Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner

[Goldenstar]

That'll be interesting. If it goes to a Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence possible, for a spree of severe damage is six months, of which he would serve three. I think he's unlikely to get anything like that for a first conviction, probably a community penalty. So don't get your hopes up for a penalty that you think he deserves, guys, even if he is found guilty, which may be a challenge.

Well ,you thought he was not going to be charged with criminal damage .

I think it will all hang on whether his brief can make a case he had a lawful excuse
to PTS the horse .
If he was not followed the correct procedures over the debt that brought him to point where he PTS the horse I think he will struggle to do that .
And the magistrates will not take his excuse the horse was dangerous at face value , I have a lot of respect for the common sense of magistrates based on my involvement in equine welfare cases .

 

[cptrayes]

Well ,you thought he was not going to be charged with criminal damage .

I think it will all hang on whether his brief can make a case he had a lawful excuse
to PTS the horse .
If he was not followed the correct procedures over the debt that brought him to point where he PTS the horse I think he will struggle to do that .
And the magistrates will not take his excuse the horse was dangerous at face value , I have a lot of respect for the common sense of magistrates based on my involvement in equine welfare cases .

Yes, I did think it was likely it might not come to court Goldenstar, but I don't expect always to be right about everything I say might or might not happen, only things that I say certainly will.

If he pleads not guilty, his defence is going to be very interesting and very complicated for the bench to unravel. I wonder if it will go before a District Judge who is legally qualified instead of a bench of volunteer lay Magistrates. We'll see.

 

[cptrayes]

This has either passed the CPS likelihood of conviction score, or deemed to be so much in the public interest that it has been charged. It's going to be very interesting to hear his defence.

I agree with you that they won't take his claim the horse was dangerous at face value, but the case has to be proven being reasonable doubt, and unless they can produce evidence that the horse was NOT behaving dangerously that night, they will struggle to jump that hurdle.

 

[fburton]

That'll be interesting. If it goes to a Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence possible, for a spree of severe damage is six months, of which he would serve three. I think he's unlikely to get anything like that for a first conviction, probably a community penalty. So don't get your hopes up for a penalty that you think he deserves, guys, even if he is found guilty, which may be a challenge.

Presumably a civil case would then be brought against him, no?

 

[Merrymoles]

Presumably a civil case would then be brought against him, no?

Depends if any aggrieved party can afford it - very expensive if things don't go your way

 

[fburton]

Depends if any aggrieved party can afford it - very expensive if things don't go your way

If they couldn't afford to pay the livery on time, I guess not... :blue:

 

[Alec Swan]

The problem that I have with any system which would allow any Criminal Court to consider the owners 'perceived' value of any damaged goods, rather than a realistic value is that the Courts would be clogged up with the claims and appeals and there would be no resolve. Consider this;

Someone shoots my dog without a reason which a Court would consider to be acceptable. Setting on one side my anger at the person concerned, am I to appear before a Court, and put in an oscar winning performance to enhance my claim, and is that how the enormity of the crime, or the value of the damaged (or dead) property is to be assessed? There is no Justice System in this country, regardless of any appeal to Downing Street which will countenance such a daft approach.

Justice, and so Value (and they are totally separate issues), cannot be assessed upon the effect upon the secondary victim. When the killers of Steven Laurence were being tried, the damage to the family wasn't and shouldn't have been influenced the effect upon the killers being found guilty, or not, but by the crime which had been committed, in this case, an innocent young man was deprived of his life. The effect upon his family, however horrific it must have been, was a totally separate consideration. So is the case with this shot horse. The person responsible must be judged upon his regard, or lack of it, for the Laws of this Land. The emotional effect upon the owners is a matter for the Civil Courts.

Alec.

 

[Optimissteeq]

The problem that I have with any system which would allow any Criminal Court to consider the owners 'perceived' value of any damaged goods, rather than a realistic value is that the Courts would be clogged up with the claims and appeals and there would be no resolve. Consider this;

Someone shoots my dog without a reason which a Court would consider to be acceptable. Setting on one side my anger at the person concerned, am I to appear before a Court, and put in an oscar winning performance to enhance my claim, and is that how the enormity of the crime, or the value of the damaged (or dead) property is to be assessed? There is no Justice System in this country, regardless of any appeal to Downing Street which will countenance such a daft approach.

