though:

• A mammal can be ‘flushed’ out by a maximum of two hounds and shot, or to relieve it of suffering.
• Stags are killed under the Hunting Act’s research and observation loophole – research that has yet to produce any public results more than a decade later.
• Latterly hunts have been claiming the hunted deer ‘has bovine TB’ – exploiting Schedule 1.2(a) of the Hunting Act, through which the hunt can use two hounds to flush out a mammal that might cause “serious damage” to livestock.

None of these ‘reasons’ are valid (and any deer suspected of having bTB shouldn’t be chased across the countryside anyway), but they are technically permissible in law provided hunts do not use more than two dogs – and stag hunts will typically use pairs of dogs in ‘relay’, meaning that a single deer will eventually be chased by many dogs but not by more than two dogs at any one time.

(For more go to Protectors page > Deer and the Law)

A falconry exemption is written in to the Hunting Act 2004, and some hunts do indeed go out with a miserable looking bird of prey (usually a small eagle or Eagle Owl) in a box attached to a quad bike.

If the falconry exemption is used, however, the bird of prey must be capable of pursuing the wild mammal that it is flushing and only two dogs are permitted at any one time to carry out the flushing.

A 1969 ruling by the House of Lords said that ‘guilty intent’ in criminal acts is important in establishing guilt in all ordinary cases.

Successful Hunting Act prosecutions against such an ‘intent’ defence would be based on proving that the actions of the defendant equated to encouraging his dogs to chase a wild mammal, for example by the use of the hunting horn, or that the defendants deliberately allowed the dogs to be out of control when they realised that they were on the scent of a wild mammal.

The Crown Prosecution Service highlight a case where defendants were able to claim that “although their dogs may indeed have hunted a wild mammal, there has not been proof that they intended their dogs to do so, or that they could have done anything to stop them since they were far away from the dogs when the chase took place”. (The answer to the question of whether the ‘defendants’ should have allowed the dogs to be so far ahead of them that they were effectively ‘out of control’ was not provided.)

It seems ludicrous to suggest that the Hunting Act 2004 might breach the Human Rights Act,  but then the Countryside Alliance is home to  some ludicrous thinking. (Our thanks to James Hart for the following excellent summary for the argument the CA put forward and the rejections of the case made by the court.)

Human Rights and the Hunting Act 2004

It is necessary to look at case law to see if Human Rights are inconsistent with the EC Treaty or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 

For reference the relevant Articles are outlined below.

Article 1 – Obligation to respect Human Rights

1- The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

 Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.

1- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2- There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 Article 11 – Right of freedom of assembly and association.

1- Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2- No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

 Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination.

1- The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 Case law and Judgments

The case to look at is that of R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others and others (Appellants)) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and another (Respondents)R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others (Appellants) and others) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and another (Respondents).

Facts – An appeal was brought against a decision that the Hunting Act 2004 was not inconsistent with the EC Treaty, or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The focus of the appeal via the appellants to whom argued that the Act was incompatible with the right to a private and family life; and the right of freedom of assembly and association. (Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Act) Furthermore, along with Articles 1 and 14 of the Act, the right to a peaceful enjoyment of property rights, and prohibition on discrimination.

Held – The Appeal was Rejected by the House of Lords to whom had said that Articles 8 and 11 were not engaged, and that if they had been, the Hunting act 2004 was proportionate to the end it had sought to achieve and necessary in a democratic society. 

Despite the applicants’ efforts, they were unable to persuade the Court that their situation was analogous to other Strasbourg cases relating to private life, personal autonomy, loss of livelihood and the concept of a home (the Court in this case was concerned about stretching the concept of home to include public activities on private land. The fact that hunting is a public activity was central to the Court’s conclusion that the ban did not interfere with the applicants’ private lives).

The Lords also made it clear that hunting does not amount to a personal characteristic nor a status on grounds of which a person can be discriminated against under Article 14, as such the right to not be discriminated against does not apply.

• The link to the Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the case: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd071128/countr.pdf

Wildlife crime is defined as any action which contravenes current legislation governing the protection of the UK’s wild flora and fauna, including species traded in the UK.

Note that wildlife crime does NOT include:

• Incidents involving domestic or companion animals such as dogs (other than dogs being used to hunt mammals), cats, rabbits, domesticated birds, etc.

• Wild animals that have been involved (killed or injured etc) in road traffic accidents.

Road accidents with wild animals do not need to be reported to the police, but note that domestic animals (as well as goats, horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep and pigs) come within the remit of the Road Traffic Act.
If you have a road accident involving these animals you are required by law to report it to the police. If the wild animal is so badly injured in a road accident that there is no chance of recovery or the animal can not be returned to the wild then he or she may be euthanised, providing there is no appropriate long-term captive or semi-captive accommodation or when treatment would involve undue suffering or distress.