Commons hunting protesters guilty

The protesters had all denied the public order charges

Pro-hunting campaigner Otis Ferry has been convicted of violating the Public Order Act.

Seven other men were also found guilty after invading the main Commons chamber during a hunting bill debate in September last year.

Defence lawyers for the protesters had argued their actions were protected by the Human Rights Act, which protects the right to freedom of expression.

The men received 18-month conditional discharges and must pay £350 costs.

The whole reason we went there was to make our voices heard Otis Ferry

The campaigners burst into the chamber on 15 September dressed in boiler suits and posing as builders.

They later discarded their suits to reveal foxhunting protest T-shirts.

Five of them entered the Commons chamber, while three others were intercepted trying to get through the doors.

Speaking outside court, Ferry said: "The whole reason we went there was to make our voices heard."

He said they had wanted "the whole country to realise the injustice that was taking place".

'Peaceful' protest

Ferry, who is a master of the South Shropshire hunt, said the law regarding hunting was "very unclear" and suggested it would be difficult to enforce.

District Judge Timothy Workman said: "Your actions caused disruption to the House of Commons and caused some of those present alarm.

"To your credit the incident itself was brief and there was no violence and those moments of alarm quickly passed.

"Within one or two moments you were fully co-operative with the authorities and I treat you all as men of good character."

Lucy Helmore, Ferry's mother, said she was very proud of her son, adding: "I think the judge realised it was a peaceful protest against a ridiculous piece of legislation."

The police inquiry and legal process surrounding the case is thought to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Wasted money?

One of the defendants, Luke Tomlinson, 28, criticised the expense.

He said: "I think they have wasted a lot of public money on the case, probably for political reasons.

"I have never committed a criminal offence in my life and to be forced by the government to do something like that is a sorry thing."

The incident took place as up to 15,000 pro-hunting campaigners demonstrated outside Parliament.

All eight claimed they were only involved with the protest on the understanding that it would be peaceful.

The men had denied a charge under the Public Order Act that their behaviour caused "harassment, alarm or distress".