THE Countryside Alliance today welcomed a High Court ruling on the definition of hunting which it says will make it more difficult to successfully prosecute huntsmen under the Government's hunt ban.

The ruling follows two test cases, one of which involves Tony Wright, huntsman to the Exmoor Foxhounds, and the first man to be prosecuted for hunting foxes.

He was prosecuted before Barnstaple Magistrates' Court by the League Against Cruel Sports and convicted of hunting with dogs contrary to section 1 of the 2004 Act, but won his appeal before Exeter Crown Court in November 2007 before Judge Graham Cottle.

The second case involves men from the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, including hunt master Maurice Scott, 63; hunt servant, Peter Heard, 23, and huntsman Donald Summersgill.

The case was referred to the High Court to settle points of law before their trial continues at Taunton Deane Magistrates' Court.

Tim Bonner, spokesman for the Alliance, described today's ruling as "very positive".

He said two judges had ruled that "hunting" a wild mammal under the 2004 Hunting Act, which introduced the ban, did not include "searching for" an animal in order to stalk it or flush it out.

He said the judges had also said it was for the prosecution to prove that defendants were not covered by exemptions to the ban – and not for defendants to show they were exempt.

Mr Bonner added: "The court has also confirmed, in relation to basic evidence of hunting, that it has to be 'intentional' – there cannot be 'accidental' hunting.

He said of the ruling: "It is very positive. We have won on everything essentially.

"This should mean the prospect of Hunting Act offences being prosecuted will be far lower in many cases.

"We would expect there to have to be overwhelming evidence (of illegal hunting) for a prosecution even to be launched."

Today's ruling, handed down by Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, and Mr Justice Maddison has been keenly awaited by both pro and anti-hunt campaigners.