THE Hunting Act 2004 makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog for sport. Why, therefore, are packs of hounds still allowed onto our highways without their masters being prosecuted?

Before the ban on hunting, masters of foxhounds were granted immunity from prosecution for offences which, if committed by lesser mortals, would result in them being arraigned before a court of law.

For example, The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 exempts a pack of hounds from the offence of allowing a dog to be at large in a field of sheep.

The Control of Dogs Order 1992 requires that every dog, while on a highway, must wear a collar with the owner's name and address inscribed thereon. But any hound while being used for sporting purposes is exempted from this order.

Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates a summary offence for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on a designated road without being held on a lead. But this Section does not apply to dogs being used under proper control for sporting purposes. (s.27 (4)).

Although the Hunting Act 2004 does not specifically repeal the 1953 and 1988 Acts, together with the 1992 Order, there is a legal principle known as the doctrine of implied repeal, through which judges apply the latest statute in time and deem earlier provisions repealed.

It is my considered opinion that hunting dogs and their masters no longer have a superior status to common dogs and ordinary people. Packs of hounds have no lawful right to be on our highways.

John Phelps

Argyll Road, Exeter

(by email)