No case for foxhunting

June 8, 2010 — simonashall

As Basil Fawlty said: "Cuddle one of these and you'll never play the guitar again"

I don’t subscribe to the view that while British soldiers were dying in Afghanistan, it was wrong to run a story about two young girls being mauled by a fox in their own home. Two little girls have been nastily injured and that would have been a story whatever else was going on.

But neither do I agree that this case furthers the argument to repeal the hunting ban. We have plenty of foxes around here and as soon as they see you, they scarper. None would dream of coming into the house and if they did – ban or no ban – they’d be lucky to make it out again. But truly urban foxes – those that live in London boroughs and inner city areas – are much more used to human presence and have learned that we are rarely a threat (at least intentionally) and they can outpace us in unenclosed spaces.

Foxes are highly evolved predators, which makes them efficient hunters but also rather unpleasant killers of domestic pets. There is a reason, after all, that hunting was initiated in the first instance ie to protect livestock. That reason still holds but the Hunting Act has been in force for five years now and livestock numbers have not dramatically fallen and foxes are still controlled in the countryside – often, it has to be said, by huntsmen.

The difference in behaviours between the urban and country fox means that trying to use an urban context to justify a country pursuit is just nonsense. I maintain that illiberal though the Hunting Act may have been, the country has moved on and there are more pressing things to attend to. As you can see in the Daily Mail comments, the nation is totally polarised on this issue – the anti-hunt lobby are prepared to libel the mother in the story by insinuating that foxes weren’t responsible for the attack and the pro-hunt viewpoint is that we should be able to kill these animals as necessary.

My heart instinctively wants hunting back – it was a spiteful, class-fuelled sop that has done little for animal welfare. I respect the traditions of the countryside and believe in supporting the people who live there. But my head says no – there is simply no justification for the coalition to split itself and everyone else into opposing camps for an issue that in overall terms matters little other than to quench the thirst for revenge.

There are better battles to fight – Conservatives should let this one go.

Posted in Countryside, Law, news. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

Watching your words

May 18, 2010 — simonashall

An interesting story in a few of the papers today is the case of the magistrate in Blackburn who faces disciplinary action after using the term “absolute scum” to describe young defendants in court.

The Daily Mail story (almost verbatim) is interesting because it offers us an insight into some public opinion in the comments underneath, almost all of whom agree with the magistrate and say that his comments were justified and correct. This raises an interesting question about magistrates – whose justice do magistrates dispense?

Justice, of course, is the crown’s and the Queen’s and last Monday I swore two oaths – both included phrases to serve and pledge alliegance to the Queen and her successors. But if magistrates are taken from the local population, shouldn’t they be free to express the views of the society they serve? Well, yes and no. Magistrates are free to express the court’s views on a crime or sentence to defendants within certain perameters if they are serving as a bench chairman.

But the Judicial Oath also contains in it the words:

“I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will”

To me, although the bit about the Queen is important, it is this forward-facing part of the oaths that is most relevant on a day-to-day basis. The magistrate on this occasion may feel he was speaking for the community and that by phrasing it the way he did and attributing the “absolute scum” to what “normal people”, rather than he or the court might think he was ameliorating the bane.

But what he has actually done is created the perception – however misplaced – of ”ill will” towards the defendants and reinforced those feelings within the community. That, it my view, goes against the Judicial Oath. The fact that the comments were made in a Youth Court – where particularly sensitive and careful work with young people goes on – is also unfortunate.

The gentleman concerned is an experienced magistrate and has  given considerable service to his community. And the culture of the magistracy generally is one of ongoing training, improvement and support for everyone involved – we all make mistakes and discussion, correction and learning is the positive approach to addressing them.

But, sorry to disappoint the Daily Mail, we can’t have justices appointing themselves as “voices of the community” or stamping their own moral code on the courtroom, however awful the offence and unrepetent the defendant.

Using their reasonable judgement to dispense justice according to the law is the sole purpose of a justice; anything else is politics and that, as we know, belongs in a different place.

Posted in Justice, news. Tags: , , , . No Comments »
«
»