THE PIPEWELL FOOT BEAGLES CONVICTEDOF HUNTING & KILLING A BROWN HARE BUT THERE IS MORE

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Pipewell Foot Beagles huntsman pleads GUILTY after pack kills hare Pack guilty of killing a hare on Boughton Estate GLEN BLACK FEB 19 READ IN APP Planned for three days, the trial of the Pipewell Foot Beagles and two of its members ended dramatically less than an hour into day two after the huntsman changed his plea. Philip Saunders, huntsman for the Pipewell Beagles, admitted breaking Section 1 of the Hunting Act after encouraging hounds to kill a hare. He was sentenced to £5000 in fines and costs. However, the charges against master and whipper-in Rachael Lenton as well as the Pipewell Foot Beagles Limited as a body corporate were dropped. The trial began on a dramatic note after Judge Community Protection Warning (CPW) lawyer Neil Sands and district judge Amar Mehta raised the possibility of the hunt forfeiting its hounds should it be found guilty. This gave the defence pause for thought, but it decided nonetheless to continue with not guilty pleas. The wheels on the defence’s case began falling off almost immediately after two witnesses for Boughton Estate - where the killing occurred - stated the hunt only had permission for hound exercise and not for trail hunting. Though not explicitly stated in court, had there been guilty verdicts all round, Boughton Estate may have also have been liable under Section 3 of the Hunting Act. Sam Rees and former huntsman George Whittaker, estate manager and security manager respectively, protected the estate by distancing itself from the Pipewell Foot Beagles. On day two, defence lawyer Stephen Welford initially cross-examined Lenton, during which the master-whip twice stated “absolutely not” to questions of whether the huntsman had encouraged hounds to pursue the hare. Lenton also said she didn’t see the hare even after the hounds had killed the creature. Instead, she claimed to Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer Sands that she and Saunders were trail hunting an artificially laid scent made of Scoot, a fox repellant, which huntsman Saunders had variously claimed during his testimony on day one both was and was not mixed with rabbit scent. Lenton attempted to clarify this confusion by saying the hunt once used a synthetic rabbit scent but now uses “pure Scoot”, although at no point on day one or two was it clarified why they allegedly used fox repellent as a scent mixture. However, the inconsistency Lenton attempted to smooth over was only part of the problem. Saunders’ testimony on day one had been contradictory throughout. The huntsman wasn’t able to explain why during his initial police interview he didn’t name the ten hunt supporters who witnessed the incident. He also failed to name four of the five alleged trail layers on the day, and had only named the fifth person a week before the trial. Had the trial gone ahead when initially planned in November 2025, there would have been no names at all. Saunders even stated that he didn’t know what was happening when the hounds were huddled together in the middle of a field despite also having said he’d been involved with hunting since before the Hunting Act. Crucially, he also said he hadn’t reported the kill to the British Hound Sports Authority (BHSA) as required by the organisation’s own rules. It was this detail around reporting to the BHSA that ultimately unravelled the case. “There are consequences to their actions” Sands picked up on an inconsistency in Lenton’s testimony regarding this detail. He questioned whether she was familiar with the BHSA’s rules regarding reporting ‘accidental’ kills. Lenton confirmed she did. However, when Sands asked whether she had done so, Lenton’s reply produced confusion amongst both Sands and Judge Mahta. Lenton at first stated she’d reported it twice to the BHSA. After further questioning by Sands, though, she clarified that the two times were: By phone the day after the incident, to let the BHSA know about the presence of an anti-hunt monitor, though she also claimed that she wasn’t aware of a dead hare at the time so couldn’t have mentioned a kill to them. When the BHSA sent Welford to support her in her police interview (three months after the incident) regarding the kill, by which time she was aware of the dead hare, and believed Welford was present on behalf of the BHSA and would therefore report back the details to the organisation. This led to a sudden break in proceedings, initiated by Sands and resulting in Welford leaving the courtroom alongside convicted former huntsman and current head of the BHSA, Julian Barnfield, who was sitting in the gallery throughout the trial. Sands and Welford returned several minutes later with the defence lawyer requesting that the judge hear Saunders’ plea again. This time, less than an hour into day two of the trial, Saunders plead guilty to his charge of breaching Section 1 of the Hunting Act by killing a hare. As a result, Judge Mahta ordered Saunders to pay a £1000 fine, £3600 in court costs due to the late plea, and a £400 victim surcharge. In summary, Mehta stated that: “A strong message must go out to those who engage in this activity, that the courts and public will not tolerate when animals are harmed. That was the whole point of the Act coming into force.” Significantly, following a request by Sands, the judge also ordered Saunders to forfeit his hunting horn for destruction. In making the order, Mehta said: “This instrument was used in the demise of a protected animal and it’s important that those who watch these proceedings understand there are consequences for those actions. … The hunting community will understand there are consequences to their actions.” Saunders guilty plea also resulted in the CPS dropping charges against Lenton and the Pipewell Foot Beagles Ltd. The latter was necessary because, at the time of the incident, only Lenton was a director of the company, so dropping charges against her meant the company was no longer liable. Image taken by Emma Reed So what happened? Following the trial, Sands explained that Lenton’s testimony had implicated Welford himself. By claiming she believed Welford was acting on behalf of the BHSA and that she had expected him to report back to the organisation, the defence lawyer had become a witness in his own case. Furthermore, police inquiries during the investigation hadn’t resulted in any evidence that Lenton had contacted the BSHA about the incident in any way. As a result, Welford would need to be cross-examined in the trial, but Lenton’s claim was new evidence, which would have required entirely new proceedings to be undertaken. It is likely Welford would also have had to state that Lenton’s claims were false, meaning he would testify against his own client. To avoid this, Welford protected himself and the hunt as a whole by having Saunders change his plea. As huntsman, Saunders was primarily responsible for the hounds and therefore the most culpable. Having given a stumbling and convoluted testimony on day one, during which he made various claims as to his innocence, Saunders was put in a position of having to take the fall for Lenton, the Pipewell Beagles Limited, the BHSA and even Welford himself by admitting he was lying under oath. A unique and symbolic conviction This is only the second beagle pack to have had its members face legal consequences for illegally hunting hares. The previous case was back in 2010, when police cautioned the Wick and District Beagles, with the hunt calling it quits the following year. A huntsman later reformed it as the still-active Severn Vale Beagles. Whilst fox hunting is the headline-grabbing form of hunting, hare hunting lurks in the background as its lesser-known but oftentimes more lethal sibling. Overshadowed in public discourse by hare coursing, there are nonetheless approximately 60 active packs of beagles and bassets across England and Wales. In our report on the 2024/25 hunting season, Protect the Wild found 23 reports of foot packs chasing hares and a further two killing hares (including the Pipewell Foot Beagles incident). However, this figure masks a truer figure due to beagle and basset packs receiving much less attention than fox hunts. Protect the Wild therefore concluded that a conservative estimate for hares persecuted during the season was 6522. With that number in mind, for there to have been just one conviction in 20 years of the Hunting Act reflects how significant the conviction against the Pipewell Foot Beagles really is. Following the trial, Emma Reed, who filmed the footage that convicted the hunt, told Protect the Wild: “I am very pleased with the guilty verdict and and how it has exposed this hunt’s actions and behaviour. The myth of trail hunting has once again been undermined. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the CPS, which has been very professional and committed to obtaining this conviction. “At a time when the government are supposedly consulting over the introduction of a ban on trail hunting, this is yet another example of why it can’t come quick enough. Wildlife is being terrorised and killed week in, week out, and we have to say enough is enough. Pressure must be applied to the government at every opportunity so it acts on their manifesto pledge to ban this barbaric pastime properly and forever.” The conviction finally shows that hare-hunting foot packs aren’t immune to the law. Whilst the conviction was gained at the loss of two equally significant charges, the outcome sets a precedent that beagle and basset packs can’t hide behind their fox hunting counterparts forever. Judge Mehta’s order to destroy the hunting horn is a symbol of how both public opinion and the law are finally catching up with all hunts two decades after the ban was introduced. We asked Emma if there was a group she’d like us to give a shout-out to, and she suggested Animals in Need Northamptonshire 😊 If you’d like to support their brilliant work, you can donate here SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing