Heythrop plead Guilty

cptrayes

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


Guilty is guilty Janet, it does not matter what the chance of success is, the burden of proof is the same no matter who brings the case.

In fact I would say that the CPS cherry-picking of a very small number of very high profile cases shows exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. The RSPCA do the bread and butter cases, the CPS pick the big ones.

Given the current cost cutting going on in the CPS, I do not think that any conclusion about the validity of this prosecution can be drawn by the CPS standing aside and letting the RSPCA pick up the costs in this case.

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!

This is nonsense, there are routine run of the mill starved dog and mistreated cat cases in court by the RSPCA on a frequent basis in English and Welsh courts. They may get a line or two in the local rag, if that.

I missed the word "almost" out of my sentence, for which I apologise. But the RSPCA do all except the major headline animal cruelty cases in Magistrate's Courts.
 
Last edited:

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
Just a slight correction moomin, sorry, it's 3 Magistrates or one District Judge.

Sorry, yes, I just typed 'magistrate' for the example, but you are completely correct.

I fully agree with you throughout this one CPT, there are small tiny cases going through the courts day in day out brought by the RSPCA, and they mostly never reach the public's knowledge.

The press simply aren't interested unless it's high profile or very gory.:(
 

ester

Not slacking multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
61,744
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
I thought (as discussed previously with the case of the barefoot trimmer putting on 'shoes' prosecuted by the FRC) that no precedent is set if there is no proper trial and you choose to plead guilty
 

MerrySherryRider

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 September 2004
Messages
9,439
Visit site
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!)

It was left to the RSPCA to bring a case for cruelty to the man who starved the horse I now have, and his field mates. It was thanks to the RSPCA that he was sent to prison and the horses which were not too far gone, were saved.


It wasn't a high profile case because no one was shouting for this lawbreaker to be spared prosecution and no one claimed the RSPCA had wasted money.
Of course he wasn't a huntsman. I believe he was a Traveller.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
What may have been overlooked by many is the hideous precedent in law that has now been set.

Indeed a precedent that will cause/require magistrates to impliment the tarriff of fines and costs where there are any other cases.

I'm not too sure that I understand your points, J_M, but this I do understand; It cannot be considered justice where a man is threatened with Court action, and because he has the where-with-all to support himself, runs the risk of losing far, far more than his seemingly less than fortunate brother, who because he has little or nothing in the way of assets, can face up to a system which appears to have a huge bias. The "Have", it would seem, is best of with a guilty plea, regardless of his state of innocence.

Alec.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
I'm not too sure that I understand your points, J_M, but this I do understand; It cannot be considered justice where a man is threatened with Court action, and because he has the where-with-all to support himself, runs the risk of losing far, far more than his seemingly less than fortunate brother, who because he has little or nothing in the way of assets, can face up to a system which appears to have a huge bias. The "Have", it would seem, is best of with a guilty plea, regardless of his state of innocence.

Alec.

Alec my concern is that now a very high 'Tarriff' for the offence has been set, it will encourage a stream of allegations against those who are indentified as wealthy by the RSPCA or by other organisations or indeed by individuals.

I suppose it might also suggest if you are poor and/or impecunious, you will not be bothered, on the gounds one might enjoy Legal Aid. Therefore you are far more liekly to plead not-guilty. The consequences for the party making the allegation if found not-guilty, would mean they could be facing substantial costs as well as their own.

This case has opened up a whole NEW scenario for those opposed to hunting.
 

Alec Swan

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

This case has opened up a whole NEW scenario for those opposed to hunting.

It would only need the prosecuting authority :)confused:) to lose one or two high profile cases, and for them to be found wanting, for their coffers to be depleted.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor, which is why I'm staggered that the defendants in question offered no defence. Madness.

I'd have represented them, for all my short comings, and free of charge, too.

Alec.
 

Luci07

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2009
Messages
9,382
Location
Dorking
Visit site
Even the judge in the trial questioned the action of the RSPCA in bringing this to his court. The costs were well over the £300k mark, the hunt paid costs of £19,500. I accept Alec's argument but understood that the guilty plea was entered to try to prevent this going forward due to costs. The hunt might well have had £200k in their bank account but we do t know if that was for running costs etc.

Here is a first and I can't post the link as on an iPad. Quentin Letts in today's Daily Mail questioning the direction of the RSPCA. It was a good piece! Not the normal article you tend to get. If someone else can post a link it makes great reading.
 

cptrayes

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 March 2008
Messages
14,748
Visit site
Even the judge in the trial questioned the action of the RSPCA in bringing this to his court.

Really? Can you point me to the report of that, I'd like to see it, it would be most unusual for a District Judge to comment adversely on the decision to bring a prosecution in a case where four convictions resulted out of four prosecutions.
 

ester

Not slacking multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
61,744
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
The district judge referred to the RSPCA costs of nearly £330,000 - without the expected 30 day trial - as a "quite staggering figure".

Members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed," he said.

"It is not for me to express an opinion but I merely flag it up but I do find it to be a quite staggering figure.

"Essentially I was told by Mr Mott that defence costs for all five defendants were in the region of £35,000 - so that's not much more than one tenth of the prosecution costs."

The judge said that the RSPCA has asked for a £50,000 contribution from the three defendants towards its costs.

He said he was rejecting that figure as the costs should not be "grossly disproportionate" to the fines he had already imposed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...throp-hunt-fined-for-fox-hunting-8422813.html

That also reads that it was 3 convinctions of 5 defendents I think?
 
