Incident with land owner - WWYD?

martlin said:
undersown/directly drilled crops? hoofprints in a buffer strip? the possibilities are endless and it is a reasonable course of action to ask for trespasser's details in order to bring a case against them
Click to expand...

sorry, I wasn't very clear - I agree, what I meant was where was the criminal damage for an arrest to be made as someone had suggested?
 
cptrayes said:
In the context of what the OP wrote



I do not believe that the Police are suggesting a Conditional Caution or any other outcome than that if she apologises this will go no further.

If she has been told this, then my advice would remain, swallow your pride and apologise.

The very fact that she is being offered a Restorative Justice meeting for a serious assault carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months custody shows, in my view, that they have already taken into account her fear in the situation, and so had the landowner who has accepted that outcome. Because let's not forget that he has to agree to this as well.

Would you seriously support, on the evidence available, her trying to fight out her innocence in court? And if not, there is zero point on spending any money on seeing a lawyer.


OP I'm not much interested in whether you were justified in what you did, to be honest, as I wasn't there and can't judge. But I am trying to save you from further upset and expense. Man up. Apologise. It's free.
Click to expand...


does it go on a criminal record and would he then find it easier to sue her in civil courts for any damage if she has admitted guilt?
 
Citizen's arrest my arse. I just looked at the legal requirements of one and you can't have post hoc citizen's arrests. You can't detain or restrain someone and then claim at a later date (perhaps after they've assaulted you to free themselves) that you were doing a citizen's arrest because they were damaging your property. You have to tell the person at the time you are detaining them what you are doing, why you're doing it, and immediately take them to a magistrate or police station. There also has to be some good reason why you did not call the police in the first place and had to take matters into your own hands.

It also has to be for an indictable offense.
 
My two pence worth,, how can the land owner (if indeed he was the land owner- sorry if I missed this bit) prove the marks were caused by the original poster as there were no witness?
also, put yourself in her situation. On your own, middle of no where and a random stranger starts rating at you and grabs your horse and will not let go.
I simply refuse to believe that 90% of you would not have resorted to self defence, a instinctive button would flick in your brains. She had no idea who this person was and what his next move would have been, it could well be to assault her.
We all are in built with a fight or flight mechanism when scared. The flight option had been removed until he was made to let go. She didn't continue to hit him once she was able to take flight.
I don't agree with her trespassing, of course, but the landowner was as much in the wrong
 
scarymare said:
. I'd be interested to know how old the OP is. I'm sat here on my pedestal because I know I would have been able to de-escalate and diffuse the situation but perhaps the OP just hasn't yet developed those skills which actually isn't her fault, most of us in our teens and 20's are hotheads (not sure I'd ever have whipped a stranger though).
Click to expand...

OP said she spoke to her husband so would assume she is of a reasonably sensible age. She is lucky the landowner didn't take the crop off her and give her a bloody good hiding back!
 
Elsbells said:
he attacked her! In that case and if she was my daughter I would of expected her to do anything she could to get away, even violence as he could of been anyone, done anything and whose to say he wouldn't of??

Shame the OP didn't report the attack.
Click to expand...

He didn't attack her - he held the horse's rein - probably to stop her buggering off into the distance to come back and trespass again - OP won't be doing anything that silly for a while I would assume.
 
Not read all of the responses here but have been in a similar position where landowners believe they can be a law unto themselves and any court would agree that this is not the case.This is a step too far and a frightening event for the rider. Landowner can only ask trespassers to leave land NOT take their details NOR restrict or even touch any part of horse or rider... this is just bullying
 
Caol Ila said:
Yes. The OP committed a wrong by going onto this guy's land, but he committed a bigger wrong by grabbing her rein and behaving in a scary, threatening manner when a good verbal telling-off would have done the job and been a more appropriate response. There have been cases where riders have been pulled off their horses and assaulted. As I said earlier, I wouldn't wait around to see whether or not he intended to haul me off the horse.
Click to expand...

Behaving in a "scary" manner is not illegal - I am frequently told I am scary by people who don't know me well. Nobody yet has managed to pursue successful legal action against me :confused: grabbing her horse's rein is also not in itself a necessarily aggressive action - merely a restraining action - though the OP may have interpreted it differently.

Fear of an extreme situation arising does not justify people in acting abusively without any significant cause. In my opinion, restraining her horse by the rein, while asking for her details, is not significant cause to presume he will proceed to pull her from her horse and physically assault her.
 
An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

S29 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

I'd say your landowner was guilty of this offence.

What happened after is justified because of his actions initially.
 
Jericho said:
I hate it when threads bring out the self righteous and contemptuous people when all the facts aren't known. It was always going to be a contentious issue and was quite interesting to start with ... I hope OP seeks proper legal advice on this as was suggested by many people in response to her WWYD? Title.
Click to expand...

why am I self righteous? Do you believe that hitting someone numerous times with your whip to the point where that person is left with lasting physical marks is a reasonable, rational response to someone grabbing your horses reins?

Honestly, you wonder why horsey women get a name for being neurotic...
 
I only read the first few pages so this might have already been touched on:

Unlike everyone else I am not going to comment on the rights and wrongs on who did what, there are enough opinions on that already!

However, I do think you need to obtain legal advice BEFORE apologising for anything.

If you apologise this may be be taken as an admission of guilt and you may end up cautioned for assault.

If you are cautioned it will come up on any criminal checks (don't know what yours are called in the UK) that are carried out on you, which might cause you even bigger problems in the future.

