The lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC will not be prosecuted for clubbing a fox to death on Boxing Day morning while wearing his wife’s satin kimono.
The prominent remain supporter tweeted on 26 December that he had killed a fox with a baseball bat while wearing the gown after it became trapped while trying to get inside a hen house in his back garden in central London.
The incident was widely condemned on Twitter and was brought to the attention of the RSPCA, which urged anyone with first-hand knowledge of the incident to report it.
The charity announced on Thursday that after conducting an investigation, which involved independent experts, a veterinary pathologist and a forensic vet, Maugham would not be prosecuted. Its prosecutions department concluded the evidential threshold needed to bring a prosecution was not met as the findings suggested the fox was killed swiftly.
The RSPCA said: “When making prosecution decisions, we must be fair and objective and make them on the facts of each case.
“It is important to understand that it is not necessarily illegal to kill a fox, but if unnecessary suffering is caused, a criminal offence may have been committed.”
Maugham welcomed the decision, saying in a statement: “I know that some were genuinely upset by my actions on Boxing Day and the tone of my tweets. I am profoundly sorry for that upset. It was my intention to convey in a gently deprecating manner the incongruity of my Boxing Day morning. I got that wrong.”
The RSPCA said it did not condone the killing of healthy foxes. It added that the correct way to protect livestock was with good fencing and deterrents. When a fox is tangled in fencing, individuals should aim to humanely free the animal wherever possible, the charity added.
Maugham said: “As to my actions, in the situation I found myself – needing to act in great haste to save the chickens my family keeps – I did not have the luxury of time to reflect on the competing ethical approaches of the RSPCA and Natural England. Of course, I respect the different assessments others might, equally reasonably, have made.”
