SCHNEWS ASKS WHO’S HARASSING WHO AS HUNT SEEKS GIANT EXCLUSION ZONE

“If we can get this, it will be a massive victory for hunting and will set a precedent for other hunts to follow.” Simon Bonner – Countryside Alliance chairman.

“This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to use the anti-stalking laws - which were drafted to protect vulnerable individuals - to prevent the monitoring of hunting because the hunt believe the Hunting Act does not give people the right to monitor.” - Simon Wilde

Yes, repression via the Protection from Harassment Act is back! (see SchNEWS 581). The Crawley and Horsham Foxhunt are trying to take out an injunction against local hunt monitors Simon and Jaine Wilde, along with the rest of the West Sussex Wildlife Protection Group. They’ve received the now familiar black ringbinders of ‘evidence’ from Timothy Lawson Cruttenden (aka TLC)* and are now due in the High Court on the 15th July.

The hunt want an outright ban on “old sabbing tactics — balaclavas, sprays, whips, hunting horns and tape recorders”, or so says senior master Anthony Sandeman, “But the main thing is the continual trespass. Farmers are getting fed up with it.” Of course trespassing isn’t usually a criminal offence under English law but if the injunction goes through it will give the police a power of arrest over a huge swathe of West Sussex. The hunt also want to prevent ‘loitering on footpaths’ for the purposes of filming and, crucially, they even want to prevent hunt monitors from filming from public roads. Other clauses in the proposed injunction include an exclusion zone around the hunt kennels and a demand that monitors inform the police 24 hours before any planned activity. Breaching any of these clauses could mean arrest and prison.

To recap for those of you who weren’t paying attention: injunctions under the Harassment Act create criminal offences out of civil law. An ‘interim’ injunction - which can be obtained on the flimsiest of evidence - has the full force of law behind it. In this case something as simple as standing on a footpath taking photos could become a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in prison.

But why are the C&H Foxhunt - adamant that they are only carrying out legal activities - so camera-shy? One hunt monitor who attends the hunt is in no doubt: “We know the C&H are hunting, they cast the hounds into woods, and frequently chase foxes. What they do bears no resemblance to drag-hunting. We’ve been watching hunts for years and we know what hunting looks like.” The League against Cruel Sports discovered the C&H breaking the hunt ban in February 2007, saying, “The reality is caught on film in horrifying detail. A fox is pursued by the Crawley and Horsham over the Sussex countryside. It seeks refuge in a small hole on the edge of a field. Twenty minutes later – and after a frantic dig out involving three men, spades and two terriers – the fox is dragged to the surface, held aloft and thrown to the waiting hounds. After ten minutes of being savaged by the hounds – encouraged by watching huntsmen – almost nothing remains of the fox.”

Of course according to Lawson-Cruttenden, “We’re not trying to stop anyone who wants legitimately to monitor the hunt, but we think that means people are entitled only to photograph the master and huntsman while they are engaged in legal hunting activities.” What this means in practice is that if anyone else at all is within the camera angle then monitors could find themselves under arrest. All others (including the C&H’s thirty-strong squad of stewards) will have the status of ‘protected persons’. Our hunt monitor told SchNEWS: “Effectively filming will be obstructed and potentially made illegal. All they’ll have to do is have a protected person with them whenever they’re up to anything dodgy and we’ll have to put our cameras away.”

TOFF WITH THEIR HEADS

This attempt to strangle the rights of hunt monitors to document the abuse of wildlife showcases the balance of power in the countryside. On the one hand you have some of the UK’s richest landowners/grandees - including the likes of Nicolas Soames MP, grandson of Winston Churchill - backed to the hilt by the wealth of the Countryside Alliance and the Master of Foxhounds Association, and on the other a group of slightly more down-to earth individuals who go out every weekend to try and gather evidence of the abuse of wildlife.

Unfortunately civil court cases cost money and it’s possible the landed classes may be able bulldoze this through by sheer weight of bullion. If they lose then, hey, it’s just this year’s agricultural subsidies down the pan and one less tin of caviar at Christmas – but if Simon and Jane lose then they lose their home. Of course ‘Fatty’ Soames has every reason to stay away from the lens: on the strength of film from the monitors he was fined for riding a quad bike on the public highway without a crash helmet. But with an injunction in place the monitors might have been arrested for filming in the first place, preventing any inconvenient court appearances.

The real irony is that the notorious C&H hunt are no strangers to the ‘stalking’ game themselves. Pro-hunt websites such as Moochers.org carry photos, profiles and addresses of those they refer to as ‘antis’. In recent years, monitors have captured on camera C&H huntsmaster Kim Richardson warning monitors, “You’re all fair game now ... I’ve fucking told everyone” - before assaulting one of them. Richardson is the son of the late Sir Michael Richardson, who was known as ‘Mr Privatisation’, one of the highest ranking freemasons in England and a ‘darling’ of Lady Thatcher.

During the run-up to the ban, supporters of the C&H achieved a publicity coup by ramming the monitors van off the road - while it was occupied by a film crew from ‘Tonight with Trevor Mcdonald’. Hunt supporter John Hawkins was convicted of GBH after breaking a female monitor’s arm in two places on 29th January 2005. During the same incident a hunt whipper-in and steward were cautioned for assaulting the driver and stealing the group’s van keys. More recently, terrier man Jeremy Charman was fined £80 for throwing a dead rabbit at monitors in November last year. Meanwhile hunt steward Christopher Curtis received a warning for blocking footpaths – under the Harassment Act!

Simon and Jane have suffered a great deal over the years due to their commitment to the fight against bloodsports. As well as being a continuous presence at their local hunts they were leading voices supplying evidence to the various parliamentary inquiries, which eventually provided the evidence required to back an outright ban. They’ve had attacks on their home, carcasses dumped in the front garden and been the victims of repeated vicious beatings in the field.

As one hunt monitor told us: “This injunction under the Harassment Act is nothing more than an attempt by some very rich men to buy themselves an exemption to the law of the land. If granted it will be a charter for abuse of wildlife and monitors alike. A video camera is often our only way of protecting ourselves when under attack by hunt thugs. It’s also our only way of documenting the horrific treatment dished out to wildlife by this organisation which claims to be hunting legally.”

* For more about TLC and the tender loving care he puts into injunction cases against animal rights, as well as anti-arms trade and climate change activists see SchNEWS 581, 531, 509, 492, 471

** For more about Hunt Sabbing see www.hsa.enviroweb.org