Hunt saboteurs set out to disrupt a hunt, and were accused of offences of aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act. They defended saying that they had been prevening unlawful activities. They brought evidence that at the outset of the hunt, two whippers-in had strayed from the land over which the hunt had permission to ride and had taken the hounds onto adjacent land where they had no such permission. The trespassing defendants had actively disrupted the actions of all the hunt, not confined to the strayers, and had continued to do so after the latter had rejoined the main body of hunters.
Held: At issue were the concluding words of section 68(2), trespassing occupants rather than occupants committing a criminal offence. The fact that some few members of the hunt had acted unlawfully by trespassing on adjoining land did not affect the lawfulness of the activity which the defendants had disrupted.
Simon Brown LJ offered the suggestion that it might have been otherwise if either the hunt’s ‘central objective’ had been to hunt over land where it had no authority to be, or the defendants had confined their disruption to activity by the strayers.
Judges:
Simon Brown LJ
Citations:
Times 11-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 602
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68
Cited by:
Cited – Richardson and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 5-Feb-2014
The defendants had protested against the activities of a shop, by trespassing. They were said to have committed the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the 1994 Act. They objected in part that this infringed their article 10 right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138723