The Crown Prosecution Service is appealing to the High Court over the acquittal of a man convicted of hunting illegally with dogs.

Tony Wright won his appeal last month on a point of law and lawyers for the Government are now asking senior judges to clarify where the burden of proof should lie in cases where people are accused of illegal hunting, The Times has learnt. A hearing is expected within eight weeks.

Until the High Court has taken a view, other prosecutions of alleged illegal hunting have been postponed.

About 300,000 people turned out for traditional Boxing Day meets at 314 hunts yesterday to show that the sport is as popular as ever, despite the ban introduced nearly three years ago.

The Masters of Foxhounds Association believes hunting is enjoying a revival as a result of the ban.

Under present hunting laws, dogs can still be used to follow a scent – but must not kill foxes or stags.

The progress of the CPS appeal is being followed closely by David Collins, Assistant Chief Constable for North Yorkshire, who is the rural affairs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. He is reviewing how the Hunting Act is working and its impact on police forces and is likely to draft instructions to officers on how best to enforce the legislation.

Mr Wright, who was the first huntsman in the country to be convicted of breaching the Act, won his appeal on the basis that he reasonably believed his hunting to be exempt from the ban. He insisted that he was using two dogs to flush out foxes from cover so that they could be shot.

Judge Cottle, sitting with two magistrates at Exeter Crown Court, decided at the end of November that Mr Wright genuinely wished to comply with the terms of the hunting legislation. But the judge raised questions about the law.

He said: “This case has led us to the conclusion that the relevant law is far from simple to interpret or apply.”The League Against Cruel Sports, which originally brought a private prosecution against Mr Wright, insists that the burden of proof in hunting prosecutions is on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that his hunting was exempt or that he reasonably believed it to be exempt.

Mike Hobday, spokesman for the league, said that this “reverse burden of proof” was made clear by Alun Michael, former Rural Affairs Minister, during debates on the hunting ban in the House of Commons.

However, the Countryside Alliance argues that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of breaking the law. “We believe that basic common law should prevail in this legislation as any other – that a person is innocent until proven guilty.”

Yesterday Mr Wright was out hunting again, with 50 riders and 400 followers on foot. He said: “The courts threw out my conviction and accepted we had not been hunting illegally. We are looking forward now and hopefully it won’t be too long before all the confusion and stupidity of the Hunting Act is removed.”

So far not one rider from a registered hunt has been found guilty of breaching the Hunting Act.

Hunting: the law

Hunts can chase rabbits and rats with dogs but they cannot hunt mice, hare or squirrels.

A huntsman can go out with two dogs to flush out a fox from cover to protect farm animals, crops or other property although the animal must then be shot. If three dogs are used however that is against the law.

A hunt can send hounds below ground to flush out a fox to protect game birds. Yet it is against the law if the same hounds flush out a fox to protect lambs, chickens or even a ground nesting bird such as a stone curlew.

A person can walk his dog but must not let it chase a squirrel, mouse or bird.

A hunt can use a pack of hounds to flush out a fox if it is then killed by a bird of prey such as a golden eagle or European eagle owl.

The Hunting Act came into force on February 19, 2005.

Anyone in breach of the law will be dealt with by magistrates' court and liable to a maximum fine of £5,000. A prison sentence would only be considered if fines were unpaid or for persistent offending.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle