Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner

[cptrayes]

Some lawyers love a high profile case the owner just has to find one .

How high profile would it be to win 500 compensation, if that since that's not a popular size and more marketable ones are being given away for free, for the loss of a 16.3 ex chaser used for light hacking?

That's why I think we need new law. It SHOULD be high profile, but I don't think it will

 

[Dry Rot]

Would you like to explain why you think this is so impossible when courts happily put a value on libel?

Honestly Alec, you'd think I was suggesting the impossible. All I'm asking for is for someone who criminally shoots a horse or steals your dog to be given a higher penalty, and pays higher compensation, than someone who steals your bike or breaks your window. It really isn't rocket science!

I do not understand why the owner of the horse that is criminally killed does not simply wait until the criminal action is over and then brings an action in the civil courts to recover (a) the value of the animal, and (b) further compensation for their pain/suffering/loss of use/emotional distress/etc.? Are you saying that, as the law stands, this cannot be done?

 

[cptrayes]

I do not understand why the owner of the horse that is criminally killed does not simply wait until the criminal action is over and then brings an action in the civil courts to recover (a) the value of the animal, and (b) further compensation for their pain/suffering/loss of use/emotional distress/etc.? Are you saying that, as the law stands, this cannot be done?

There are two issues here DR. The first is that the penalty for criminal damage of a low value horse is pathetic.

The second is that I don't think we have punitive damages in this country, though that could have changed since 1985 when I was told I could not sue someone for the upset they caused me by failing to spot a problem on a vetting , and the compensation she would be able to claim would be only the value of the horse.

 

[Dry Rot]

There are two issues here DR. The first is that the penalty for criminal damage of a low value horse is pathetic.

The second is that I don't think we have punitive damages in this country, though that could have changed since 1985 when I was told I could not sue someone for the upset they caused me by failing to spot a problem on a vetting , and the compensation she would be able to claim would be only the value of the horse.

It's been a long time but I seem to remember that there is a law of torts and it is possible to sue in the civil courts for just the damages you suggest.

But why the insistence that there should be punitive damages under criminal law? Is Mr Bloggs going to be punished any more severely in the criminal courts for hitting my uncle Percy over the head with a shovel because I happened to be rather fond of uncle Percy and will the punitive damages be reduced if I can't stand the sight of him? Of course not! And what is the situation if I like my uncle but my sister does not? Percy, bless his heart, is uncle to us both!

Why should it be any different for a horse? It is quite possible to have joint ownership of a horse. Are you seriously suggesting that a horse is more valuable, in emotional terms, than my uncle Percy? I am shocked to the core!

I'm afraid I am not following your logic.

The problem with the vet is that you pay for an opinion. If you ask the wrong person for an opinion and you don't like what you hear, the solution is obvious. Don't ask them again! Your judgement has played a major part and you must accept responsibility for that. But, I hear you say, you expect certain standards from a qualified veterinary surgeon. True, but it is still an opinion. On the other hand, if you can prove negligence, you can surely sue under the law of tort for your pain and suffering and the loss of use of your horse, it's commercial value, plus all reasonable costs in purchasing the replacement. Is it possible the legal advice you got was not factually correct, but possibly correct in practice? In other words, you can indeed sue, but don't bother because it isn't going to be worth it?

 

[cptrayes]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but here we go again


The law latest covers death of a human and I'll treatment of an animal.

What it does not adequately cover is illegally but humanely killing an animal or stealing an animal, both of which are punished and compensated as if they are property with nothing but a monetary value.

And since a dog or horse can easily have nil monetary value, I believe that the law needs changing in order for justice to be done.

 

[Dry Rot]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but here we go again


The law latest covers death of a human and I'll treatment of an animal.

What it does not adequately cover is illegally but humanely killing an animal or stealing an animal, both of which are punished and compensated as if they are property with nothing but a monetary value.

And since a dog or horse can easily have nil monetary value, I believe that the law needs changing in order for justice to be done.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this question either, but why cannot the owner simply raise a civil suit after the law has prosecuted for the criminal act? Surely, the question is not that difficult to understand?

