EarthSummit
New User
Recently Delia Stacey tried to appeal against a further five year ban from caring for/keeping horses : http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/280288.html. Having been involved in this case we are fully aware that the law is a very much blinkered ass, unfortunately. For instance, on the day of this appeal hearing Ms. Stacey had just been released from prison, having been found guilty of driving whilst disqualified (she was caught and arrested with her ten year old child in the front seat of the car, which was obviously distressing to the child). In total Ms. Stacey has been in prison five times but it does not seem to be much of a deterrent and she is still involved with race horses and with sport horses in Lancashire. A judge has to consider each case without recourse to history or other surrounding cases, on it's own merit and according to the word of the law - I have listened to a barrister arguing at length whether keeping means the same as caring for, for instance.
With respect to the Jamie Gray case, some horses would be returned if they were considered pets or personal property rather than being owned and thus assets of the business, which Mr. Gray was running. Thus some animals may have been returned to him through law.
If people would like the law to be more stringent then they have to be more willing to be witnesses in cases. If they don't then cases collapse and the law remains the same.
With respect to the Jamie Gray case, some horses would be returned if they were considered pets or personal property rather than being owned and thus assets of the business, which Mr. Gray was running. Thus some animals may have been returned to him through law.
If people would like the law to be more stringent then they have to be more willing to be witnesses in cases. If they don't then cases collapse and the law remains the same.
