판결 이유
The Hunting Act 2004 does not require proof that the hunt intended to chase the quarry. It is sufficient that hunting took place — the offence focuses on the activity of hunting, not the subjective intention.
사실관계
Members of a hunt were prosecuted under the Hunting Act 2004. They argued they were 'trail hunting' and did not intend to hunt a live fox.
판결 요약
The court held that the Hunting Act creates an objective test: was a wild mammal hunted with dogs? Intention is relevant only to the statutory exemptions.
주요 인용문
"The question is whether hunting took place, not whether the hunters intended it."
— Owen J
후속 처리
Applied
Applied in subsequent Hunting Act prosecutions.