SAVE THE SOUTH SUFFOLK ONE!

Oh, wait… sorry. The Judge already did that in court.

John ‘Pinocchio’ Henty’s case ends in acquittal.

Thank you to South Suffolk Hunt Sabs for this guest article.

A court case brought by former Essex & Suffolk Hunt huntsman John Henty against a hunt saboteur has ended in a resounding victory for the defence, with the saboteur found NOT GUILTY.

Following allegations made to police, former Essex & Suffolk Hunt huntsman John Henty pursued a prosecution alleging abusive and threatening behaviour under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The case followed an incident on a quiet country lane in which Henty pursued the hunt saboteurs’ vehicle, blocked it in, approached it and attempted to provoke a reaction.

What followed was a lengthy legal process based on Henty’s account of events. However, when his evidence was examined in court, serious questions arose about the credibility of that account and whether the alleged behaviour actually amounted to a criminal offence.

A case that should never have reached court?

The Judge was highly critical of the way the case had been handled by the CPS and the police officers involved, making clear that the alleged actions did not meet the legal threshold required for a criminal offence.

Both the prosecution and the defence barrister sought to discontinue the case on more than one occasion. The case was nevertheless directed to proceed. The circumstances surrounding that decision raise serious questions about why so much time and public money were spent pursuing a prosecution that ultimately failed.

The evidence tells a different story

Henty submitted two video clips, recorded by himself, which were played in court. The footage showed Henty pulling his vehicle alongside the hunt saboteurs’ Land Rover, getting out of his own accord and filming the encounter.

Our saboteur told Henty to ‘f*ck off’ before closing the vehicle door. Rather than disengaging, Henty continued filming and engaging with the occupants. Despite claiming under oath that he had been alarmed and distressed, the circumstances captured on his own footage told a different story.

The prosecution was unable to produce further evidence demonstrating that Henty had experienced the alarm or distress alleged.

The judge’s conclusion

Having heard Henty’s evidence under cross-examination and considered the footage and relevant law, the Judge concluded that:

• Henty had parked his vehicle alongside the saboteurs’ vehicle of his own accord.
• He had got out of his vehicle voluntarily.
• He had chosen to film the encounter.
• He had continued the interaction of his own accord.
• He had not contacted the police immediately, instead reporting the incident to 101 approximately two hours later.

These circumstances were central to the Judge’s assessment of Henty’s claim that he had experienced fear, alarm and distress. Following Henty’s evidence and cross-examination by the prosecution and defence, the case concluded without our hunt saboteur needing to take the stand.

The verdict: Not guilty. Acquitted.

After all the allegations, the police involvement, the CPS proceedings and the considerable expenditure of public resources, the case ended in an acquittal. A considerable amount of time, money and public resources had been spent pursuing this matter, only for the court to reach a conclusion that raises serious questions about why the prosecution was pursued in the first place.

Hunt saboteurs will not be intimidated out of exposing illegal hunting. And they will not be silenced by allegations that cannot withstand scrutiny in court.

The South Suffolk One stands vindicated.

SAVE THE SOUTH SUFFOLK ONE!

Show some support to South Suffolk Hunt Sabs.