Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner

[ann-jen]

I signed the petition and do think it raises some issues. Slightly at a tangent I know..... but I was hit by a car out hacking 13 years ago to the day. I suffered mild injuries but my beautiful mare was PTS at the roadside due to her injuries. The horse was impeccably mannered on the roads and the driver drove into the back of us because the sun was in her eyes and she didn't see us. No prosecution was brought towards the driver and I had to pursue the matter privately in order get any financial recompense..... not that the money was the issue..... it was more my way of feeling some justice was done for my poor mare. If the lady had hit a parked vehicle or god forbid a pedestrian I'm sure the police would have treated the situation differently. Although she would have been driving equally recklessly no matter whether she hit another car, person, animal whatever.... I have much more emotional attachment to my horses than my car.... even though my car is more valuable in the eyes of the law....
I know this is a slightly different context but I do think living animals should be treated with more respect/value than other property..... how you quantify that though I do not know!!!

 

[fburton]

So sorry for your loss, ann-jen.

 

[ann-jen]

Thanks. She was a lovely horse and didn't deserve what happened to her. :-(

 

[bakewell]

I think the rather graphic and distasteful dog's head argument may be distracting to the point of the petition. I understand it's an emotive issue but a petition would do better to reflect public interest rather than personal points of view or to be associated with the need to have everyone agree with you personally.

I'd also caution that arguing the finer points of tort law without legal education is pointless and further detracts from the petition or from mobilising public outrage into action.

 

[cptrayes]

I think the rather graphic and distasteful dog's head argument may be distracting to the point of the petition. I understand it's an emotive issue but a petition would do better to reflect public interest rather than personal points of view or to be associated with the need to have everyone agree with you personally.

I will assume that you are referring to me.

I do not need to have everyone agree with me. I have explicitly stated this. Your suggestion that I do is mildly offensive.

I continue to reply only to correct inaccuracies in what other people are posting about criminal law.

I'd also caution that arguing the finer points of tort law without legal education is pointless and further detracts from the petition or from mobilising public outrage into action.

I absolutely agree with you on this which is why I am correcting Goldenstar when she is getting the law wrong.

I haven't said a thing about tort law except to explain that I don't know it to Dry Rot. I have argued the points of criminal law where I am sure of my ground and have been trained and have double checked with government published information freely available online.

 

[cptrayes]

Hasn't put me off signing cpt. And if it can do a bit of good, so much the better. Hope it does!

Great. Have you got a Christmas name already ?

 

[cptrayes]

Ann-Jen, so sorry about your terrible experience.

 

[Moya_999]

Did not put me off signing either and I don't think it will - I think most will look past a few minorities opposing to sign and use their own feelings and thoughts about signing a petition that may or may not help but feel its worth a go to sign as it cost nothing to sign but could potentiality cost the lives of others if they don't.

I think certain aspects of the law need bringing into the 21st century and changing - this is one instant when some poor creature lost her life because some **** took the law into his hands to kill someones animal instead of getting legal advice how to deal with this situation. A life is a life no matter how big or small and when its known this was someones pet, then this fool acted like one and for this things should be changed.

In other countries I have seen people fined / jailed for doing this, one particular instant the YO chose to dispose of someones mare and foal to the local zoo without the owners knowledge. The courts awarded the owner all that she sued for

Another was : http://equinelaw.alisonrowe.com/201...udy-awards-zero-damages-in-horse-injury-case/.

IMO CPT took it upon herself to do something which may or may not help with this situation, I fail to see why some are criticizing her for trying to do the right thing.

Well done CPT for sticking by your guns.

Animals should be given more respect than they are in particular peoples own pets.


Alex's comment *there is no meat left on the bone* comes to mind


**Sorry for your loss Ann**

CPT did you ever get to go on your hack in the sunshine?? LOL

 

[Merrymoles]

Oh lord I am beginning to lose the will to live and to see why some people whose opinions I respected seem to have left the forum in recent years.

I will continue to believe that someone taking the life of or harming an animal with malicious intent deserves a greater penalty than those available for low-value criminal damage.

