Hunting definition ruling welcomed

Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Alliance, described the ruling as "very positive".

He said two judges had ruled that "hunting" a wild mammal under the 2004 Hunting Act, which introduced the ban, did not include "searching for" an animal in order to stalk it or flush it out.

He said the judges had also said it was for the prosecution to prove that defendants were not covered by exemptions to the ban - and not for defendants to show they were exempt.

Mr Bonner added: "The court has also confirmed, in relation to basic evidence of hunting, that it has to be 'intentional' - there cannot be 'accidental' hunting.

He said of the ruling: "It is very positive. We have won on everything essentially.

"This should mean the prospect of Hunting Act offences being prosecuted will be far lower in many cases. We would expect there to have to be overwhelming evidence (of illegal hunting) for a prosecution even to be launched."

The ruling, handed down by Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and Mr Justice Maddison has been keenly awaited by both pro and anti-hunt campaigners.

Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, accused the Countryside Alliance of "trying to put the judgment wider than it goes".

He said: "It is really a victory for clarity in the law. Where people said there was doubt, there is now no doubt. We are pleased the law has now been clarified and the backlog of hunting cases will now be able to pass through the courts."