Would uncle Percy in my example above have a monetary value??

 

[cptrayes]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this question either, but why cannot the owner simply raise a civil suit after the law has prosecuted for the criminal act? Surely, the question is not that difficult to understand?

Would uncle Percy in my example above have a monetary value??

DR, my petition is about animals.

If you want to be able to claim punitive damages if someone kills your Uncle Percy, then you can campaign to have that made legal.

Meanwhile, a more relevant question, I think, is to ask whether, if someone kills your Uncle Percy, you would be happy to see his killer charged with Criminal Damage of low value and given a small fine. Because that's what is happening with killed and stolen animals.

 

[Clara Mo 3]

Just seen this:

Statement by GG centre 26/10/14
About Us
The GG Centre opened 11 years ago and operates as an equestrian centre offering DIY livery, horse grazing and riding.
It is not the policy of the GG Centre to put down a horse unless there is a requirement to do so. In the event that there is a requirement for a horse to be put down, a licensed operator is used in order to do so in a humane way.
The GG Centre does not own any guns, nor does it hold a licence for any guns.
The GG Centre does not engage in, or approve of, blood sports. We do control vermin ie rats and mice.
Statement of Fact
On 27th September 2014 a horse was left in a horse grazing paddock at the GG Centre by its keeper. For the following few weeks the keeper did not attend to the horse and ignored all attempts to contact her. Therefore, the horse had been abandoned by its keeper.
On 15th October 2014 the GG Centre decided to return the horse to its keeper and tie it up in the keeper’s garden.
On approaching the horse it became uncontrollable and dangerous. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety of the general public, after careful consideration the difficult decision was made to arrange for the horse to be put down humanely. The GG Centre contacted the licensed operator, who attended the paddock and put down the horse.
The horse was then returned to its keeper:
a. so that she could choose how to dispose of it, as is her right and;
b. to comply with the Animal By Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 by avoiding any wildlife, ie foxes, having access to it.

Personal Statement of the GG Centre
This unfortunate event has been deeply upsetting and distressing for all concerned. We want to concentrate on what we do best, which is providing equestrian facilities to people to come and enjoy themselves.

 

[AmyMay]

Well, that's a crock!

 

[bonny]

I wonder if they read through their statement and thought it sounded reasonable ?

 

[be positive]

So they are now claiming it was abandoned, not pts due to unpaid debt, I cannot believe they went about issuing an abandonment notice legally before trying to remove it from the field.
It was supposedly dangerous when approached, therefore considered a danger to the "general public" who presumably have no reason the enter a private field.
This dangerous horse was then caught and shot, in the field where it was considered uncontrollable earlier.

It was then returned to its keeper, why could they not have gone round to the house before shooting it, it was easy enough to take the body round there, it would have been simple enough to go round first with the abandonment notice rather than take the body.

I hope people remember this when they are looking for livery in the area, I would not want to give any of my hard earned money to someone who can treat a horse in this way, however they try and justify it, being left unattended for 3 weeks is not ideal but the loaner may have been going up at odd times and not seen if she knew she owed money it would make sense that she went in quietly an possibly unseen.

 

[Sandstone1]

If it was dangerous and uncontrollable, how on earth did they manage to put it down humanely?

 

[Clara Mo 3]

Liars need to have good, nay, fantastic, memories. Let's hope he has an amazing memory. I wouldn't have put this in the public if I was him, there are too many inaccuracies in the "statement" and its difficult to back out of now and change his story. And what on earth have blood sports got to do with the event ??? And vermin control ?? And guns ??

And since his house is 3/4 mile away and round a couple of corners how does he know she wasn't going to see the horse ?? I have heard some drivel in my time but this beats it all....

 

[cobgoblin]

If the horse was abandoned how did they know who owned it and where she lived?
If the horse was abandoned why didn't they serve an abandonment notice?
If the horse was abandoned, what's all this about an unpaid livery bill?

I hope his pants are on fire!