Last edited:

Moomin1

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

Just to correct you, the RSPCA do not seize any animal. The police seize them and hand them to the RSPCA's care.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
.......
He said he was rejecting that figure as the costs should not be "grossly disproportionate" to the fines he had already imposed.

.......

When I last appeared in Court (and NO I'm not a career criminal), then the Clerk to the Court, reminded the presiding Magistrates, that the "Costs could not exceed the fine". The Fine was nil........ ;)

Alec.
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
Lol, it really doesn't matter though does it Alec? Because the police work with the RSPCA.

I assume you would prefer for neglected animals to remain with their neglectors and abusers then?

that's a silly suggestion, as you will know. What I object to is the thought, that a completely inept, a badly managed, and a biased and twisted business, more interested in money making than justice or animal welfare, would ever have any powers.

Alec.
 

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
that's a silly suggestion, as you will know. What I object to is the thought, that a completely inept, a badly managed, and a biased and twisted business, more interested in money making than justice or animal welfare, would ever have any powers.

Alec.

Well sadly for you Alec, the police are more than happy to do it for them and hand the cases (obviously only the amazingly high profile expensive ones! :rolleyes:) back to the RSPCA. You must think that RSPCA inspectors are trained to automatically ignore any cruelty and neglect other than the high profile ones or something! Because of course RSPCA inspectors would love that. Seriously, it's quite laughable how some people on here are so narrow minded.
 

VoR

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 March 2011
Messages
626
Location
Somerset
Visit site
Well that's nice and welfare minded. Take it out on a horse in need.

10/10 for missing the point here and being selective about the points you raise pal, the RSPCA are happy to spend many hundreds of thousands pursuing a politically motivated case against a hunt rather than spending that money on animal welfare, they prefer to use the goodwill of a pro-hunting family (and yes they were aware we are pro-hunt) when it suited them though! All smacks a little bit of hypocrasy to me!
 

EAST KENT

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 June 2010
Messages
2,735
Visit site
10/10 for missing the point here and being selective about the points you raise pal, the RSPCA are happy to spend many hundreds of thousands pursuing a politically motivated case against a hunt rather than spending that money on animal welfare, they prefer to use the goodwill of a pro-hunting family (and yes they were aware we are pro-hunt) when it suited them though! All smacks a little bit of hypocrasy to me!

Sincerely hope you will not fall into the trap again of being used by that so called Charity.The Charity Commission rules do state that Charities absolutely MUST NOT be political,wonder how these self styled police qualify then as a Charity.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
My fear looking forwards is The Second Front.

Making an educated guess and with elements that I would describe as Informed Sources, The Second Front is an attack on Landowners and Farmers who are alleged to have allowed illegal hunting on their land.

My spies suggest that there is a plot to single out a landowner in a similar manner (bearing in mind the act can specifically hold the landowner equally criminally responsible for an act of illegal hunting) and to bring them to court with equal cost features.

It has been suggested there are targets in Sussex and Wiltshire.
 
Last edited:

Moomin1

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 July 2010
Messages
7,969
Visit site
I really don't know where you are all getting this hype about a 'precedent' being set for the amount of fines and costs imposed. Jeez, are you people not aware that the same rules apply for every single Joe Public who goes to court. Even a very simple thin dog or one horse case with one defendant can wrack up in the region of £20,000 in legal fees and boarding costs/vet costs, and the costs are always put to the magistrate because they ask for them in order to MEANS TEST for any fines or costs that should be imposed on the defendant. The average Joe Public from the local homeless shelter is hardly going to be sentenced with a £20,000 fine or costs.

It's complete and utter rubbish that people are trying to suggest that the RSPCA somehow 'bullied' the defendants into pleading guilty by wracking up such costs, because quite simply, if they haven't got the means to pay it they won't have it imposed. They may end up paying 1p a week if that's what they can afford!
 

Alec Swan

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

It's complete and utter rubbish that people are trying to suggest that the RSPCA somehow 'bullied' the defendants into pleading guilty by wracking up such costs, because quite simply, if they haven't got the means to pay it they won't have it imposed. They may end up paying 1p a week if that's what they can afford!

I don't think that you've quite grasped the points which have been made, have you? Go away and think about it, and you'll realise that your words make little sense.

Alec.
 

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
I don't think that you've quite grasped the points which have been made, have you? Go away and think about it, and you'll realise that your words make little sense.

Alec.

I am with you Alec 100%

That said, I do warn folk that specific landowners are next in line............ but that's going to be difficult because everybody hunts a trail.
 

Countryman

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 November 2010
Messages
414
Visit site
Unless the landowner is actually present at an illegal hunt I would think proving he was allowing his land to be used for hunting would be very tricky - especially as hunts are only licensed to trail hunt over the land they cross and have documents affirming that.
 

happyhunter123

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 May 2012
Messages
254
Location
Somerset
Visit site
The RSPCA will probably bring more hunting prosecutions in the future. I believe that the Avon Vale have a case coming up against them brought by the RSPCA.
Whether it'll do them any good or not remains to be seen. Will they be running out of money any time soon?

On a different note, for such minor fines, it's amazing the media coverage! This must be the most media coverage hunting has had after several years of things keeping quiet.
 
Last edited:

Pale Rider

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2011
Messages
2,305
Location
Northern Spain
Visit site
Hunting is a real pain and always costing money.

When it was legal vast numbers of Police were deployed to protect them from the protesters, at the tax payers expense.

Now its illegal, a charity has to fund prosecutions. The CPS should have taken over this case and the others in the pipe line. Unless of course there is some political interference on behalf of the hunts.
 
Top