A decision on whether the spring hunting referendum will be held next year will be made on Friday.

The Constitutional Court’s decision next week on whether a spring hunting referendum will be held is eagerly awaited by the Coalition to Abolish Spring Hunting, but this is not the end of the road, according to hunters.

A decision on whether the spring hunting referendum will be held next year will be made by the Constitutional Court on Friday. Yet, hunters are not prepared to lay down their shotguns, even if the referendum result favours an end to spring hunting.

Mark Mifsud Bonnici, speaking for Kaċċaturi San Umbertu, said the hunting organisation would be seeking the use of every legal means possible to counter such a result.

“If the Constitutional Court’s decision gives the green light and the referendum result is in favour of stopping spring hunting, we will seek every legal means possible to challenge that decision.

They do not want this referendum to be held, at all costs. The reason is obvious. If the referendum is held, they will lose

“If it were the other way around, I’m sure the proponents of the referendum would do the same. This is not the end of the road,” Mr Mifsud Bonnici said.

The spring hunting season is in violation of the EU Birds’ Directive but the government has been applying derogations to the law to allow the controversial practice to continue.

If the court approves the referendum, the President will then set a date no sooner than three months and no later than six. This means the referendum date would be set between April and July.

The hunting lobby’s strategy comes as no surprise to the coalition that proposed the referendum. The coalition is made up of 11 groups, including Alternattiva Demokratika, Birdlife and Din l-Art Ħelwa, which succeeded in collecting 41,494 valid signatures demanding a referendum.

This was confirmed in the Electoral Commission’s note in the Constitutional Court’s registry on July 3.

AD deputy chairman Carmel Cacopardo said the hunters’ strategy was an exercise in legal nitpicking.

“They have picked on every bit of law that could stop the referendum from being held and presenting a detailed argument on it. They do not want this referendum to be held, at all costs. The reason is obvious. If the referendum is held, they will lose,” Mr Cacopardo said.

Legal avenues are getting increasingly limited for the hunting lobby. While Mr Mifsud Bonnici said the organisations would turn to European courts if necessary, the grounds for objection are limited.

Constitutional law experts told this newspaper that objectors can argue that the 10 per cent benchmark of signatories was not reached; or that if parts of a law are repealed that will render the law incompatible with the Constitution and the European Convention Act.

The legal notice the coalition wants to abolish does not fall within the prohibited parameters because it will not alter the European Convention Act.

The anti-spring hunting referendum is aimed at cancelling a three-year-old legal notice that sets out the rules under which the government can apply a derogation to open a spring hunting season for turtle dove and quail.

If it goes ahead and a majority approve, the vote will be the first in 150 years to have been prompted by electors and the only one to cancel a law.

The government will have no choice because the law will immediately be struck off the statute books. But for the result to be valid, voter turnout has to surpass the 50 per cent mark.