Clause 1 - Hunting wild mammals with dogs
Hunting Bill
8:55 am
Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. I would like to move the discussion on to a drier aspect of the effects of clause 1, by trying to unravel it in a comprehensive and rational way. I have five preliminary points.
First, clause 1 and the Bill as a whole demonstrate no requirement to prove unnecessary suffering or intention to cause it. A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless the hunting is either registered or exempt. Secondly, there is no requirement to prove that the individual intended to hunt with dogs to lead to a conviction. Thirdly, the scope of the offence is uncertain. In my view, that is likely to weaken the result. Followers could be caught as criminals, even if they have no control or influence over the dog alleged to be involved in the hunting. That has implications for individuals walking their dogs in the countryside. Fourthly, the criminalisation of followers shows that the Bill is concerned more with the regulation of human conduct than with animal welfare.
Fifthly, almost without exception, across the wide range of animal welfare legislation over the past 100 years or so, conduct relating to animals is criticised on three grounds only. The first is if it causes unnecessary suffering or distress; for example, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 requires proof of
''unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress''.
The second ground is if intention or criminal recklessness is proved. One need only look at the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 to see that there is certainty as to the scope of the offence. It is a principle of legal policy that a person should not be penalised except under clear law or, in other words, should not be put in peril upon an ambiguity. This is not a new criticism. I refer again to clause 1. I am amazed by its content and apparent lack of recognition of statutory history. The Burns inquiry, however, was aware of it. It recommended that:
''Consideration should be given to whether any ban could be framed sufficiently clearly to enable people to regulate their conduct. A central issue is whether a Bill would need to have a detailed definition of the prohibited offence and any exceptions or exemptions.''
I suggest that the Bill fulfils none of the three requirements. It does not have a clearly stated purpose. It is enormously important to establish the purpose of any legislation, not least so that the courts can interpret it by reference to purpose. The objective of a measure is the starting point when considering whether it is proportionate. This is all the more important now that the Government have introduced into domestic law the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The objective
must be clearly defined and should find expression in the letter of the law. If the Bill is aimed at animal welfare, that should be stated, as it is in the 1996 Act.
I have three further points. First, the Bill is not about animal welfare, but about human behaviour and its regulation. Secondly, there is no requirement in the Bill to show that the accused had a specific intention to hunt, let alone to cause any unnecessary suffering. One can search through the Bill—clause 45 in particular—to see whether we can get any help. An individual who acts, and who believes himself to act, in the best interests of an animal by seeking to relieve unnecessary suffering may be rendered a criminal. Without a clear requirement for the prosecution to prove specific intent, the court may be likely to develop a definition that relies upon degrees of risk and foresight, which would be extremely difficult to apply in the context of hunting.
I have concerns about the scope of the offence. Subject to the exceptions relating to registered and exempt hunting in clause 5, a person commits an offence if they hunt a wild mammal with a dog. A number of concerns flow from the way in which clause 1 is drafted and the way in which the Bill is presented. We have already discussed coursing. The Government have decided that hare hunting, stag hunting and deer hunting are to be outlawed without the registrar being able to consider the matter.