I am not sure why we have to debate a hundred different scenarios.

There will always be different circumstances in every case and the charge and penalty will depend on those circumstances. In the case of ann-jen's horse, for which I offer my sympathy, had she been a human, the driver would probably have been charged with causing death by careless driving or manslaughter, due to the lack of intent. However, if they had mown someone down on purpose, there would have been a charge carrying a heavier penalty.

In terms of civil law, in the case that someone shot my horse maliciously, I probably could not afford to pursue a case for damages and, in any case, money would not be the issue.

That's my tuppenceworth and I will bow out now.

 

[Wagtail]

There's no problem with that, but I am puzzled why you seem to be hell bent on putting other people off signing a petition that can do little harm and might just do some good. I keep replying to you because I don't want you to succeed in putting off others, not because I want you to change your mind.

I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.

 

[cptrayes]

CPT did you ever get to go on your hack in the sunshine?? LOL

I did thank you I took out my planter, who has in the past made me wait him out for a record one hour and eight minutes before he would move. Today his worst was one minute ten seconds, so we are getting there

I also clipped my cob, who was such a brave boy and stood rock still even though he was frightened.

And it is so ridiculously warm here that he is now turned out without a rug on. The weather is crazy!

 

[bakewell]

I will assume that you are referring to me.

I do not need to have everyone agree with me. I have explicitly stated this. Your suggestion that I do is mildly offensive.

I continue to reply only to correct inaccuracies in what other people are posting about criminal law.

I think the petition is very worthwhile and I am glad you have done it. I think you are clearly very passionate about this.

However, sometimes context and tone get misconstrued on the internet, and it is better to let things go. The extended debates about minutiae could be seen to detract from the point of the petition. It veers into strawman territory. If you note my phrasing "may" etc. There is no definite reading one way or another. However why risk alienating anyone from a worthwhile cause; petitions thrive on weight of numbers.

The enemy here is not other forum members: it is the perpetrator of the original offense; the lack of legislation he can hide behind and the possibility of a cover up investigation.

 

[cptrayes]

I think the petition is very worthwhile and I am glad you have do it. I think you are clearly very passionate about this.

However, sometimes context and tone get misconstrued on the internet, and it is better to let things go. The extended debates about minutiae could be seen to detract from the point of the petition. It veers into strawman territory. If you note my phrasing "may" etc. There is no definite reading one way or another. However why risk alienating anyone from a worthwhile cause; petitions thrive on weight of numbers.

The enemy here is not other forum members: it is the perpetrator of the original offense; the lack of legislation he can hide behind and the possibility of a cover up investigation.

So was your post really to Goldenstar? Or if not, why did you think it was me who should stop when what I was doing was correcting errors in what she was writing so that other people would not be misinformed? Check back, I was correcting errors of fact, not trying to shove my personalopinion down anyone's throat, which is pretty much how I interpret what you wrote.

 

[cptrayes]

I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.

It's very odd, isn't it Wagtail.

I really must go to Tesco now, got no loo rolls

 

[Goldenstar]

Actually it would be up to the RSPCA to prove that cruelty took place, not the perpetrator to prove that it did not. And with any single shot, blow, stab, cut that caused instant death with no other marks they'd have a devil of a job doing that.

If you would be happy to have one of your dogs stolen, see the police put no effort into finding it because is only a low value piece of property, catch the person who took it yourself and then see them given a caution, conditional discharge or a low fine because of the low value of the property stolen, then you feel very differently from me.

There's no problem with that, but I am puzzled why you seem to be hell bent on putting other people off signing a petition that can do little harm and might just do some good. I keep replying to you because I don't want you to succeed in putting off others, not because I want you to change your mind.

I am not hell bent on anything.
I simply don't mind what others chose to do you don't own this thread I think this a hard case and hard cases make bad law and have right to keep saying it
Going back to your distasteful example ,
If you cut off my dogs head I would pursue you with ever ounce of energy I had and all the resources at my disposal .
It would have diddly squat to do with the RSPCA I have as much right to bring a case as they do .

 

[Spring Feather]

However, sometimes context and tone get misconstrued on the internet, and it is better to let things go. The extended debates about minutiae could be seen to detract from the point of the petition. It veers into strawman territory. If you note my phrasing "may" etc. There is no definite reading one way or another. However why risk alienating anyone from a worthwhile cause; petitions thrive on weight of numbers.

Very well put.

 

[Goldenstar]

I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.

I have said exactly why I do not support this petition .
But will post it again ,
hard cases make for bad law .
It really simple I disagree that more law will help us .

 

[Spring Feather]

I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.

There's been no time and effort spent by me, let alone a huge amount. I gave my reasons as to why I wouldn't sign, on the other thread. The potential legal implications affecting others, on a broader scale, could be wholly unjust.

 

[Optimissteeq]

There's been no time and effort spent by me, let alone a huge amount. I gave my reasons as to why I wouldn't sign, on the other thread. The potential legal implications affecting others, on a broader scale, could be wholly unjust.

Hi SP,
I wanted to ask a question about your post and will try to avoid being confrontational as i want to understand your reasoning - I agree wholeheartedly that hard cases make for bad law, and that the law is an ass sometimes BUT wouldn't this petition just trigger the debate rather than actually setting the law?
I think (FWIW), the idea behind it is a good, well intentioned one, and if there are issues around legalities and implications then wouldn't that be ironed out during the debate?
My final question would be - what's the alternative? leave as is?

as I said - not wanting to be confrontational, just asking a question or two...

 

[Optimissteeq]

Hi SP,
I wanted to ask a question about your post and will try to avoid being confrontational as i want to understand your reasoning - I agree wholeheartedly that hard cases make for bad law, and that the law is an ass sometimes BUT wouldn't this petition just trigger the debate rather than actually setting the law?
I think (FWIW), the idea behind it is a good, well intentioned one, and if there are issues around legalities and implications then wouldn't that be ironed out during the debate?
My final question would be - what's the alternative? leave as is?

as I said - not wanting to be confrontational, just asking a question or two...

oops - meant to say SF not SP...sorry!

 

[merrymeasure]

Great. Have you got a Christmas name already ?

Lol! No. Merry Measure was the racing name of my dear old racehorse, now no longer with us. But it would make a good Christmas name!

Ann-Jen, I am so sorry about your mare xx

 

[Spring Feather]

Hi SP,
I wanted to ask a question about your post and will try to avoid being confrontational as i want to understand your reasoning - I agree wholeheartedly that hard cases make for bad law, and that the law is an ass sometimes BUT wouldn't this petition just trigger the debate rather than actually setting the law?
I think (FWIW), the idea behind it is a good, well intentioned one, and if there are issues around legalities and implications then wouldn't that be ironed out during the debate?
My final question would be - what's the alternative? leave as is?

as I said - not wanting to be confrontational, just asking a question or two...

Sorry I'm in the middle of fencing a new field, just stopped briefly for lunch so my answer may not be as indepth as it could be. I honestly don't think any politicians are going to debate this. Many (judging by the lack of signatures on the petition) may feel that yes the law, the way it stands right now, is workable. I believe it is too.

 

[Holly Hocks]

CPT. I understand that the animal is currently treated as property and therefore the offence would be criminal damage, but would this not be a sort of case where sentencing could potentially take place outside the guidelines? (I only found out that sentences could be given outside of the guidelines when I was in court last week and the court clerk was giving the various options of sentencing to the Bench and said that if they wished to sentence outside of the guidelines then they must give their reasons for doing so.
PS I have signed......

 

[Clara Mo 3]

CPT. I understand that the animal is currently treated as property and therefore the offence would be criminal damage, but would this not be a sort of case where sentencing could potentially take place outside the guidelines? (I only found out that sentences could be given outside of the guidelines when I was in court last week and the court clerk was giving the various options of sentencing to the Bench and said that if they wished to sentence outside of the guidelines then they must give their reasons for doing so.
PS I have signed......

Everyone is assuming this will even get to court - which is may not do from what I understand.

 

[cptrayes]

CPT. I understand that the animal is currently treated as property and therefore the offence would be criminal damage, but would this not be a sort of case where sentencing could potentially take place outside the guidelines? (I only found out that sentences could be given outside of the guidelines when I was in court last week and the court clerk was giving the various options of sentencing to the Bench and said that if they wished to sentence outside of the guidelines then they must give their reasons for doing so.
PS I have signed......

I too don't think this particular case will get to court, I am not convinced any offence has been committed, or at least not one that can be proved.

But if we take a case where it could, it has to be absolutely exceptional to go outside the guidelines, and cases that are sentenced outside the guidelines are very likely to be appealed and the sentence reduced when a Crown Court Judge gets involved.

I think it would be very difficult to go outside the guidelines for theft, but if you had the right bench who all understood what animals mean to their owners, and if the animal was killed in front of the owner, and if there could also be a charge of causing harassment alarm or distress, then you might just about justify a high community penalty. But if the offender pleads guilty at the first opportunity then he has to be given a third off for doing that.

I think the chances of receiving a sentence which any of us would feel was appropriate is pretty low, but technically possible for criminal damage, but not theft.

 

[Darremi]

Actually it does carry a prison sentence, 10 years

Criminal Damage - Simple

Date Produced: 1 July 2011
Title: Criminal Damage
Offence: Criminal Damage - simple
Legislation: S1(1) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
Mode of Trial: Either Way. Treated as summary only if less than £5000
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Maximum when tried on indictment: 10 years. Maximum when tried summarily: Level 5 fine and/or 6 months. Triable only summarily less than £5,000:
Maximum penalty: Level 4 fine and/or 3 months

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Intentional / reckless.
Motivation - revenge or political
Hate Crime
Pre-planned.
Extent of damage.
Damage to a school or other public amenity.
Damage to emergency equipment.
Significant public or private fear caused.

Sorry to be pedantic but the maximum custodial sentence of 10 years only applies to criminal damage tried on indictment. Summary criminal damage (ie. Damage worth <£5k) is subject to a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months.

 

[10dan17]

ih my name is dan I am trying to get a hold of the lady how as had the hores shot by Harvey at the gg center this guy shot 3 of my best black & white cobs 3years ago and the police would not charge him I have been taking legal action on him
I phone hores & hound today they have my details I think I can help you and you can help me as two cases as got to be better than one & this guy must be stoped from looking after horses
please get in touch thank you danny

 

[Dry Rot]

Since this thread is still ongoing, perhaps I can ask the learned and wise how they would handle the following case?

Dog owner goes away for three months leaving a dog alone on a chain with someone coming in once a day to feed, water, and poo pick. Gradually, the word gets around about the dog until some well meaning member of the public removes the dog to give it some sort of life.

Outraged owner then returns, hears what has happened to the dog, reports the theft to the police and launches an appeal in the local media for the return of "her beloved pet".

Let us assume the thief is found. According to CPT's wishes the thief will now receive a heavy sentence because as we all know, having a much loved pet stolen puts the owner through a great deal of emotional stress.

This is obviously a hypothetical question because nobody would leave a dog in such a situation&#8230;.or would they?

I'll be very interested to hear the replies.

 

[cptrayes]

Dry Rot,


Someone would report the animal cruelty and the owner would be prosecuted. The RSPCA would rescue the dog.

If removed by a concerned person, they would face no charges unless they refused to return the dog. Theft has to have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the goods.

 

[cptrayes]

Sorry to be pedantic but the maximum custodial sentence of 10 years only applies to criminal damage tried on indictment. Summary criminal damage (ie. Damage worth <£5k) is subject to a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months.

And the maximum for someone who pleads guilty straight away is four months, of which they serve two at most, and even that can only be given for very substantial damage usually done as part of a spree, not a one off offence. I don't see any chance of a one off malicious killing of a horse getting a jail term.