MEDIA reports on the recent High Court hunting judgement did not accurately portray the new situation which has arisen as a result of the judgement.

We now look forward with confidence to the prosecution of eighteen cases that will now be permitted to proceed.

It is important to remember that the Tony Wright case is only of historical importance as it represents the initial reactions by both sides to the new law. I know of no fox hunt that currently attempts to circumvent the law by flushing to guns with two hounds, as did Mr Wright nearly four years ago. Most hunts take out a full pack of hounds and claim to be taking part in the newly-invented field sport of trail hunting.

The judges decided that, only within the context of stalking or flushing out, searching is not hunting.

This is now almost certainly irrelevant because even before this judgement, it seems very unlikely that any viable case would have been dependent upon searching being interpreted as hunting.

That said, the judges went on to say that hunting "..is heavily fact specific and we do not attempt to define ...when hunting takes place...".

As far as the reverse burden of proof is concerned, the judges ruled that there was an evidential burden on the defendant to substantiate what he claims to have been doing.

We are delighted with this aspect of the judgement. No longer will defendants be able to decide not to answer questions when interviewed by the police, without having regard for the consequences of such a decision.

If they do, adverse inference may be deduced under Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The judgement is quite explicit in this respect: "...sensible defendants should raise, at a proper time, the substantial matters of defence relied upon".

The Act is clear. Hunters who go out to deliberately break the law are riding for a fall!

IVOR ANNETTS Tiverton