Mounting convictions under Hunting Act send stark warning to would-be lawbreakers
The Ministry of Justice statistics reveal 33 successful prosecutions under the Act in 2008*. To date this means over 100 people have been successfully prosecuted since the Hunting Act’s introduction on the 18th of February 2005.
Robbie Marsland, UK Director of IFAW, said: “The Hunting Act 2004 was introduced because the overwhelming majority of the UK public found it abhorrent that wild animals could be chased and killed for ‘sport’. These mounting convictions show that this is a clear and enforceable piece of legislation which can be used effectively.”
The most recent Ipsos MORI** poll released by IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports, showed that 75% of people in Britain do not want fox hunting to be made legal again. The polling also found 84% think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place and 85% think hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
Despite the continued strong public support for the Hunting Act, Conservative Party leader David Cameron has pledged a free vote on whether to repeal the Hunting Act if he becomes Prime Minister.
Mr Marsland added: “Research shows that the Conservative Party would be completely out of step with its supporters if they chose to repeal the Hunting Act. Recent polling found twice as many Tory supporters favour the ban as want it repealed. Those calling for a repeal of the Hunting Act are effectively calling for a return to cruelty.”
§ Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative quota sample of 2,003 adults in GB aged 15+.
§ Interviews were carried out face-to-face, in home, using CAPI (Computer Aided Personal Interviewing Laptops), as part of the Ipsos MORI Omnibus (Capibus).
§ The sample design ensures that the Omnibus accurately reflects the GB population in terms of region and area types as well as respondent demographics.
§ Fieldwork was conducted between 4-10 September 2009.
§ Results are based on all respondents unless otherwise stated.
§ Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don’t knows / not stated.