Two men acquitted over violence at Boxing Day hunt in Wiltshire
It followed a clash between pro- and anti-hunting groups in Lacock
Last updated 30th Sep 2022
Two men have been found not guilty of their alleged offences at a Boxing Day hunt in Wiltshire.
The pair were accused of using threatening or abusive behaviour, with intent to cause fear of violence, in Lacock last December.
59 year-old Andrew Purbrick and 62 year-old Adrian Earl had been accused of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of violence.
It followed a clash between pro- and anti-hunting groups outside the Red Lion pub in Lacock, Wiltshire, when the Avon Vale Hunt passed though 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.
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, both Wiltshire, had denied taking part in the disturbance and said they were acting in self-defence when things turned violent.
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.
'The evidence is pretty thin, wafer thin'
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 the saboteurs.
'Complaints from the public about events that day'
Wiltshire Police came under fire for their handling of the hunt meet.
Officers have been accused of not intervening to prevent the violence, while some saboteurs claimed one of the officers who was present was a full member of the hunt.
The court heard on Friday during legal argument 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/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."