Heythrop plead Guilty

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,748
Visit site
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?

The RSPCA prosecute ALL animal cruelty cases using their own barrister. The CPS are not involved.
 

AengusOg

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 December 2007
Messages
805
Location
Scotland
Visit site
The law was passed because it is believed that foxes are caused to suffer unnecessarily.

If that is true and you believe it to be so, what alternative methods of fox control do you deem acceptable, and which will save foxes unnecessary suffering, or are you one of those who sees no case for controlling numbers of foxes?


If someone neglects, starves, beats, or sets their dog on another dog causing major suffering, then they are falling foul of the law, so what's the difference?

Those examples would be deliberate acts upon which I would expect the RSPCA to act and, if possible, pursue a conviction, even at great expense. There seems to be no evidence that the Hunt in this case set out to deliberately hunt a fox.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
It seems that the fulcrum upon which the Heythrop and masters had to plead guilty, was the issue that they could not afford the legal fees.

Presumably they are above the threshold to qualify for Legal Aid.

I keep wondering if in fact the corporate position might therefore be self defeating.

In other words it might be better to be wholly impecunious and let the state pay your legal costs, win or lose?
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
This is not correct if the plea is clearly insincere.

So are we to assume that a Guilty plea will be offered, even when the defendant clearly has a defence? Come on now, that can't be right. Better to represent oneself in Court, as I have on occasion, and face the wrath of the Resident Magistrate, than role over and give in, especially when the matter would clearly be as close to the defendant's heart, as it is.

Alec.
 

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
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.....................

Well that's nice and welfare minded. Take it out on a horse in need.
 

stormhill

New User
Joined
2 January 2012
Messages
2
Visit site
But if you were then found guilty would you be liable for their costs? If the RSPCA have spent over £300,000 without a trial that sounds terrifying!
 

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
But if you were then found guilty would you be liable for their costs? If the RSPCA have spent over £300,000 without a trial that sounds terrifying!

Cost reimbursement will be dependant on the defendant/offender's means. Plus, they would only be made to pay back what their means test indicates they could afford per week. Some people end up only paying £1 per week!
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
But if you were then found guilty would you be liable for their costs? If the RSPCA have spent over £300,000 without a trial that sounds terrifying!

So can we take it from what you say, that there are those cases, when the defendant is up against a wealthy body, such as the rspca, that rather than face the possibly wilfully run-up costs that a charity which seems to have "Only have to ask, and it shall be given", as a precept, then it would be better to admit defeat than to face the responsibility of overbearing costs?

That, to me anyway, smacks more of bullying, than justice.

Alec.
 

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
So can we take it from what you say, that there are those cases, when the defendant is up against a wealthy body, such as the rspca, that rather than face the possibly wilfully run-up costs that a charity which seems to have "Only have to ask, and it shall be given", as a precept, then it would be better to admit defeat than to face the responsibility of overbearing costs?

That, to me anyway, smacks more of bullying, than justice.

Alec.

Read my post above.:)

Just to clarify, the sentencing is done just like any other prosecution, any fines or costs awarded are means tested, and if a person cannot afford that amount, they won't get fined that amount. They would only have to pay off an affordable amount per week anyway.

If they can't afford ANY fines, without it being detrimental to their wellbeing or security, then they would perhaps be made to do community service or such like.
 
Last edited:

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
.......

......., the sentencing is done just like any other prosecution, any fines or costs awarded are means tested, and if a person cannot afford that amount, they won't get fined that amount.

........

That's all very well, and I'm aware of that point, but my question, which I may have put a little more clearly, is that if the Master, is clearly able to afford, though probably not justify, the costs, then should his co-defendant be placed in the position of having to plead guilty when his employer, clearly for other reasons, is forced to do the same thing, regardless of whether either are guilty, or not?

The CPS allowing or actively encouraging the rspca, a charity, to bring private prosecutions, is not justice. It places that charity in a position of being able to make decisions, which go beyond its position, its remit or its status. Being unable to justify the costs of prosecution or defence, will influence the CPS and the Defendant, but not it seems, the rspca.

Alec.
 

