Heythrop plead Guilty

[Moomin1]

I don't think that's entirely why the law was passed. I don't really, to be honest want to get into another hunting debate though.
Why is it whenever there is a hunting prosecution, all the antis come out of the woodwork telling everyone how awful it is to break the law?
I don't know why you bother arguing, it won't get you far. It must be really stressful. Get a new hobby!

PMSL! No it's not stressful, it's quite funny seeing how all the pro fox hunters get their knickers in a twist trying to justify their 'sport'.

 

[cptrayes]

I'm sorry C_P_T, but I think that the poster who we've both just quoted, has a point. A good point too.

Now we can't live in a society where just because we believe a law, to be wrong, that we simply ignore it. That wont do and of course I accept that.

However, there are laws which fall clearly into two categories. There are those which are created to protect man from his own kind, motoring laws for instance, and then there are those where we have one side of Society which decides that from a moral or ethical stand point, another section os society should abide by the way that THEY see fit. As an example, the major chain stores in the UK "Tested" the Sunday trading laws. There was not an evident prosecution of any of them. Why? Because the law was considered ridiculous, and was struck from the Statute Book. The ban on hunting is an equally preposterous law, and should keep the Sunday Trading Law company.

I and a lot of other people do not think that the ban is preposterous.

This is democracy Alec, the answer is to campaign to have the law changed, not to ignore it.

You wont agree with me, I accept, but on those occasions when you speed in your car, and you don't report yourself to the Authorities, then you are as complicit in Law breaking as the person who hunts, except of course, you've got away with it.

Not so, speeding is not a criminal offence. I would never knowingly commit a criminal offence.

ps. I hope that you're Whooping Cough is easing. a.

Well if you count progress being that today is the first day in several weeks that I have not coughed so hard that I have seen my breakfast tea twice, then I'm making progress, thankyou!

 

[Moomin1]

I and a lot of other people do not think that the ban is preposterous.

Exactly!


Well if you count progress being that today is the first day in several weeks that I have not coughed so hard that I have seen my breakfast tea twice, then I'm making progress, thankyou!

Eww!!

 

[marmalade76]

Given the amount of coverage it has recieved, I am quite sure the majority of them will have an inkling don't you?

Plus, I would like to bet the a good percentage of donators would be in support of the hunting ban and it's enforcement.

But don't you think's hilarious, Moonmin? 300 hours to find one little bit of something that could be deemed criminal? Lol!

 

[happyhunter123]

PMSL! No it's not stressful, it's quite funny seeing how all the pro fox hunters get their knickers in a twist trying to justify their 'sport'.

But why do you bother? I mean, I would never go onto an anti site and challenge their ridiculous views. Wouldn't you rather be discussing something you liked?
This thread isn't even about 'justifying hunting' (which is easy to do but boring)!

 

[Star_Chaser]

Well the RSPCA have already started their extensive promotional propaganda machine.... I got this by email this afternoon

Dear Supporter, (PLS NOTE I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE RSPCA! I receive updates as part of my work with rescue)

In a landmark case under the Hunting Act 2004, the Heythrop Hunt yesterday pleaded guilty to four charges of intentionally hunting a fox with dogs on several occasions.

This case, based on footage of foxes being deliberately chased by dogs, is thought to be the first where a hunt has faced corporate charges. It is also the first case we’ve taken involving the prosecution of a mounted hunt itself.

These defendants were well aware that they were breaking the law in that their actions would lead to a fox being torn apart by dogs.

No doubt the hunt will say that those involved have now left and they had no knowledge of this crime. But the evidence of the deliberate hunting of foxes with dogs on many occasions is crystal clear. The truth is this hunt believed that they were above the law - they were wrong.

This law protects our beautiful wild animals. We will ensure that it is enforced as Parliament intended.

Read more about this landmark case and the Hunting Act 2004.

Thank you for continuing support,

Gavin Grant
RSPCA chief executive

Personally I think the whole thing is not only a waste of time and money its tit for tat to raise more funds. Poor little foxy woxy they wouldn't be saying that if they'd just lost loads of their chickens to the ruddy thing AGAIN! Neither do I agree with spending donations meant for rescued animals on this sort of prosecution when they are actively helping and supporting the RSPB to poison cats in numerous numbers to protect a couple of bird species... why they aren't HUMANELY catching these cats up and rehoming them I have no idea, if I poisoned one I would soon be in the courts. (You can see an article here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...sh-island-after-RSPB-kill-off-feral-cats.html given its an island its not rocket science to catch the cats and relocate them! It annoys me that an area where a pet cat could be poisoned its not used so there will be no repercussions or negative press but its ok to use poison leaving the animals to suffer away from the public gaze)

I keep seeing begging adverts for funds but seeing the cost that this single case has cost well to put it bluntly I think donors should be allowed to specify what they want their money to be used for. Simple as that.

If the hunt were in the wrong well it is a little shame on them as they do have to work within the law but film just like photograph can be incredibly misleading when taken out of context to suit a persons view.

 

[Moomin1]

But why do you bother? I mean, I would never go onto an anti site and challenge their ridiculous views. Wouldn't you rather be discussing something you liked?
This thread isn't even about 'justifying hunting'!

I am not challenging your views. You are a supporter of a blood sport, which is banned. End of. Tough for you, not for me.

I more wonder why pro fox hunters bother discussing it, the law is there like it or not. If you break it, face the consequences.

 

[happyhunter123]

End of. Tough for you, not for me.

Seeing as you are happy enough about the current status of hunting, stop worrying about it and discuss something you like. I often think that about the antis. Hunting is banned-move on to something else, find some other people you don't like and argue with them.
We discuss hunting because we go hunting.

Enough with this pointless discussion. I don't care what you think! The future of hunting will be bright, whatever happens

 

[cptrayes]

Seeing as you are happy enough about the current status of hunting, stop worrying about it and discuss something you like. I often think that about the antis. Hunting is banned-move on to something else, find some other people you don't like and argue with them.
We discuss hunting because we go hunting.

Enough with this pointless discussion. I don't care what you think!

It may be banned but it is actively being pursued in many parts of the country.

 

[cptrayes]

300 hours to find one little bit of something that could be deemed criminal? Lol!

They were given 300 hours of video and they laid 4 specimin charges. That does not mean that there were not many other prosecutable offences on that video, but court time costs money. They probably just chose the four most easy to get a clear conviction on, which shows in the quilty plea.

Does anyone know if they pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity or did they only plead guilty once they had viewed the video?

 

[Moomin1]

Seeing as you are happy enough about the current status of hunting, stop worrying about it and discuss something you like. I often think that about the antis. Hunting is banned-move on to something else, find some other people you don't like and argue with them.
We discuss hunting because we go hunting.

Enough with this pointless discussion. I don't care what you think! The future of hunting will be bright, whatever happens

So on that basis, if you are on here discussing hunting foxes with hounds, illegally, does that mean you must do it still?

I am discussing the illegal hunting of foxes, which has and does take place still, and I am discussing it because I feel strongly that it needs dealing with, and I dislike the tearing apart of foxes inhumanely.

So, actually, I am just as entitled as you to be commenting on this thread.

And the fact that you are suggesting that I don't like people that hunt is just ignorant. I don't know you, or anybody that actively hunts, therefore I don't know if I like them or not. I am making no comment on them as people, I am merely discussing the law being broken.

 

[cptrayes]

If the hunt were in the wrong well it is a little shame on them as they do have to work within the law but film just like photograph can be incredibly misleading when taken out of context to suit a persons view.

Oh come on! You're clutching at straws now.

The criminal law in this country is "beyond reasonable doubt". If there was any realistic doubt then the District Judge or Magistrates would have found them not quilty at a trial.

They PLEADED guilty. Do you think that they would have done that if there was any other slant that could have been put on the video of four separate incidents?

 

[happyhunter123]

I am discussing the illegal hunting of foxes, which has and does take place still, and I am discussing it because I feel strongly that it needs dealing with, and I dislike the tearing apart of foxes inhumanely.

Oh dear the 'inhumanely torn apart' nonsense again. Foxes are killed within seconds by hounds, honestly. Hounds are much quicker than a lot of things (say cats, which can take minutes to kill a mouse or bird). I never get why people are so worried about the death of the fox-it's not nice to look at but it's fast. If I was an anti, that's not the bit I'd be worried about.

Does that mean you must do it still?

Who's you? I don't personally, nor does the pack I hunt with. I can't comment on everyone else, mainly because I don't know.

