Amersham Horses Hearing Result Footage

[ QUOTE ]
Was anyone actually in court who can tell us what happened??????

[/ QUOTE ]

The RSPCA statement and press releases give you the information relevant to yesterday. This is still a live case and discretion is essential.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate that. But anyone in the public gallery can tell us what happened in court............

[/ QUOTE ]

As said by VFH - discretion is needed as this is a live court case. I along with other's sat through the court case heard yesterday but we are not allowed to divulge information as this could jeopardise the whole thing.

And yes Jacks Mum, I'm around somewhere!
 
I can understand that the case could be jeopardised by commenting on what was said at the hearing yesterday. However surely the ability to comment on what points were raised yesterday is at the discretion of those that were present to 'publicly' hear what was said?
Therefore I don't understand the comment 'of we are not allowed to divulge information though'? This would only be applicable if the judge asked for his/her comments and those that were stated at the hearing not to be reported on, or were to be restricted. In other words it would have been announced at the start of the hearing that reporting restrictions were in force or had not yet been lifted ( applicable from the previous hearing).
Under section 1.3 of the THE CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTION issued by the Ministry of Justice it states :
I.3 RESTRICTIONS ON REPORTING PROCEEDINGS
(I.3.1) Under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 a court may, where it appears necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in the proceedings before it or in any others pending or imminent, order that publication of any report of the proceedings or part thereof be postponed for such time as the court thinks necessary for that purpose. Section 11 of the Act provides that a court may prohibit the publication of any name or other matter in connection with the proceedings before it which it has allowed to be withheld from the public.
(I.3.2) When considering whether to make such an order there is nothing which precludes the court from hearing a representative of the press. Indeed it is likely that the court will wish to do so.
(I.3.3) It is necessary to keep a permanent record of such orders for later reference. For this purpose all orders made under section 4(2) must be formulated in precise terms having regard to the decision in R v Horsham Justices ex parte Farquharson [1982] QB 762; 76 Cr App R 87, and orders under both sections must be committed to writing either by the judge personally or by the clerk of the court under the judge's directions. An order must state (a) its precise scope, (b) the time at which it shall cease to have effect, if appropriate, and (c) the specific purpose of making the order. Courts will normally give notice to the press in some form that an order has been made under either section of the Act and the court staff should be prepared to answer any enquiry about a specific case, but it is, and will remain, the responsibility of those reporting cases, and their editors, to ensure that no breach of any orders occurs and the onus rests on them to make enquiry in any case of doubt.

However that aside I am glad that the equines have gained a small reprieve and hope that justice is served at the end of the day. Whatever happens as a result of the conclusion of the case it is my sincere wish that all the animals concerned ultimately receive the care they are entitled to.
Caroline
 
I think Ovidius is just being extra careful. The last thing we want is to jeopardise the criminal case by divulging information learned in court yesterday.

None of us are legal bods
smile.gif
and we don't know what might jeopardise the case.

Ultimately, we all want what's best for the horses in the long term, and if there's any possibility their long term future could be at risk, it's best to be cautious.
 
I have no issue with that at all Rana it was just the wording of 'not being allowed' I was questioning as I simply wanted to know if reporting restrictions were in force or not. Hence the use of the wording.
I hear what you are saying though and I don't want the case jeopardising either and ultimately want what is best for the animals which are all caught up in this.
 
Ok let me word it another way - there are enough statements from those directly involved in the case such as the RSPCA, ILPH, REDWINGS, HORSE TRUST etc etc....

This is their "baby" and I personally would not like to repeat what I heard yesterday for fear of saying the wrong thing.

(Does that sound better??)
cool.gif
 
I only asked if reporting restrictions were in place and in view of your reply I would guess not. Therefore am I correct to conclude that any comments made by those present at yesterday's hearing are subject to discretion.
FWIW I happen to agree that discussion on a public -and potentially influential -forum such as this of what was said yesterday could potentially do more harm than good. Only a small number of the general public would have been allowed into the court yesterday ( due to seating) therefore only a small section of the public would have access to all the legal jargon that went on and a far greater number of people could be informed on a forum such as this. However on the other hand I doubt very much that matters too delicate for transmission/publication would have been discussed yesterday otherwise the public gallery would have been empty.
Anyway I hope all ends well to this sad case and the horses, ponies and donkeys benefit from all the effort being made on their behalf as it would be tragic if ultimately they do not
frown.gif

Caz
 
I personally was not aware of any reporting restrictions.

The official press releases summarize what was decided in the court and I personally saw no benefit in elaborating. If I had - I would. There are other threads on this and other forums where more detail is being discussed. Whether this is beneficial or responsible in regard to the animals in question, or indeed the bigger picture in relation to equine welfare cases is debatable, but ultimately up to the individual to decide.
Emma
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I also agree that it is up to the individual to decide on how much or how little they wish to elaborate. My query was just relating to the words of 'not being allowed' and whether this was due to reporting restrictions or at the request of the judge that was presiding on Monday.
My only further comment on this is that if people are going to post as spokesperson for a particular group of people then they should think carefully sometimes about how things are worded.
Incidentally what has become of the OE website? There have been no further updates for 2 months that I am aware of.
I can thoroughly understand how comments and or actions can prejudice a case and if a fair trial is threatened then a case is more likely to be thrown out as I have studied law and indeed done court reporting in the past.
Anyhow I certainly hope that the case does not end up being quashed as I for one would like to see a conclusion to this whole affair.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Incidentally what has become of the OE website? There have been no further updates for 2 months that I am aware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been many reports on OE if ppl care to look correctly, OE and its website is fully operational as we speak
wink.gif
 
The OE website has not been updated. The OE forum however is updated on a daily basis by the administrators.

And does there have to be a debate over how I worded something??? Frankly there are bigger things to think about rather than trying to get people to elaborate on "what they overheard in court"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top