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
That's all very well, and I'm aware of that point, but my question, which I may have put a little more clearly, is that if the Master, is clearly able to afford, though probably not justify, the costs, then should his co-defendant be placed in the position of having to plead guilty when his employer, clearly for other reasons, is forced to do the same thing, regardless of whether either are guilty, or not?

The CPS allowing or actively encouraging the rspca, a charity, to bring private prosecutions, is not justice. It places that charity in a position of being able to make decisions, which go beyond its position, its remit or its status. Being unable to justify the costs of prosecution or defence, will influence the CPS and the Defendant, but not it seems, the rspca.

Alec.

What have the RSPCA got to do with the sentencing?! It's the magistrate that decides that, based on legislation, and on a means test. If the co-defendant cannot afford to pay a huge amount of costs, then they quite simply won't be made to!:confused:

The RSPCA have no say in the outcome of a prosecution, just like the CPS. It is purely the decision of a magistrate, who is made aware by the clerk of what the sentencing for each offence may entail.

Just because one person pleads guilty and gets fined a massive amount, does not mean the co-defendant has to plead guilty, or for that matter get fined a penny. If they were someone who was living in a bedsit, with barely a penny to their name, they would probably get a very meagre fine.
 

ester

Not slacking multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
61,743
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
I suppose there is the point that although someone may be able to afford to pay the costs of the other side when we are talking such large sums of money they most probably would prefer not to/have better things to spend that money on and hence a guilty plea is preferable to them regardless of their ability to pay.
 

combat_claire

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 February 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Cambridgeshire
www.freewebs.com
What have the RSPCA got to do with the sentencing?! It's the magistrate that decides that, based on legislation, and on a means test. If the co-defendant cannot afford to pay a huge amount of costs, then they quite simply won't be made to!:confused:

The RSPCA have no say in the outcome of a prosecution, just like the CPS. It is purely the decision of a magistrate, who is made aware by the clerk of what the sentencing for each offence may entail.

Just because one person pleads guilty and gets fined a massive amount, does not mean the co-defendant has to plead guilty, or for that matter get fined a penny. If they were someone who was living in a bedsit, with barely a penny to their name, they would probably get a very meagre fine.

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/RSP...g-PM-s-local/story-17626537-detail/story.html

It would appear that the defendants did not feel they had the wherewithal to fund their defence in a case that was predicted to take until the end of February, as a result they pleaded guilty " that on four occasions they had allowed hounds to chase foxes that had jumped up while they were hunting artificial trails"
 

combat_claire

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 February 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Cambridgeshire
www.freewebs.com
It also transpires that donors responding to a specific campaign on puppy welfare were later sent letters advising them that their donation had been used to fund the Heythrop prosecution.

This Christmas I have donated to the Crisis Christmas campaign to give a homeless person a warm meal and assistance. I would be more than a little irritated if Crisis subsequently contacted me to say they had used the money for a showboating legal trial or something other than what I thought I was funding (say sterilising homeless people).

This is seriously misleading of the RSPCA advertising and I have lost the last remaining scraps of respect for this organisation.
 

combat_claire

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 February 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Cambridgeshire
www.freewebs.com
Assuming my arithmatic is correct, that's a very expensive fox!

£28,000.00 worth of fox and presumably that did not include Counsel's costs for representing the Heythrop.

Hunting with a hunt that is a body corporate has some very interesting fiscal issues.:confused:

Simples, don't even think about contravening the Hunting Act 2004.

Have you not read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau??
 

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/RSP...g-PM-s-local/story-17626537-detail/story.html

It would appear that the defendants did not feel they had the wherewithal to fund their defence in a case that was predicted to take until the end of February, as a result they pleaded guilty " that on four occasions they had allowed hounds to chase foxes that had jumped up while they were hunting artificial trails"

If that is the case, with regards that they 'felt' they didn't have the funds to defend their case, then that is their own look out. They should have thought about that before they broke the law. Quite simply put, if somebody who lives on a minimum wage goes out and commits fraud or steals, should they not be taken to court just because they may feel they cannot afford the defence?

As for the 'fox jumped up whilst following artificial trails'......yeahhhhh rigghhhhtttttt! :rolleyes:
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
Have you not read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau??

No I have not and I do not have any intention of doing so.

