DPP v Wright
[2009] EWHC 105 (Admin)
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
“Hunts” in s.1 of the Hunting Act 2004 is used transitively of an identified quarry: hunting is by definition intentional, and merely searching for an unidentified wild mammal in order to stalk or flush it is not “hunting”. The Schedule 1 exemptions place no legal burden of proof on the defendant; the defendant bears only an evidential burden to raise an exemption, after which the prosecution must disprove it to the criminal standard.
Facts
Anthony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, was convicted by magistrates in August 2006 of hunting foxes with dogs contrary to s.1 of the Hunting Act 2004, after a prosecution brought by the League Against Cruel Sports over events on 29 April 2005. The Crown Court (HHJ Cottle and justices) allowed his appeal, ruling that the burden of disproving that the hunting was exempt lay on the prosecution to the criminal standard. The DPP challenged that ruling by way of case stated, which was heard together with a judicial review claim in R (Scott) v Taunton Deane Magistrates' Court raising the same burden-of-proof issue.
Judgment Summary
The Divisional Court, in a judgment delivered by Sir Anthony May P, held that “hunts” in s.1 does not include merely searching for an unidentified wild mammal: the word takes an identified quarry as its object and hunting is by definition intentional, so the prosecution must prove the defendant's intention to the criminal standard. On the burden of proof, the court held that construing s.1 and Schedule 1 as imposing a legal burden on the defendant would be an oppressive and unnecessary intrusion on the Article 6 presumption of innocence and would have to be read down under s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998; the defendant bears only an evidential burden. The formal answers were: Question 1, no, but there is an evidential burden on the defendant; Question 2, no; and the judicial review claim in the Taunton Deane case succeeded.
Key Quotes
"We agree with Mr Mott that “hunts” is used transitively, and that its object “a wild mammal” indicates an identified quarry. A person who leaves their home on horseback or on foot intending to search for a fox may in a sense be going hunting, but he or she is not at that moment hunting a wild mammal, because no wild mammal has yet been found."
— Sir Anthony May P, giving the judgment of the Divisional Court, at [30](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"The reading down would, in our judgment, result in the defendant having an evidential burden to raise matters of defence sufficiently to require the prosecution to deal with them."
— Sir Anthony May P, giving the judgment of the Divisional Court, at [88](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Applied in subsequent Hunting Act prosecutions.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help