In England, it appears from an article in The Field that there is "nothing illegal about wearing a mask in a public place" and the writer, David Tomlinson, is thinking specifically about hunt saboteurs. "Terrorists dress in black and wear facemasks. So too do hunt saboteurs and for exactly the same reasons". They want, he says, to intimidate and frighten law-abiding people, yet are anxious that their own identity will not be revealed. Hiding behind a mask not only gives anonymity but also freedom of action. "If you can't be recognised, it doesn't matter what you do, does it?"
He gives as an example of going to a meet on New Year's Day in Kent. Unusually, there were no police there because all hands had been on duty at Millennium celebrations. The saboteurs, he writes, knew this and "a considerable gang" turned up. Soon after the hounds had moved off, he says, a group of the men in black, the saboteurs, launched an unprovoked attack on three elderly foot followers. When the Joint Master, a woman, went to their assistance, she too was assaulted with a claw-hammer. All four were treated in hospital.
The organisers of this (a joint affair between two hunts) have started out to try and have something done about the anonymity given by balaclavas. But there is nothing illegal, apparently, about wearing a mask in public and, the writer says the police are reluctant to unmask them. On the other hand, according to a Superintendant, if advance intelligence or spontaneous incidents at such protests give rise to fears among the police that serious violence may occur, an authority can be issued under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. "This authority relates to powers to stop and search, but has been extended to incorporate a power to removal of facial coverings." But the police don't often do it. Why? One Mrs Johnso, chairman of the Sussex Police Authority, says a notice has to be signed by an officer of the rank of Superintendant on the grounds that the person has reason to believe that it is necessary to prevent incidents of serious violence taking place. "She goes on to say that an officer who authorises such a notice knows that every aspect of it will be scrutinised in depth in a court of law. So? Then she explains that if there was not good and proper reason, the law would be brought into disrepute."
On the other hand, a chief inspector of the Surrey police says that it has always been policy for the police to require removal of balaclavas "in proximity of a hunt". Most of the protesters, he says, then move away. Somebody needs to do something, writes Tomlinson. Maybe read up on the law.