The recent Hunting Act judgment was, of course, a massive blow to the League Against Cruel Sports, particularly as it contributed to the forming of the legislation in the first place.

It was only to be expected that the chief executive would endeavour to put a brave face on it and, quite clearly, there has been clarification in relation to illegal hunting. What Douglas Batchelor has conveniently chosen to overlook is the change in the burden of proof in relation to court prosecutions.

He knows full well that pending prosecutions are all being reviewed and the reason is that it will now be extremely difficult to provide sufficient evidence to prosecute in those cases.

It is equally clear that his views do not accord with that of a CPS prosecutor who – prior to the judgment – had said that if the ruling went against them, it would render the Act virtually unenforceable. He has also been very selective in his mention of the Early Day Motion in that this calls for better enforcement of the Hunting Act, as opposed to asking for amendments.

To do so would admit that the Act was full of loopholes and that they got the wording wrong in the first place.

A great deal has been said about the number of prosecutions that have already taken place and it was a surprise to read that the majority of these are believed to have been in Liverpool for hunting rats and rabbits. The situation now is that there is little doubt that the unauthorised, unofficial, unqualified, untrained camcorder monitors simply do not possess the skills capable of providing the degree of evidence that is now required for a successful prosecution in the courts.

The letter was a bold attempt to convince the public that in some way the judgment reinforced the Hunting Act.

However, this is not the case and I'm afraid that disappointment looms.

Trevor Selwood Chippenham Wiltshire