Letter: Judge's ruling on council hunting ban ignores electors

Sir: The law, Mr Justice Laws said, 'confers no entitlement on a local authority to impose its opinions about the morals of hunting on the neighbourhood'. Surrey County Council debated the issue at considerable length and concluded that it is opposed to the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals for sport. In Britain, the judge should realise, councillors are democratically elected and have a duty to represent the views of the citizens of their local area.

Last November, when the hunting debate took place here in Surrey, my colleagues and I took every opportunity to listen to all the views put forward. Now a member of the judiciary has thrown aside our view without consideration of the climate of public opinion and disregarding a local authority's duty to act with moral responsibility. I hope the judge has not damaged the judiciary, given the public perception of the establishment's sympathy with those who hunt animals for entertainment.

Yours sincerely,

JOHN VINCENT

Reigate, Surrey

10 February

The writer is a Surrey County councillor for Reigate Central.