 

[Spring Feather]

Ooh what a silly thing for them to do. But then they do sound like silly people.

 

[Dry Rot]

DR, my petition is about animals.

If you want to be able to claim punitive damages if someone kills your Uncle Percy, then you can campaign to have that made legal.

Meanwhile, a more relevant question, I think, is to ask whether, if someone kills your Uncle Percy, you would be happy to see his killer charged with Criminal Damage of low value and given a small fine. Because that's what is happening with killed and stolen animals.

Thanks for making up my mind for me. I will be joining the majority who won't be signing. Good luck with your cause.

 

[Moya_999]

DR, my petition is about animals.

If you want to be able to claim punitive damages if someone kills your Uncle Percy, then you can campaign to have that made legal.

Meanwhile, a more relevant question, I think, is to ask whether, if someone kills your Uncle Percy, you would be happy to see his killer charged with Criminal Damage of low value and given a small fine. Because that's what is happening with killed and stolen animals.

well CPT not all people around take the view that trying to change things is a waste of time. Whether your petition has an impact or not at least you can say you tried which is more than some can say.

 

[Overread]

Upon reading the statement my first thought is why a livery centre left the horse in the field unattended for that long. Surely if the horse is in livery there it has a stall to be put into and even if the horse wasn't under full livery they would have had cause to bring the horse in after a shorter period of time just for the horses's own health and well being.

Also, this is a question more than a statement, if a horse is loaned would the livery be aware of this. If so why not contact the owner? If not perhaps this shows a potential area where other liveries and owners could improve upon in general?


Statements as to bloodsports etc... is a smokescreen generally thrown into distract or cause sub-discussions that muddy the water. If they'd killed a fox or otter or any other animal currently or formerly a target of hunts then it would have some validity - but last I checked we don't hunt horses in the UK.

 

[cptrayes]

Thanks for making up my mind for me. I will be joining the majority who won't be signing. Good luck with your cause.

Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?

 

[Wagtail]

Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?

Waste of time trying to reason, Cptrayes.

 

[Dry Rot]

Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?

My problem is with someone who asks for my support to promote a discussion and then won't answer perfectly reasonable questions in a calm and logical way. I just don't think changes to the law should be initiated by a single emotionally charged incident that has not yet been discussed in court. It is only in court that all the questions on this thread will be answered, not by wild speculation from people who don't know or others who have a vested interest. The facts will be drawn out by the court cross examining witnesses under oath to establish the truth. Then you can legitimately come back here and ask for signatures.

You start a petition because you want a discussion in Parliament -- but you don't seem to want one here nor do you seem to want the courts to come to any conclusion first. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

[Goldenstar]

Well, that's a crock!

Yup a good yard would have had the passport and would have known the horse did not belong to the keeper and would have contacted the owner .
It's a legal statement designed to cover their backs in event of any action .

 

[Equi]

At the end of the day no matter what the circumstances were, both parties have agree that a HEALTHY animal was pts because of a £30 bill, without the consent of the owner who would have paid and taken her horse back home. Thats all that matters. I have signed.

 

[fburton]

I just don't think changes to the law should be initiated by a single emotionally charged incident that has not yet been discussed in court.

Neither do I, but I believe there is a general principle here (which this case may or may not exemplify) that is worth debating, including at a high level.

 

[Emma_H]

The main part of this that is truly horrifying is the dumping of the horse on the loaners lawn and trying to justify it by...

The horse was then returned to its keeper:
a. so that she could choose how to dispose of it, as is her right and;
b. to comply with the Animal By Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 by avoiding any wildlife, ie foxes, having access to it.

This is not the way to dispose of a horse in any way shape or form surely!

He should have complied with this...

https://www.gov.uk/fallen-stock#fallen-stock-information-for-horse-owners

 

[cptrayes]

My problem is with someone who asks for my support to promote a discussion and then won't answer perfectly reasonable questions in a calm and logical way. I just don't think changes to the law should be initiated by a single emotionally charged incident that has not yet been discussed in court. It is only in court that all the questions on this thread will be answered, not by wild speculation from people who don't know or others who have a vested interest. The facts will be drawn out by the court cross examining witnesses under oath to establish the truth. Then you can legitimately come back here and ask for signatures.