Justice, and so Value (and they are totally separate issues), cannot be assessed upon the effect upon the secondary victim. When the killers of Steven Laurence were being tried, the damage to the family wasn't and shouldn't have been influenced the effect upon the killers being found guilty, or not, but by the crime which had been committed, in this case, an innocent young man was deprived of his life. The effect upon his family, however horrific it must have been, was a totally separate consideration. So is the case with this shot horse. The person responsible must be judged upon his regard, or lack of it, for the Laws of this Land. The emotional effect upon the owners is a matter for the Civil Courts.

Alec.

Ok so when you put it like you have in the above quote I agree, the thing I am struggling with is the animals and emotional attachment vs inanimate objects. Allow me to explain :- In the case of Steven Lawrence, a human life is absolutely valued above animals and is the right thing to do, so placing value on the human life is already done per say.
If I understand the argument(s) correctly, then we are saying that if a person is to shoot an animal, then potentially they would get no greater punishment than if they were to damage property, which doesn't seem to sit quite right with me, doesn't animal life have a greater value than inanimate objects? Having listened to the arguments for both sides I see it is a thorny issue and can offer no solution but if someone shot my dog, I'd be significantly more distressed than if they shot at my car for example. Is the answer then to take civil action against the perpetrator and if so, how likely is a favourable outcome (rhetoric question as I don't know how long the piece of string is either!)

 

[Fenris]

Ok so when you put it like you have in the above quote I agree, the thing I am struggling with is the animals and emotional attachment vs inanimate objects. Allow me to explain :- In the case of Steven Lawrence, a human life is absolutely valued above animals and is the right thing to do, so placing value on the human life is already done per say.
If I understand the argument(s) correctly, then we are saying that if a person is to shoot an animal, then potentially they would get no greater punishment than if they were to damage property, which doesn't seem to sit quite right with me, doesn't animal life have a greater value than inanimate objects? Having listened to the arguments for both sides I see it is a thorny issue and can offer no solution but if someone shot my dog, I'd be significantly more distressed than if they shot at my car for example. Is the answer then to take civil action against the perpetrator and if so, how likely is a favourable outcome (rhetoric question as I don't know how long the piece of string is either!)

There is an argument that because the law here gives items of great sentimental value an 'upgraded' position in law and nothing could be of more sentimental value than the family pet then animals already have an 'upgraded' position in law.

"The starting point had always to be that burglary of a home was a
serious criminal offence. Such a burglary was not only an offence
against property but also, and often more alarmingly and
distressingly, an offence against the person.

Where goods of significant sentimental, even if of only slight
economic, value were taken or damaged, the impact on the victim was
likely to be high, not least because those objects were irreplaceable.

Therefore, in the sentencing decision, particular focus was required
on the impact of the offence on those living in the burgled house.

Whether or not the burglar had any specific intention to cause harm,
he ran the risk that the victim/s might suffer serious adverse
consequences. Where that happened, sentences should be reflective even of unintended consequences."

Taken from

January 26, 2009

Sentences to reflect effect on home burglary victim

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published January 26, 2009
Regina v Saw
Regina v Tete-Djawu
Regina v Smith (Martin)
Regina v Kassa
Regina v Younis
Regina v McPhee
Before Lord Judge, Lord Chief Judge, Lord Justice Latham, Vice-
President, and Lord Justice Hughes
Judgment January 16, 2009


Now that is the situation as it applies to burglary, but there is no reason why it should not also be applied to criminal damage, negligence or any other prosecution or claim relating to animals. It would, however, have a devastating effect on animal keeping in this country if animals were to be given higher value because of the owner's sentimental attachment to them. It would mean that every business that dealt with animals would need much higher insurance cover and would have to follow far more stringent safety procedures. All of those costs would be passed onto the customer. Think vet fees are high now? This would drive them through the roof.

 

[Optimissteeq]

Fenris,
a good post and you raise something I'd not considered before. As I said earlier, it doesn't sit well with me re not giving animals a higher sentimental value, but in light of the points raised I don't have enough of a counter argument other than feelings. I will therefore gracefully concede

 

[Holly Hocks]

People have stated that this case is going to "trial". If the offender pleads guilty at the first hearing, there will be no trial. Just a summary of facts read out by the prosecution and then the defence solicitor will give the mitigation. Magistrates will retire for 10 minutes to decide on sentence and that will be the end of it. Unless he pleads "not guilty" there will be no trial. Very very few go "not guilty" and even if they do at the first hearing, many of them then plead "guilty" before the trial.

 

[Alec Swan]

Ok so when you put it like you have in the above quote I agree, the thing I am struggling with is the animals and emotional attachment vs inanimate objects. Allow me to explain :- In the case of Steven Lawrence, a human life is absolutely valued above animals and is the right thing to do, so placing value on the human life is already done per say.
If I understand the argument(s) correctly, then we are saying that if a person is to shoot an animal, then potentially they would get no greater punishment than if they were to damage property, which doesn't seem to sit quite right with me, doesn't animal life have a greater value than inanimate objects? Having listened to the arguments for both sides I see it is a thorny issue and can offer no solution but if someone shot my dog, I'd be significantly more distressed than if they shot at my car for example. Is the answer then to take civil action against the perpetrator and if so, how likely is a favourable outcome (rhetoric question as I don't know how long the piece of string is either!)

Animals are 'Possessions', they come under the heading of asset and goods and chattels. I was going to say, 'Rightly or wrongly', but I believe Rightly so. Humans are never owned. Your Car and your Dog, in the eyes of our system of Justice, are one and the same. A Court has to decide upon the loss to an owner of a possession, and whether that judgement would include the owners perceived sense of loss, or not, would be dangerous ground, I suspect.

There has to be a line drawn where we consider the rights of the human and the rights of their possessions, and how we adjudge one or the other.

Fenris, a thought provoking post, well researched and argued too!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

People have stated that this case is going to "trial". If the offender pleads guilty at the first hearing, there will be no trial. Just a summary of facts read out by the prosecution and then the defence solicitor will give the mitigation. Magistrates will retire for 10 minutes to decide on sentence and that will be the end of it. Unless he pleads "not guilty" there will be no trial. Very very few go "not guilty" and even if they do at the first hearing, many of them then plead "guilty" before the trial.

Excuse me? Defendants OFTEN go not guilty, and as a Magistrate I was in the retiring room on many an occasion for up to an hour deciding what the correct verdict or sentence should be. (It is not normal to do both on the same day, more usual to await probation/youth offending reports for three or two weeks )..

 

[Honey08]

IS it going to trial? I've missed any updates on what's happening.

 

[cptrayes]

IS it going to trial? I've missed any updates on what's happening.

He has been charged. We won't know if it is going to trial until we know if his first plea is guilty or not guilty. That depends on how soon he is given a date in court, and that depends on how busy his local court is.

 

[Princess Rosie]

If it goes to trial is it usual for the public to be allowed to attend?

 

[cptrayes]

Yes. Numbers are limited by space. Only youth trials are held without the public being able to watch.

 

[Dry Rot]

I don't know enough about the law to argue the point but it seems to me the criminal law applies generally and the civil law applies in particular.

What do I mean by that? Well, it is theft to steal £100 from someone but it is the same crime whether the person the money is stolen from is on benefits or a multimillionaire. It would confuse the issue to make it any different.

On the other hand, if my neighbour doesn't clean a ditch as he is obliged to do, I can sue for the damage the flooding has caused me because he has a duty of care under Common Law. That is not a fixed penalty and will vary in proportion to the damage done and the costs involved.

Where there is a criminal offence, as I understand it, there is nothing to prevent the injured party from also raising a civil action to recover damages for injuries that are personal to them.

Surely, this is where the confusion in this case arises? Once you start to vary the penalty for the crime according the damage inflicted on the victim, that appears to confuse the two branches of the law.

Is it possible to get a logical and informed response to that question or will it be followed by the usual emotionally fuelled insults and personal attacks? Are there no lawyers on this forum?

 

[cptrayes]

In criminal cases, compensation is also awarded. It varies according to the means of the offender. But if the compensation is not high enough, because the offender can't pay it, then there will be no point in taking a civil case, because the offender can't pay what he hasn't got, and you'd end up having to pay your own costs even if you win.

 

[Holly Hocks]

Excuse me? Defendants OFTEN go not guilty, and as a Magistrate I was in the retiring room on many an occasion for up to an hour deciding what the correct verdict or sentence should be. (It is not normal to do both on the same day, more usual to await probation/youth offending reports for three or two weeks )..

I've had one "not guilty" in the last three years. I am at court at least once a fortnight - more recently once a week. Yes our magistrates will sentence on the same date although we don't have youths in my line of work. Our normal scenario is plea, summary of facts, mitigation by defence, magistrates request probation reports, probation report is done by PS who are at court already, magistrates sentence.
Even at Crown Court with early guilty pleas the sentences have been on the same days as PRs have already been done. At Crown Court the judge doesn't even always retire with an early guilty plea!

 

[cptrayes]

I've had one "not guilty" in the last three years. I am at court at least once a fortnight - more recently once a week. Yes our magistrates will sentence on the same date although we don't have youths in my line of work. Our normal scenario is plea, summary of facts, mitigation by defence, magistrates request probation reports, probation report is done by PS who are at court already, magistrates sentence.
Even at Crown Court with early guilty pleas the sentences have been on the same days as PRs have already been done. At Crown Court the judge doesn't even always retire with an early guilty plea!

And I've done four trials in my last three sittings, which is unusual but trials are not uncommon, and it was similar when I was in Cheshire. What court are you with? Are you limited to the day of the week you can sit, and missing the days on which trials are held? I would estimate that sitting thirty days a year, I would do around ten trials, not including cracked and ineffective ones or guilty at the door of the court. In Stockport and Macclesfield, there are plenty of effective trials.

Of course if a decision is easy you don't retire for long, but your post gave the impression that it would be normal only to retire for ten minutes on a difficult decision and in my experience that is simply not true.

Judges don't need to retire, do they, they don't have to confer with anyone but themselves! Going out to the retiring room is to argue things out without being overheard.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/rye...moved_from_equestrian_centre_by_RSPCA/?ref=mr

Here is the link to the updated York Evening Press article

 

[Princess Rosie]

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/man-charged-shooting-dumping-horse/

Please see update. x

 

[powderly]

And I've done four trials in my last three sittings, which is unusual but trials are not uncommon, and it was similar when I was in Cheshire. What court are you with? Are you limited to the day of the week you can sit, and missing the days on which trials are held? I would estimate that sitting thirty days a year, I would do around ten trials, not including cracked and ineffective ones or guilty at the door of the court. In Stockport and Macclesfield, there are plenty of effective trials.

Of course if a decision is easy you don't retire for long, but your post gave the impression that it would be normal only to retire for ten minutes on a difficult decision and in my experience that is simply not true.

Judges don't need to retire, do they, they don't have to confer with anyone but themselves! Going out to the retiring room is to argue things out without being overheard.

Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.

 

[_GG_]

Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.

Yes it is now sub judice, but they are not involved in the case. Their posts have been discussing the processes, not actually discussing the goings on internally of this case, they can't, because they are not involved!

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong though!

 

[Dry Rot]

Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.

Pretty much what I said about 50 pages ago, but my comments were not directed at individuals just the wild emotionally charged speculation that seems to have no regard for the facts. Trial by media and mass hysteria.

 

[powderly]

Yes it is now sub judice, but they are not involved in the case. Their posts have been discussing the processes, not actually discussing the goings on internally of this case, they can't, because they are not involved!

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong though!

They are both claiming to be officers of the court and are discussing this case, with regard to court processes, after a defendant has been charged.

 

[cptrayes]

Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.

Oh get off your high horse There is no reason whatsoever why I should not have made any comment on this thread that I have. Why do you think I shouldn't?

 

[cptrayes]

They are both claiming to be officers of the court and are discussing this case, with regard to court processes, after a defendant has been charged.

No I'm not

 

[cptrayes]

Pretty much what I said about 50 pages ago, but my comments were not directed at individuals just the wild emotionally charged speculation that seems to have no regard for the facts. Trial by media and mass hysteria.

If you had said anything like that about me I would have answered you DR. you did not.

By the way, I've got people pm ing me asking me what your issue is with me on this thread, would you like to answer them?