Procurator Fiscal, Jedburgh v Adams [2004] ScotSC 83 (10 December 2004)

Procurator Fiscal, Jedburgh v Adams [2004] ScotSC 83 (10 December 2004)

The accused's actions fell within the statutory exception under Section 2 of the Act because he had permission to be on the land, was searching for foxes to flush them to be shot for legitimate purposes, acted to ensure the fox was shot, and the dogs were under control as defined by the Act. The Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence under Section 1(1).

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 83
Parties
Prosecutor: Procurator Fiscal, Jedburgh; Accused: Trevor Adams
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
not guilty
Legal Topics
Protection of Wild Mammals (scotland) Act 2002, Fox Hunting, Statutory Interpretation, Exceptions to Criminal Liability, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Law Protection of Wild Mammals (scotland) Act 2002 Fox Hunting Statutory Interpretation Exceptions to Criminal Liability Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Procurator Fiscal, Jedburgh

Prosecutor

Trevor Adams

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused deliberately hunted a fox with dogs contrary to Section 1(1) of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the accused's actions fell within the statutory exceptions under Section 2 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the dogs were under control as required by the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The accused's actions fell within the statutory exception under Section 2 of the Act because he had permission to be on the land, was searching for foxes to flush them to be shot for legitimate purposes, acted to ensure the fox was shot, and the dogs were under control as defined by the Act. The Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence under Section 1(1).

Court Disposition

not guilty