Top huntsman wins appeal against conviction for encouraging illegal hunting

Ruling ‘raises big questions about knee-jerk reaction to earlier verdict’, says pro-hunt Countryside Alliance

A leading huntsman has won his appeal against a conviction for encouraging illegal foxhunting in an online discussion with other hunters in which he talked of “creating a smokescreen”.

Mark Hankinson, 61, then director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, was alleged to have advised the others on how to illegally hunt wildlife, in what was described as a landmark case.

In August 2020, a webinar on hunting was attended by 100 people, including police officers, lawyers and a member of the House of Lords. A recording of it was later leaked to police and the media.

The judge in the original hearing said: “Mr Hankinson’s advice that trail-laying needed to be ‘plausible’ was only necessary if it was a ‘sham and a fiction’”.

After the conviction, major landowners including United Utilities, the Lake District National Park and Forestry England banned “trail-hunting” on their land. National Trust members also voted for a ban.

Opponents of “blood sports” insist that “trail-hunting” does not take place and is a cover for hunting real foxes.

Hankinson had argued in court the Zoom webinars were about managing the presence of “aggressive saboteurs”.

But Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that he told those present to use the legal form of hunting as a “smokescreen” for the criminal activity.

Hankinson, of Frampton Farm in Sherborne, Dorset, was ordered to pay a £1,000 fine and £2,500 in costs.

An appeal in front of a judge and two magistrates at Southwark Crown Court hinged on whether his words in the webinar were capable of encouraging an offence and whether he intended to encourage an offence.

Hankinson did not deny saying words including: “It’s a lot easier to create a smokescreen if you’ve got more than one trail-layer operating and that is what it is all about – trying to portray to the people watching that you’re going about your legitimate business.”

Judge Gregory Perrins said on Wednesday: “Someone listening to his words might well have taken the view that he was encouraging illegal hunting.”

But giving evidence, Hankinson said he was referring to the practice of laying dummy trails to fool saboteurs, who “presented a threat to legal hunting”.

The judge said he and the magistrates were not satisfied to the criminal standard required that it was his intention to encourage illegal hunting and allowed the appeal against his conviction, highlighting a second webinar in which nothing he said was the subject of any charge.

“We accept his role within the Hunting Office was to ensure compliance with the law and the Hunting Office itself is committed to lawful hunting,” he said.

“In those circumstances it would be unusual if they now took the decision to host a series of webinars which included advice on how to work around the ban.”

He added: “However, what is perhaps more significant is the fact that the appellant’s words in the first webinar do not amount to clear evidence of encouraging illegal hunting.”

Following the decision, the League Against Cruel Sports urged the government to strengthen the Hunting Act.

Chief executive Andy Knott said: “The appeal result changes nothing in terms of our position, because only by strengthening the Hunting Act by closing its many loopholes and outlawing so-called trail hunting can illegal hunting be properly stopped and those determined to carry on persecuting wildlife brought to justice.”

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said the successful appeal raised “big questions about the knee-jerk reaction” to the conviction.

“Some institutional landowners banned legal trail hunts and the police and CPS have brought a spate of prosecutions against hunts, many of which have already failed,” he said in a statement.

“Trail-hunting is a legitimate activity carried out by hundreds of hunts across the country.

“As this successful appeal shows, the police, public and politicians need to be extremely careful about believing spurious allegations made by prejudiced anti-hunt activists.”