You start a petition because you want a discussion in Parliament -- but you don't seem to want one here nor do you seem to want the courts to come to any conclusion first. Isn't that a bit odd?

I wasn't motivated by one incident DR, this has bothered me for a long time, since I became aware of it.

And I have answered all your questions which are relevant, which your uncle Percy was not.

You are the one not answering questions, so I'll ask it again:.




Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?

 

[Goldenstar]

Neither do I, but I believe there is a general principle here (which this case may or may not exemplify) that is worth debating, including at a high level.

Me neither and I am particularly reminded of one of my fathers favourite sayings " hard cases make for bad law " .

 

[Dry Rot]

I wasn't motivated by one incident DR, this has bothered me for a long time, since I became aware of it.

And I have answered all your questions which are relevant, which your uncle Percy was not.

You are the one not answering questions, so I'll ask it again:.




Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?

I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there is already a remedy under civil law (tort) to sue for emotional distress as I have stated earlier.

Also, there is apparently no higher penalty under criminal law for injuring a human simply because someone is fond of that person. So why should there be for an animal?

I am again assuming that you are wanting a higher penalty for the thief who steals "a family pet dog" compared with the thief who steals (for example) a rescue from the local dogs' home that would otherwise have been destroyed. Or are you proposing higher penalties for everyone who steals a dog regardless of its value or just whether it is a pet?

My objection is that what you are proposing is not (to me at any rate) logical. Criminal law has to be applied equally to everyone. That is why Justice is depicted blind folded. I think you are wanting the blindfold to be removed.

So what is wrong with letting the civil law sort out these cases as I have already suggested?

You say, "Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?"

How do you get into the mindset of the defendant and decide their motives at the time the deed was done? That would seem to put an impossible burden on a judge. Are you proposing to supply a qualified psychologist for every case that involves the killing or theft of a pet hamster? I can assure you, the hamster has no lesser value in the eyes of the child owner than the horse does to another!

 

[Goldenstar]

Tbh someone who maliciously stole a family pet and was caught would probably receive a stiffer sentence than some who wheeled off someone's bike .
I have been a witness in court many times and I have a great faith in the intelligence of the magistrates based on my experience.

 

[honetpot]

I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there is already a remedy under civil law (tort) to sue for emotional distress as I have stated earlier.

Also, there is apparently no higher penalty under criminal law for injuring a human simply because someone is fond of that person. So why should there be for an animal?

I am again assuming that you are wanting a higher penalty for the thief who steals "a family pet dog" compared with the thief who steals (for example) a rescue from the local dogs' home that would otherwise have been destroyed. Or are you proposing higher penalties for everyone who steals a dog regardless of its value or just whether it is a pet?

My objection is that what you are proposing is not (to me at any rate) logical. Criminal law has to be applied equally to everyone. That is why Justice is depicted blind folded. I think you are wanting the blindfold to be removed.

So what is wrong with letting the civil law sort out these cases as I have already suggested?

You say, "Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?"

How do you get into the mindset of the defendant and decide their motives at the time the deed was done? That would seem to put an impossible burden on a judge. Are you proposing to supply a qualified psychologist for every case that involves the killing or theft of a pet hamster? I can assure you, the hamster has no lesser value in the eyes of the child owner than the horse does to another!

But there is already an acknowledgement that some animals are of more value than others to the people that own them,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...x-penalties-dog-attacks-sum-resp-20131029.pdf

''3 years’ imprisonment if an assistance dog either dies or is injured by a
dog attack
5. The increase in maximum penalty for a dog attack on an assistance dog, such as
a guide dog for the blind, reflects the devastating effect such an attack has on the
assisted person. As now, each of these offences could also be punishable by an
unlimited fine instead of or in addition to imprisonment. An amendment to the
1991 Act to effect these changes will be tabled for consideration during Lords
Committee Stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.''