And the fact that you are suggesting that I don't like people that hunt is just ignorant. I don't know you, or anybody that actively hunts, therefore I don't know if I like them or not.

That's rare to hear from an anti, and good to hear as well. Most of them absolutely hate us.

So, actually, I am just as entitled as you to be commenting on this thread.

Of course you are! I was just wondering if you were wasting your time.

And yes, in this case the Heythrop were most definitely guilty. It is the first case where we can say for sure that they meant to hunt those foxes. Whether they were hunting legally at other times we don't know.
Pleading guilty was, for them the safest thing to do.

 

[springtime13]

I thought the footage was so bad, I certainly wouldn't class it as evidence.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Shay that is interesting that it wasn't a criminal case and was a civil suit!

But it's actually wrong! The RSPCA regularly takes the role of 'prosecutor' in animal welfare cases where the CPS believes there is not sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution - or where the RSPCA is prepared to do their job for them in out-and-out animal cruelty cases that the RSPCA has dealt with from the start.

The Heythrop, it's former huntsman and former Master were prosecuted for breaches of the Hunting Act 2004, and the likelihood of a conviction AND the penalties for a conviction are exactly the same as if the CPS had brought the case! The CPS DIDN'T bring the case because it was unconvinced it could win!

Julian Barnfield, the outstanding professional huntsman of the Heythrop (described by the Mirror as 'a toff'!!) made it clear that he only entered a guilty plea because he could not afford to fight the case! (He left the Heythrop and is not currently employed as far as I know, and his wife is ill - largely as a result of all the stress and worry they've had over this!)

 

[fburton]

There was a piece about this in this morning's Today programme on Radio 4.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9779000/9779536.stm

I have to say I thought Gavin Grant, RSPCA chief executive, came over a wee bit arrogant in the interview.

 

[happyhunter123]

A good post Mrs George-we can always rely upon you to say something sensible. I must say that I have great sympathy for Mr Barnfield. These cases must be very hard to face. At least it didn't last six weeks.
Surely the Heythrop have enough money to have fought this case?

I have to say I thought Gavin Grant, RSPCA chief executive, came over a wee bit arrogant in the interview.

I must say that he doesn't across to me as a very pleasant man. But there you go.

 

[Moomin1]

(He left the Heythrop and is not currently employed as far as I know, and his wife is ill - largely as a result of all the stress and worry they've had over this!)

Oh well shame he didn't consider the consequences of breaking the law when he was doing so.

His poor wife.

 

[happyhunter123]

Oh well shame he didn't consider the consequences of breaking the law when he was doing so.

His poor wife.

But he-you must remember-isn't the man in charge. He is an employee of the hunt, and therefore he will carry out the actions that they ask him to do.

 

[fburton]

But he-you must remember-isn't the man in charge. He is an employee of the hunt, and therefore he will carry out the actions that they ask him to do.

So who should have been responsible?

 

[VoR]

I will say this, next time the RSPCA ask us to take in a starved, near to death pony and nurse it back to health when they can't find anywhere for it to go, then not even bother to pay us for the time, sleepless nights, hay, feed and hours of care we provided and in fact not even bother to write a note of thanks or even say 'thank you', they can seriously 'do one'!
Perhaps if they spent the generous donations people make on better facilities and staff they would have been able to home the poor animal!!??
Of course animals need protection from cruelty, but domestic animals are far more 'at risk' than 'Mr Fox' and there are far more cruel people out there than hunts and hunt staff that need prosecuting, or maybe there is, as suggested, some other agenda here.....................

 

[JanetGeorge]

A good post Mrs George-we can always rely upon you to say something sensible. I must say that I have great sympathy for Mr Barnfield. These cases must be very hard to face. At least it didn't last six weeks.
Surely the Heythrop have enough money to have fought this case?

Sadly, I was wrong on one point. The CPS was NOT given the opportunity to bring this prosecution! All the POWA monitors had to do was to take their video to the police and say: 'Investigate - or else!" Then the CPS would have had to review the 'evidence' and decide if the law had been broken. But that DIDN'T happen - POWA went straight to the RSPCA, the RSPCA saw an opportunity for LOTS of headlines (let's face it, from some of the headlines you'd think David Cameron was MFH at the Heythrop!)

