Two 'saboteurs' acquitted of violence in mass brawl at Boxing Day hunt

Two ‘saboteurs’ are acquitted of stirring up violence after mass brawl broke out between pro and anti-hunt factions at annual Boxing Day meet

• Andrew Purbrick, 59, and Adrian Earl, 62, were cleared of wrongdoing today
• Judge Dickens said there was insufficient evidence and the case was ‘wafer thin’
• Three supporters of the hunt previously pleaded guilty to the same charges
• The judge said Mr Purbrick and Mr Earl could leave with ‘good characters intact’ 

Two men have been acquitted of getting involved in a scuffle at an annual Boxing Day hunt after the event descended into violence between pro- and anti-hunting protesters.

Andrew Purbrick, 59, and Adrian Earl, 62, had been accused of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of violence, but a judge today dismissed the charges, saying prosecution evidence was ‘wafer thin’.

Around 100 people gathered outside the Red Lion pub in Lacock, Wiltshire, where the Avon Vale Hunt set out for the day on December 27 last year.

Swindon Magistrates’ Court heard that Mr Purbrick and Mr Earl had been accused of becoming involved in pushing and shoving between the different factions of protesters in an incident which saw punches being thrown and one person being hit with a placard.

The court heard it was alleged that the two men were part of the group of hunt ‘saboteurs’. 

There were complaints from the public about how the incident was handled by police, but the officers involved have been cleared of any wrongdoing. 

The violent scenes were seen after around 100 saboteurs surrounded the pack, chanting and screaming

A scuffle broke out which soon turned into punches, with one man being hit by a home-made placard

Police attempted to restore order to the village, but faced complaints from protesters who claimed that one of the officers had connections to the hunting community

Hunt saboteurs – which are people who have been trying to thwart legal forms of hunting that have been in place since the Hunting Act in 2004 – surrounded the Avon Vale Hunt as they headed out for the day. 

They chanted ‘shame on you’ at the huntsmen, their horses and their hounds and waved banners and placards at the riders.

The master huntsman blew his horn and the pack started to get on its way to a nearby field, but violence broke out among the crowds still by the pub.

Some supporters of the hunt tried to guide the protesters out the way of the oncoming horses but were met with fierce resistance.

One man wrapped his arm around one of the pro-hunters neck’s and tried to headlock him before another punched him viciously in the face.

The victim tried to retaliate and he and another pushed the saboteurs away from them before Wiltshire police were called.

The prosecution case centred on a short video clip which had been posted on social media and showed pushing, shoving and punches being thrown at the meeting.

Mr Purbrick, from Westbury, and Mr Earl, of Calne, Wiltshire, had denied taking part in the disturbance and said they were acting in self-defence when things turned violent.

Protesters had surrounded the hunting party as they headed out for the day on December 27

Some supporters of the hunt tried to guide the protesters out the way of the oncoming horses but were met with fierce resistance

District Judge Joanna Dickens dismissed the charges against the two defendants following applications from their lawyers at the close of the prosecution case.

They argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the two men and they should be found not guilty.

Having heard the applications, the judge ruled in their favour and said Mr Purbrick and Mr Earl could leave the court with their good characters intact.

In her judgment, Judge Dickens said it was for the prosecution to prove that the two defendants were not acting in self-defence and, on the evidence, she did not believe they could.

‘Ultimately the evidence is pretty thin, wafer thin, and it is just about enough to get past a half-time submission and not much more,’ she said.

‘In terms of Mr Purbrick, the prosecution has to prove he was intending to cause unlawful violence and he says he was acting in self-defence.

‘The prosecution would have to disprove self-defence and the prosecution case is not going to get any better and there is no other evidence for the prosecution to support that it wasn’t in self-defence.

‘In terms of Mr Earl, he says he was acting in self-defence in circumstances that happened very quickly.

‘While there is just about a case to answer, the evidence is wafer thin and it won’t get any better, and for those reasons I won’t be able to be sure they were not acting in self-defence.

‘For those reasons I found both defendants not guilty.’

Earlier this year, three hunt supporters pleaded guilty to the same public order offence.

William Renny, 30, Callum Lewis, 26, and Evan Lorne, 18, were handed fines after admitting throwing punches at rival protesters.

Wiltshire Police also came under fire for their handling of the hunt meet.

Officers have been accused of not intervening to prevent the violence, while some of the hunt’s saboteurs claimed one of the officers who was present was a full member of the hunt.

The court heard on Friday that no disciplinary action had been taken against any officer.

One officer, named in court as PC Hughes, was on duty in Lacock and was alerted ‘by someone she knew in the equine community’ to an alleged assault at the meeting and she went to investigate.

Tom Power, prosecuting, said: ‘Following the incident at Lacock there were complaints from members of the public about events on that day.

‘The officer in the case has spoken to professional standards and there was a review into the events of that day but there was no formal investigation into PC Hughes, or any other officer involved.

‘The defence have copies of the letters in response to those complaints and they make reference to PC Hughes and her association or former association with the hunt.

‘She was never a witness to the Crown and her evidence never formed part of the Crown’s case. Professional standards have not investigated her or reprimanded her in any way.’

In a statement on social media, Wiltshire Hunt Saboteurs described the case against the two men as ‘malicious’. 

Source: Read Full Article