PA Update re Hunting Actdoc _2_.pdf - Durham Heritage Coast

Durham Police Authority
Partnership Working Committee
20th April 2009
Hunting Act 2004
Report of Chief Constable
Purpose
Item No.
To update the Police Authority on the current position of the policing of the Hunting
Act within Durham Constabulary.
Background
The Hunting Act came into force on the 18 th February 2005. This legislation has
created a clear, often vociferous division between many members of the public,
many of whom have `affiliated` themselves with one of two distinct groups. Those
who fully support the introduction of this legislation (International Fund for Animal
Welfare, League Against Cruel Sports. RSPCA etc) and those who see this as an
unnecessary piece of legislation (Countryside Alliance etc.)
Irrespective of either view, as with all legislation, the police service and specifically
Durham Constabulary have a clear duty to uphold the law. The main issues in this
regard has always been to what extent this piece of legislation is `policed`; where
does the policing of the Hunting Act sit in the priorities of the Force and what
resources are committed to the policing of the Hunting Act.
Current Position
Hunts within Durham Constabulary Force Area
There are five hunts based within the Durham Constabulary area.
(1) Braes Hunt - based at Ebchester
(2) South Durham Hunt - based at Sedgefield
(3) Zetland Hunt - based at Piercebridge, this group predominantly hunts within the
Durham Constabulary Area
(4) Weardale and Tees Valley Beagles-based at Barnard Castle
(5) Deerness Valley Foxhounds - based at Cornsay Colliery. This is a gun
pack hunt where hounds are used to flush out the animal to be shot
Between them, during the hunting season, these hunts are actively involved in
hunting virtually every day of the week throughout the Force area.
Below is an extract from the current Force policy outlining the manner in which the
Hunting Act is policed by Durham Constabulary.

“It has been determined by the Executive Management Group, in line with
Government recommendations, that the policing of this legislation by Durham
Constabulary will not feature high in the priorities of the Force and will not
detract from the other Force priorities. No uniformed officer is to individually
attend hunting meetings with a view to prosecuting persons taking part in
such activity. Any pre planned police presence at a hunting meeting shall be
determined by the relevant Operational Support Manager (Chief Inspector)
who will ensure that the correct planning and resource allocation is committed
to the event (evidence gatherers, PSU staff etc). If there is a high potential for
media interest etc the Force Executive should be apprised of the situation in
the planning stage.
There will inevitably be occasions when officers are called upon to attend hunt
related incidents by members of the public. On such occasions, the officer should
attend, and (without placing themselves in danger) obtain as much information as is
possible with regards to those persons present who may be engaging in unlawful
activities. This should be done in a way that takes into consideration the relevant
articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, so that only those details
required to prevent crime and disorder and those proportionally required to
investigate any incident should be obtained. From these personal details, those
considered relevant to prevent future crime and disorder should be entered on to the
Force intelligence system (Memex). It is important that the Force develops an
‘organisational memory’ in relation to hunt related incidents. Hence any incident and
any decision in relation to it should be recorded on Memex and key worded
`Hunting`. It is the responsibility of the relevant Neighbourhood Policing Inspectors to
ensure that this process is completed as such intelligence will inform subsequent
operational decisions in relation to policing future hunting events. It is the
responsibility of the officer making any decision under this policy to ensure that their
decision and the rationale for it are recorded on memex.
Any officer being presented with any physical evidence by a member of the public
that purports to be proof of activity that contravenes this legislation (video footage
etc.) should take possession of that material in the usual manner. Any decision
regarding prosecution for Hunting Act offences must be made in line with current
statutory charging procedures.
At all times officer should ensure that their actions comply with the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984”.
The force is now considering the requests by the Anti Hunt Lobby to charge hunts for
the cost of their policing. At this stage however, it is not considered that the Force
will amend its current position.
Additionally the Force is considering a meeting with all hunts in the close season to
ensure they understand the necessity of conforming to the law. Furthermore it will
allow hunts to give feedback to the Force along the principles of PACT meetings. It
would be the intention of the Force to invite members of the PA to that meeting.

Current Priorities
Operational
o Combat terrorism and protect our communities
o Combat and disrupt organised crime groups
o Protecting vulnerable people from the risk of serious harm
o Reduce the harm to communities caused by alcohol and drugs
o Make communities safer and more cohesive (including NHP and ASB)
Conclusion
As has been proved nationally, securing a conviction for illegal hunting is very hard
to achieve. Given the fact that hunting predominantly takes place on horseback in
rural locations often over distances of many miles, the obtaining of evidence to
secure a prosecution is very difficult to achieve. The recent High Court decision that
correctly reinforced it was the duty of the prosecution to prove what was taking place
was illegal (as in line with other criminal proceedings) as opposed to those
committing alleged illegal acts to prove that what they were doing was lawful, further
strengthening the good sense of taking the measured approach outlined above.
The level of policing resources committed to policing this legislation will always be a
contentious issue. By many (as borne out by the volume of correspondence received
by the Police Authority on this subject) the `intelligence led` response will be viewed
as not `doing enough`.
Whilst much `generic` correspondence has been generated (post cards etc.) there
still remains very few incidents where `evidence based` reports of illegal hunting
activities are reported across the Force area.
However, one such complaint was made in March 2008 when a case file was
submitted to the CPS for prosecutorial advice. The CPS lawyer determined that No
Further Action would be taken on this occasion stating “conflict of interests” as the
real issue.
Recommendation
That the current Force Policy outlining Durham Constabulary`s policing of the
Hunting Act is a measured, intelligence led and appropriate response,
commensurate with the need to ensure that the focus of operational staff continues
to be directed towards addressing the determined priorities of the Force.
T.J. Stoddart
Chief Constable

Appendix 1: Risks and Implications
Finance There has been minimal financial expenditure committed to policing the
Hunting Act since being introduced in 2005 and adopting an intelligence
led approach. Any change to a more `proactive` approach may have
financial implications in committing resources to the policing of the act.
Staffing More proactive policing of the Hunting Act would inevitably lead to
increased abstraction of staff from their core function and away from
focusing on Force priorities.
Equality and Diversity No impact upon Equality and Diversity legislation
Accommodation N/A
Crime and Disorder There is continual potential for disorder between hunt
monitors and those engaging in hunting activities. However,
such a risk has been present since this legislation was
introduced but has not materialised. If any intelligence is
received as to the potential of a `large scale` protest where
it can be reasonably envisaged that disorder may take place,
such an event would be policed appropriately with allocation
of the correct level of resources to prevent disorder.
Human Rights No impact upon HR Issues
Children's Act 2004 N/A
Stakeholder/Community Engagement Established dialogue between all
parties concerned should continue.
`Complaints` or `issues` raised should
be dealt with on an individual basis.
Correspondence received detailing
`specific` incidents occurring within the
Force area should be dealt with on a
personal basis. `Generic` correspondence
received (post cards etc) should receive
a `generic` response.
Environment None specific to Durham Constabulary although whole issue
revolves around environmental concerns.
Collaboration Potential for routine (non intelligence led) policing of hunting
activities being undertaken on a `regional` basis if desired.
Other risks None evident.
Contact Officer: Ken Cook
Job Title: Inspector Operational Support Department.
Telephone: 0191-3752054
Email: Ken.cook@durham.pnn.police.uk