So far as this recent debacle is concerned, I am very much of the opinion that great care now has to be taken that young people are not in any way influenced or put under duress to think the law can be broken. Nor do they find themselves involved in illegal hunting. Not that that was the situation, however it serves as very useful example for young people to understand that going to court is very expensive.

Furthermore money taken in subs/donations should not be spent on expensive lawyers. The bill should be met exclusively by those charged

We might as well get used to the fact there is a law in place and any failure to not respect that law, will prove extremely expensive.

Yes I am the first to say it is a bad law,:( nevertheless it is the law.
 
Last edited:

combat_claire

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 February 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Cambridgeshire
www.freewebs.com
No I have not and I do not have any intention of doing so.

You really should read make the effort. It is a philosophical statement rather than a manual on breaking the law.

Furthermore money taken in subs/donations should not be spent on expensive lawyers. The bill should be met exclusively by those charged

But the Heythrop case was launched against the hunt as a corporate body and not against the individuals.
 

combat_claire

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 February 2004
Messages
1,904
Location
Cambridgeshire
www.freewebs.com
I have a sneaking suspicion that the RSPCA deliberately ramped up the costs in the hope the defendants would pick up the tab in an award of costs. If so that has backfired. Gavin Grant failed completely in the Radio 4 interview and the Radio 2 phone-in to justify this vast expense.
 

FfionWinnie

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 July 2012
Messages
17,021
Location
Scotland
Visit site
I've never hunted, however I heard it discussed on Radio2 yesterday and the following points were made.

It's was a civil case, the persons found guilty do not have a criminal record.

It was not put before the CPS.

Barnfield said it was stray hounds and he was not there as he was with the main pack.

The RSPCA was founded by a fox hunter.

The hunt had over £200,000 in their bank account.

The RSPCA have spent over £300,000 on this and not saved an animal's life (because it would be killed by other means anyway).
 

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,748
Visit site
It's was a civil case, the persons found guilty do not have a criminal record.

I am very unsure that this is true. The Hunting Act seems to me to be criminal law. It may have been a private prosecution by the RSPCA but that would not mean that the guilty parties do not have a criminal record.


Later edit, it does seem that like speeding offences, this offence does not give you a criminal record. It's not very clear, still looking for more info.

It was not put before the CPS.

Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.
 
Last edited:

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,748
Visit site
While researching for the above question, I came across this, which does not include the latest case:

There have been over 190 successful prosecutions under the Hunting Act.

Funny, I'm sure I was told on this forum more than once that this law is so flawed that they can't get prosecutions?
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
7,006
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
www.horseandhound.co.uk
Quote:
There have been over 190 successful prosecutions under the Hunting Act.

Funny, I'm sure I was told on this forum more than once that this law is so flawed that they can't get prosecutions?


The vast majority of the successful prosecutions were nothing to do with hunting with hounds - although I doubt the figure given - and were brought by the CPS against individuals - mainly for coursing. These are cases that would previously have been prosecuted under anti-poaching laws!
 
Last edited:

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
7,006
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
www.horseandhound.co.uk
Quote:
It was not put before the CPS.
Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.

Animal cruelty prosecutions aren't, the RSPCA always do them.

That's not true either. The CPS DOES bring cases for animal cruelty. The Cheale Meat case and the Anne the elephant case are just 2 recent high profile cases brought by the CPS! The CPS - however - does require GOOD evidence and a reasonable chance of success before it brings a prosecution. For the RSPCA, it's more about publicity - there are headlines while a case runs. There are more headlines if there is a conviction. If a case is later thrown out on Appeal, that rarely gets the same coverage!

Of course, where cruelty to pets and horses is concerned, the RSPCA will sieze the animals (with the agreement of a police officer and a vet) and seek a ban on the defendants keeping animals - as well as rehoming the animals (if they haven't already put them down!)
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
7,006
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
www.horseandhound.co.uk
They are individually listed Janet, though I take your point that most are not for hunting fox with hounds.

The one set of figures I found suggested that to the end of 2010 there have been 181 convictions under the Hunting Act 2004, but only six of those relate to registered hunts. 97% of convictions relate to poaching or other casual hunting activities.

In at least one of the cases relating to hunting with hounds (Tony Wright at the Exmoor) the conviction was later thrown out on Appeal!
 
Top