Detailed Provisions Part 1: Hunting a wild mammal using a dog Section 2: Offences of knowingly causing or permitting another person to hunt using a dog
17.This section creates ancillary offences to the offence of hunting a wild mammal using a dog.
18.Subsection (1) provides that an owner or occupier of land who knowingly causes or permits another person to hunt a wild mammal using a dog on that land commits an offence.
19.Subsection (5) provides that an owner of land includes a person who manages or controls that land or is authorised to give permission for the land to be used for hunting. For example, this could include a land manager (whether or not they are authorised to give permission for hunting) or a tenant whose lease allows them to give permission for others to hunt on the land. Hunting includes activities such as searching for, stalking or flushing from cover a wild mammal, even although in some circumstances those activities may be permitted under sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
20.As for the offence under section 1, an offence will not be committed if any of the exceptions apply such that conduct which would otherwise constitute unlawful hunting is permitted.
21.Subsection (2) provides that a person who owns or is responsible for a dog who knowingly causes or permits another person to hunt a wild mammal using that dog commits an offence.
22.Subsection (6) defines what is meant by being responsible for a dog.
23.As for the offences under section 1 and subsection (1), an offence will not be committed under subsection (2) if any of the exceptions apply.
24.Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for offences under subsections (1) and (2).
25.Subsection (4) provides for a defence where the person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) can show that the person reasonably believed that any of the exceptions applied. For example, a land manager might give permission for a fox to be flushed from cover and shot under the exception in section 3, on the basis of assurances from a reputable business that the conditions in section 3 would be met. If in fact the person hunting failed to meet the conditions, for example by not having dogs under control, then the exception would not apply. However, the land manager would have a defence to the offence under subsection (1), on the basis of their reasonable belief that the conditions in section 3 would be met. The person hunting would commit an offence under section 1 and this defence would not be available to them.