Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons.

[10] The Labour government appointed a Select Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, chaired by John Scott-Henderson KC, to investigate all forms of hunting, and it published a report in 1951.

[15] At the time of this bill fox hunting with hounds was "not practised or is largely banned" in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden,[16] but was allowed in Australia, Canada, France, India, Ireland, Italy, Russia and the USA.

We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned.

"[18] A new private member's bill, introduced by Michael Foster MP, received a second reading with 411 MPs voting in support, but failed due to lack of parliamentary time.

"[20] Following the Burns inquiry, the Government introduced an 'options bill' which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and self-regulation.

[21] In what he described as an attempt to raise animal welfare standards at the same time, and as an alternative to legislation that specifically targeted hunting, Lord Donoughue proposed the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill.

[22] This would have made it the case that "any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence."

Following a series of evidence hearings in 2002,[23] on 3 December 2002, DEFRA Minister of State for Rural Affairs Alun Michael introduced a bill which would have allowed some licensed hunting.

On 15 September 2004, the day of the final vote (third reading) on the bill, two protesters staged the first invasion of the House of Commons chamber since King Charles I in 1641.

The Lords, who would have had to have accepted the Commons' other amendments (including the principle of a ban on hunting) and dues, rejected the proposal by 153 to 114.

[34] Hunting with dogs is exempt from the Act if it falls within a class listed in Schedule 1, which may be amended by an Order made by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

[38] Stalking and flushing out are exempt under the Act, subject to five conditions:[36] Firstly, the stalking or flushing out is for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause to livestock, to game birds or wild birds, to food for livestock, to crops, to growing timber, to fisheries, to other property, or to biological diversity; or for obtaining meat for human or animal consumption; or for participation in a field trial competition in which dogs flush animals out of cover and/or retrieve animals that have been shot.

[43] The hunting of rats and rabbits is exempt only if it takes place on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or (if unoccupied) by an owner.

[36] The hunting of a hare which has been shot is exempt if it takes place on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose.

[36] In a private prosecution under the Act brought by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) who had observed two hare coursing events in villages near Malton, North Yorkshire in March 2007 organised by the Yorkshire Greyhound Field Trialling Club, the District Judge in Scarborough magistrates court clarified that the club was mistaken in believing that because the dogs they had been using were muzzled, the practice was lawful.

Many experts, such as the Hawk Board, deny that any bird of prey can reasonably be used in the British countryside to kill a fox which has been flushed by (and is being chased by) a pack of hounds.

[45] Expert opinion on the limitations of flushing foxes to birds of prey will be available to advise courts considering such cases, when they are litigated.

[36] Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is recaptured or shot dead by a competent person, and that each dog used in the hunt is kept under close control.

[36] Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after the wild mammal is found appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering, and that each dog used in the hunt is kept under close control.

[46] An application for judicial review was made to the High Court of England and Wales which argued that the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual human or property rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and under European Community law and on grounds of the free movement of goods and services.

[51][52] A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to an unlimited fine at the discretion of judges.

[56] Animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports monitor some hunts, which they believe may be breaking the law.

The defendants claimed to have evidence of illegal hunting taking place and were asking the court to accept this as a defence to the Harassment Act action.

It was also reported that the protestors, using an undercover infiltrator, had been able to get hold of conclusive evidence that the claimants were engaged in illegal fox hunting.

[67] Barnfield, a former huntsman with the Heythrop and one of those convicted, said that the case had been politically motivated with its links with David Cameron's constituency.

[68] The presiding magistrate called the RSPCA's £327,000 costs "staggering";[69] however, Gavin Grant, the chief executive of the RSPCA, said that the organisation would prevent cruelty to animals by all lawful means and had prosecuted 1,341 individuals and secured 3,114 convictions in the past year with a success rate of more than 98%.

[73] Public opinion has tended to be in favour of the ban on fox hunting: The Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement, agreed by the new government following the 2010 general election, aimed to give MPs a free vote "to express its view" on repealing the Hunting Act 2004[104] when parliamentary time allowed; in late 2010, it was thought this might be in "early 2012".

[105] The prime minister, David Cameron, explained in January 2012 "I always thought the hunting ban was a pretty bizarre piece of legislation ...

[108] At the 2017 election Theresa May pledged to hold a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act if the Conservative Party won a majority.