Please take appropriate advice before doing anything.
 
Having been in a situation where a man tried to grab my horse's reins on an isolated lane, I can honestly say that I would do everything in my power to avoid being in that situation. Until it actually happens to you, it's easy to say that she should have reacted differently. In my case, I used my horse to her best advantage, told the man she kicked and charged past him, if she had run over him, I would have left him to rot!
 
JFTD said:
Behaving in a "scary" manner is not illegal -
Click to expand...
If I were to come up to you while you were riding, take hold of the reins to stop you getting away, start to give you a lecture on road safety and, when you complained, shouted at you to f*ing shut up and listen to me, what would you do? And would my action be considered unlawful? Not according to some here, apparently. The fact that OP did something wrong and you didn't wouldn't alter the legality of my action, surely?
 
No one has answered my earlier question.

If someone grabbed your horse's rein, refused to let go when you repeatedly asked them to do so, screamed and swore at you demanding your details, what would you do?

Not to mention, whoever would grab a horse's reins and hauls on their mouth in a fit of rage is asking for it because horses are powerful flight animals. In that situation, even the most well trained horse could get scared and rear, kick, run you over, anything. If someone did that to me, I wouldn't need the whip. As I said, my horse would probably take care of it and it might hurt more than a riding whip.

Also, to whoever said that it did not constitute false imprisonment or unlawful restraint because she could have dismounted her horse and left on foot: the law here makes it plain that if the person has means of escape but it's unreasonable for them to take it, then the restraint is still unlawful. I would say that it's unreasonable for the rider to jump off her horse and run away on foot, leaving herself potentially miles from home, more vulnerable because she's on foot, and of course, abandoning her horse with the irate farmer!
 
Last edited:
lhotse, I mean many of the posters who think the rider was completely out of line in defending herself have not answered my question. :)
 
Would depend why. In ops case, I would have given him my details. If it was random nutter approaching me for no good reason where I had good cause to believe he was likely to assault me, I would use the horse as a weapon.
 
fburton said:
If I were to come up to you while you were riding, take hold of the reins to stop you getting away, start to give you a lecture on road safety and, when you complained, shouted at you to f*ing shut up and listen to me, what would you do? And would my action be considered unlawful? Not according to some here, apparently. The fact that OP did something wrong and you didn't wouldn't alter the legality of my action, surely?
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant since I am (presumably) not infringing any road laws and you are not in a position of authority or right to complain, unlike the case with the OP.

If I were, for example, riding a horse at an RS having chosen to mount and ride without a hat on, and a member of staff approached me, took hold of my horse and yelled /swore at me to get off and get my hat before continuing, I would think they were probably justified in their actions. I think that is a more relevant analogy...

So yes, I do think it is relevant that
a) the OP was in the wrong, legally
b) the "grabber" was not a random passer by, but one in a position of authority or interest - since he owns the land
c) the OP's reaction was, in my opinion, not in keeping with the actions of the LO.

I'd like to reiterate again, that according to the information we have been given, at no point, despite being close enough to hold the horse's rein, did this man attempt to touch, strike or in anyway assault the OP.

The OP however thought that a significant physical response was justified.


CI, I didn't answer your question as I thought it was patently obvious. If you have been caught out in wrong doing, you give your details. If you really didn't want to, you make them up. It's not rocket science. I would also not leap to physical assault, without attempting to defuse the situation. If you're dealing with a genuine nutjob, who is actually assaulting you (personally, not holding on to your horse), then like littlelegs, I would use my horse's size and skills. He will rear on command.
 
Last edited:
fburton said:
In OP's case, a bit of forelock touching probably wouldn't have gone amiss either, I expect (irrespective of whether it was appropriate or not).
Click to expand...
Probably not, but the LO has not assaulted OP, he has been rude to her... OP, on the other hand, has committed trespass, been rude/sarcastic when challenged and to top it off, has physically assaulted the LO. Go figure.
 
mcnaughty said:
OP said she spoke to her husband so would assume she is of a reasonably sensible age. She is lucky the landowner didn't take the crop off her and give her a bloody good hiding back!
Click to expand...

LOL - Blimey the OP is married..... 50 shades of something comes to mind.... Off to write a bestseller before Jilly Cooper beats me to it.
 
JFTD said:
If I were, for example, riding a horse at an RS having chosen to mount and ride without a hat on, and a member of staff approached me, took hold of my horse and yelled /swore at me to get off and get my hat before continuing, I would think they were probably justified in their actions. I think that is a more relevant analogy...
Click to expand...
I agree it's a better analogy, thank you. So if you said you would go and get your hat, but the staff member continue to hold on to you and shout and swear, would you not start to become just a little bit concerned about your safety? In your example, you presumably knew that the person was a member of staff, but what if OP wasn't sure who this man was? Personally, I'd want to be sure of who I was speaking to before giving them my details, especially if they were behaving in a threatening manner.

Yes, I know the whole thing is hypothetical - we only have one person's word for what happened and they have a vested interest!

The OP however thought that a significant physical response was justified.
Click to expand...
Indeed she has said as much.
 
I think as we have nothing else to go on there's a lot to be said for the phrases op has used. There's no mention of getting lost or being mistaken, just that she was riding on land cos there was no private sign. Which could possibly mean op is in the habit of doing so & Lo had enough. Plus op states he took the rein & asked for her details, he only started shouting & swearing after she refused. So no evidence to support him being intent on assaulting her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top