I've just listened to the Jeremy Vine show from earlier - replay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...queeze_play_live_and_foxhunting_prosecutions/ - starts about 9 minutes in. Julian Barnfield, Gavin Grant and Jim Barrington (former CE of the League Against Cruel Sports) were all interviewed. Julian made it clear he couldn't afford to fight the case (it was estimated a full trial would have run for 25 days or more, and legal costs for Julian alone would have been upwards of £50,000!!!)

Gavin Grant justified the expenditure by saying they spend over £1 million a year on Freedom Foods (which aims to 'protect' hundreds of thousands of farm livestock!!) - and only a third of a million on THIS case (over one dead fox!) Barrington made a strong case!

 

[VoR]

However, the CPS (used to at least) require an 80% chance of a guilty verdict based on the evidence put before them and they probably wouldn't have had that level of certainty in this case so they would not have pursued the case and so, back to the RSPCA.........

 

[ester]

Oh come on! You're clutching at straws now.

The criminal law in this country is "beyond reasonable doubt". If there was any realistic doubt then the District Judge or Magistrates would have found them not quilty at a trial.

They PLEADED guilty. Do you think that they would have done that if there was any other slant that could have been put on the video of four separate incidents?

If they pleaded guilty surely the judge/magistrate would not go against this and say actually you're not?

and are we dealing with criminal law if it was a civil case? I don't know the answer as not closely followed the case over than the R4 interview this morning where Mr RSPCA was about as good as answering a straight question as Ed Balls was the other week (I think it was him!)

 

[Alec Swan]

I and a lot of other people do not think that the ban is preposterous.

This is democracy Alec, the answer is to campaign to have the law changed, not to ignore it.

I do so agree with you. Would you consider, "Testing the law" to be acceptable?




Not so, speeding is not a criminal offence. I would never knowingly commit a criminal offence.

Speeding is not a criminal offence? I tried that one once. It didn't work.







Well if you count progress being that today is the first day in several weeks that I have not coughed so hard that I have seen my breakfast tea twice, then I'm making progress, thankyou!

I thought that it was children who contracted Whooping Cough. I'm wrong it seems. Honestly, it must be 'orrid and genuinely, I feel for you.

Get Well Soon.

Alec. x

 

[cptrayes]

If they pleaded guilty surely the judge/magistrate would not go against this and say actually you're not?

The Magistrates/District Judge are not allowed to accept a guilty plea which they feel in insincerely given. It happens that guilty pleas are advised against and sometimes rejected.

The evidence is not seen in a guilty plea, of course, so in this case my impression is that they pleaded guilty because they did not feel that they had a hope in hell of achieving a not guilty verdict if it went to trial.

and are we dealing with criminal law if it was a civil case?

The Hunting Act is criminal law.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, a much higher bar than balance of probabilities which is civil cases.

 

[cptrayes]

Sadly, I was wrong on one point. The CPS was NOT given the opportunity to bring this prosecution! All the POWA monitors had to do was to take their video to the police and say: 'Investigate - or else!" Then the CPS would have had to review the 'evidence' and decide if the law had been broken. But that DIDN'T happen - POWA went straight to the RSPCA, the RSPCA saw an opportunity for LOTS of headlines

However, the CPS (used to at least) require an 80% chance of a guilty verdict based on the evidence put before them and they probably wouldn't have had that level of certainty in this case so they would not have pursued the case and so, back to the RSPCA.........

rightly or wrongly, and personally I think it is wrong for a charity to be in this position, the RSPCA prosecute ALL animal cruelty cases. The CPS would never have prosecuted this.

 

[Alec Swan]

The Magistrates/District Judge are not allowed to accept a guilty plea which they feel in insincerely given.

.......

When those who are charged, plead guilty, trust me on this one, the plea is accepted, especially when the proletariat are seen as hounding gentry.

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

When those who are charged, plead guilty, trust me on this one, the plea is accepted, especially when the proletariat are seen as hounding gentry.

Alec.

This is not correct if the plea is clearly insincere. I have seen it done.

 

[fburton]

However, the CPS (used to at least) require an 80% chance of a guilty verdict based on the evidence put before them and they probably wouldn't have had that level of certainty in this case so they would not have pursued the case and so, back to the RSPCA.........

Presumably the CPS do not (because they cannot) take into account the high success rate of prosecutions brought by the RSPCA in deciding to prosecute? Or would that not work because the RSPCA would then refer cases to the CPS that they thought they couldn't win?