There is a well known saying, 'no pain, no gain' and that will be ringing true in the minds of Milk Link’s 1,600 producers, who are on the brink of reaping just reward for 12 years of loyalty and investment.Secret hunt filming ruled 'illegal'
The CPS has issued guidance confirming that covert surveillance by animal rights groups should be authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
It has also confirmed that evidence obtained through unauthorised covert surveillance is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Countryside Alliance head of media Tim Bonner said: “The CPS advice confirms that the statutory bodies involved in bringing prosecutions cannot subvert the Act by relying on third parties to carry out surveillance which is not authorised.
“The CPS has clearly stated that gathering such evidence without RIPA authorisation is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and as a result those statutory bodies involved in its collection would be open to action under the Human Rights Act.
“The rural community does not object to proportional and justifiable investigation of criminal activity, but the covert surveillance carried out by animal rights groups is neither of these. RIPA and the Human Rights Act provide protection if the state involves itself in such activity.”
Farmers Guardian newsletters
Get the best of Farmers Guardian delivered straight to your inbox. Click here to sign-up today
-
General news and breaking news alerts
Minimum weekly delivery -
Livestock, arable, dairy and young farmers
news and features
Monthly delivery
Readers' comments (6)
League Against Cruel Sports | 20 January 2010 12:02 pm
This is quite simply untrue; the Countryside Alliance are only quoting selected parts of the CPG guidance.
For balance, we suggest you read this: http://www.league.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=1265
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bob | 20 January 2010 4:32 pm
Balance, from the LACS! Don't make me laugh!!!
At last, these animal rights criminals arebeing brought to book
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Charlotte | 20 January 2010 6:28 pm
It's not from the LACS, they simply quote the CPG guidance in full as opposed to the CA's highly edited version. What do the CA propose to do when someone is prosecuted under the act as a result of their misleading statement? Under cover footage CAN be used, and to state otherwise is a total misreading of the CPS's advice. The first sentence of this article is just plain wrong.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john649 | 21 January 2010 2:51 am
I really don't think any AR ppl will stop catching criminals abusing anaimals just because someone says "no".
Give me a break......
They work for the animals NOT for profiteers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
N Bryant | 21 January 2010 8:39 pm
The five paragraphs above sound ok to me but all the other comments are from sab type people so no wonder they don't like it, Although most of them break the law anyway
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy | 22 January 2010 11:33 am
But the fact that these people proclaim to be police appointed hunt monitors means that this would be illegal. And if your not police appointed then it opens up other offences such as trespass, intimidation and stalking - you can't have your cake and eat it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment