Farrier suspended.

xxMozlarxx said:
There was no justification at all for what he did.
Click to expand...

I agree. However badly a person had acted towards me, I would never, ever, take it out on an animal and neither would any decent person. There can be no justification.

You seem to know more about this xxMozlarxx? Are you able to share that info?
 
Last edited:
Very sad indeed.

I am puzzled that the farrier has given no explanation, although he was probably advised against speaking by his representation.

A three month ban is too light.

I am wondering if he is suffering with a mental illness?
 
FionaM12 said:
I agree. However badly a person had acted towards me, I would never, ever, take it out on an animal and neither would any decent person. There can be no justification.
Click to expand...

Exactly! No DECENT person would! But a cowardly a*sehole WILL inflict damage on someone's animals as a 'safe' act of revenge. Let's face it, there won't be the police resources thrown into an attack on a horse that there will be when a person is attacked. And when the culprit is found, the courts treat him far more leniently than if it was a 'causing grevious bodily harm' on a human charge! Unfortunately, quite a few horse 'attacks' including at least one arson case I know of (where a number of horses died) WERE personal revenge cases!

The FRC has gone RIGHT down in my estimation for the ridiculously light penalty handed out! And while I do not make a practice of writing to organisations to tell them how they've screwed up, I WILL make an exception in this case!
 
I would have thought that as well as being "punished" by his professional society, he should be charged with causing unnecessary cruelty to animals?

His was not just a case of a bad farrier job, it appears that he sneaked into a field and roughly hacked through the poor horses' feet, causing pain, suffering and permanant damage to the horses. How is it different from other attacks on horses where the police press charges?
 
shoes being removed in such a way that considerable amounts of the hoof wall were also removed, in Arron’s case halfway up the wall, revealing the lamini and causing bleeding.
Click to expand...


A THREE MONTH ban?

What planet do the Farriers Registration Council live on?



Email address to complain to, please pass it on and let's let them know what we think:

frc@farrier-reg.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it had been a vet, would the BVA just slap on a suspension for a few months?

When you employ a registered farrier, part of what you pay goes towards a regulatory body that feels causing wilful harm to the very species for which the farrier has a duty of care is only worth a 3 month suspension. I'm not sure that's a regulatory body I'd feel strongly about supporting :rolleyes:
 
FionaM12 said:
I would have thought that as well as being "punished" by his professional society, he should be charged with causing unnecessary cruelty to animals?

His was not just a case of a bad farrier job, it appears that he sneaked into a field and roughly hacked through the poor horses' feet, causing pain, suffering and permanant damage to the horses. How is it different from other attacks on horses where the police press charges?
Click to expand...

They did... Prior to the misconduct hearing...

That, being registered under the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 (as amended):

1. (a) On 21 July 2011, at the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, you were convicted of criminal damage on 23 February 2011 to the front left hoof of a horse named Arron belonging to Cassandra Price, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, contrary to sections 1 (1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for which offence you were discharged conditionally for 12 months and ordered to pay compensation in the sum of £220.80 and costs in the sum of £85.00.
Click to expand...

Paltry sentencing in the magistrates court too... The professional misconduct hearing was in addition and used the court hearing as evidence so to speak... I would imagine the compensation fell very short of any vet/farrier interventions to deal with the consequences of his damage to the hooves...

Source: The Farriers Registration Council Press Release

Got off very lightly at both hearings IMO... :mad:

:)
 
"1. (a) On 21 July 2011, at the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, you were convicted of criminal damage on 23 February 2011 to the front left hoof of a horse named Arron belonging to Cassandra Price, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, contrary to sections 1 (1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for which offence you were discharged conditionally for 12 months and ordered to pay compensation in the sum of £220.80 and costs in the sum of £85.00. "

Damage of property? What about the pain and suffering caused to an animal? Yes, the horses were somone's property, but they were also living things. :mad:
 
This is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard! :(

Firstly, that someone would do this in the first place (did she owe him money for the shoes or something, and he wanted them back!!?). Secondly, that it was someone in the industry; someone who presumably loves horses (at least enough to work with them every day) who doubtless knew that he would cause a lot of pain and suffering and thirdly, that he only got such a minimal 'punishment'. I just hope that his name and the story goes around so that he never works again!

I must say that I agree with a previous poster that maybe he's suffering from some sort of mental illness/breakdown - only explanation I can come up with. :confused::confused:
 
FionaM12 said:
Damage of property? What about the pain and suffering caused to an animal? Yes, the horses were somone's property, but they were also living things. :mad:
Click to expand...

I would guess the police felt they had to choose between charging under the Criminal Damage Act or the Animal Welfare Act and perhaps felt that as 'property' there may be a greater chance of conviction and sentencing... Temporary impairment would constitute damage and the financial implications to 'set right' would make it criminal damage... Horses are property so it would be a fairly straightforward (easier) charge and perhaps considered more indefensible...

I'm just guessing though... I've not seen anything that might otherwise indicate why this charge or what the plea was or any other contributing factor...

:)
 
If I am reading the article right....there had been complaints about said farrier, YO dispensed with his services due to complaints, Farrier sneaks in and as an act of revenge, caused that damage to the horses feet.
Ban is not long enough IMO.
Fruit loop of a man.
 
Ceris Comet said:
That's rubbish ! How do people get convicted of cruelty to horses then if they are classed as meer property ?
Click to expand...

The law can be applied in different ways. From the story - he maliciously entered her land in order to hurt the horse, in this circumstance a charge of criminal damage may have been easier to enforce than something under the animal welfare laws (which can be a bit wishy washy).

They have to prepare a charge looking towards the outcome.
 
Oberon said:
They have to prepare a charge looking towards the outcome.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused.

"1. (a) On 21 July 2011, at the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, you were convicted of criminal damage on 23 February 2011 to the front left hoof of a horse named Arron belonging to Cassandra Price, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, contrary to sections 1 (1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for which offence you were discharged conditionally for 12 months and ordered to pay compensation in the sum of £220.80 and costs in the sum of £85.00. "

Isn't that the outcome? :confused:
 
Ok.

If you get drunk and flash your bum in the street and end up getting arrested, they have the choice of charging you with

Breach of the Peace
Drunk and Disorderly
Indecent Exposure

and probably others I don't know about.

Depending on the circumstances - the police will have to decide which is the best one to charge you with before they charge you.

It's highly doubtful they would get a decent result from Indecent Exposure based on just flashing your bum when drunk....so they would have to go for what they can get.

I'm not defending the decision as I'm sure you could guess how I feel about someone hacking into a horse's hoof just for fun, I'm just trying to explain it :(
 
FionaM12 said:
Now I'm confused.

"1. (a) On 21 July 2011, at the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, you were convicted of criminal damage on 23 February 2011 to the front left hoof of a horse named Arron belonging to Cassandra Price, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, contrary to sections 1 (1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for which offence you were discharged conditionally for 12 months and ordered to pay compensation in the sum of £220.80 and costs in the sum of £85.00. "

Isn't that the outcome? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the outcome. They had to prepare that charge while he was still in custody/on bail.
 
????? ok, so was he prosecuted under AWA causing un-necessary suffering? If so and found guilty, he will now have a criminal record??? and just to receive a 3 month suspension is very leanient, can only think that there must be mitigating circumstances?

Sorry hadn't read all the replies, for some reason they opted to prosecute under criminal damage and not AWA? seems odd.....
 
Last edited:
Ceris Comet said:
For gods sake !!! Isn't mutalating a horse a crime ???
Click to expand...

Yes - criminal damage for which he was convicted.

The choice for who prosecutes, the RSPCA or the police is a decision that is made between both parties. They will charge with whatever they think is the most appropriate charge and which they think will be easier to prove, and that which carries the most punishment.
 
I thought farriers became farriers because they liked horses? :confused: unfortunately I have come across this sort of thing before and find it absolutely horrendous!! As owners we should be able to trust our farriers, vets and dentists to look after our horses not deliberately injure them and cause pain! I no longer trust any "professionals" unsupervised around my horse.
Its a good job she got rid of him when she did if he thinks this is acceptable behavior and he should be permanently struck off the farrier register!! :mad::mad::mad:
 
I would beg all owners to monitor the FRC site to keep up with any prosecutions
This disciplinary arm of my governing body is in my opinion totally gutless and should be ashamed of some of the rulings that have been made.
If my memory serves me right, no Registered farrier has ever been totally struck off, (apart from non payment of Reg. fees!) and there have been some cases where the farrier may well have been found guilty in court of doing damage to an animal.
If it was a vet, they would be struck off and never be able to work again.
We both come under the animal welfare act, so why are we not sending out a message to all farriers that it is not acceptable to behave in this way.
As for this particular farrier loosing clients, don’t be fooled there are always owners out there that will have a job done by anyone if the price is right.
A farrier pulled ½ a horses tong out with a twitch, found guilty in court, 4 months later was as busy as usual.
I have questioned the FRC many time on these cases and never have found their answers satisfactory
Until we change the training system of our apprentices this will keep cropping up
I can only say how sorry I am to be a member of a profession that I feel has let you down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top