Judgement Due

[combat_claire]

The verdict in the Tony Wright case is due at noon tomorrow. No doubt both sides will be anxiously awaiting the outcome. Commentators have said that if this fails it could have severe implications for the bringing of any more cases against hunts, but that if the prosecution is successful it will simply be one loophole tested and closed with many more still open to hunts.

Interesting times ahead...

Thoughts or comments?

 

[flying_change]

it's the waiting that's the hardest.......



RS

 

[combat_claire]

I know, I don't do waiting well..must be why I have written so much on my dissy today then...

Come on then..what do you reckon the outcome will be. Can I goad you into speculation RS?

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/hunting_campaigns/hunting_views/Exmoor_case_-_second_day/

The LACS are being particularly reticent but whether this is a good or a bad sign I couldn't say...

 

[Ereiam_jh]

If the prosecution suceeds it will mean that the hunts will have to take even greater steps to make sure no foxes escape by shooting them.

Who are you rooting for RS?

 

[flying_change]

Noooo ! I dont do speculation !!!

RS

 

[flying_change]

"Who are you rooting for RS? "

Truth, Justice, and the American Way! Sorry that's English Way! No... British Way !

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I knew you wou;dn't be able to answer that one!

What do you feel about the LACS insistence that an entire line or lines of guns be employed to make sure no wild mammal can escape alive?

 

[AlanE]

Claire: I've heard the evidence offered from both sides, and read the Hunting Act.

I'm prepared to stick my neck out and say that any fair court will rule that Tony Wright is not guilty of breaking the Act.

 

[flying_change]

TBH.... it's been a busy week.... I've been travelling to Exeter and Plymouth and back (500+ miles)... playing catch up at work... and I've not had time to follow the case.

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The case seems to hinge on the fact that Mr Wright allowed four out of five foxes to escape unharmed. He only had one guy with a gun to stop the fox getting away. LACS says he should have had a line or line of guns there to exterminate flushed out animals.

From my point of view its bad enough having to have one guy with a gun to kill the deer my dogs flush, why should I have to employ an entire line?

 

[flying_change]

Well my literal mind causes me to ask what were the man's intentions. If he needed to lawfully cull foxes, then he can flush them (using 2 dogs) and then shoot them. In order to be adequatly prepared to shoot them, he needed one or more guns suitably positioned.

An absence of suitably positioned guns, or an insufficient number, would indicate that culling by shooting was not the primary intention.

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I would find it very hard to justify prosecuting someone for not having enough guys with guns around.

Would you have preferred it if no foxes survived?

How would you feel if the law was calling for lines of guns to be employed in your home town?

I flush out deer to disperse them not to cull them, if I stop the dogs chasing the deer should I still have to shoot them?

In my opinion any legal pressure on people to pull the trigger of a gun is unnaceptable and should be resisted. I think I am entirely justified in refusing to kill animals.

 

[flying_change]

"Would you have preferred it if no foxes survived?"

My preferences dont matter in this prosecution.

My previous post was my response to one particular question. I dont know enough about this case, and the arguments involved, to comment further.

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Very cagey RS if you don't mind me saying so.

 

[flying_change]

LOL !! I'm constantly told that I cant have an opinion about things about which I have insufficient knowledge, so you mustnt hound me now when I do (or dont do) exactly that !

RS

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'm perfectly happy for you to have an opinion about whatever you wish to RS.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

He's guilty!

 

[combat_claire]

If we were confused about the Hunting Act before...then there is even more confusion now...

This is insane...admittedly I didn't see much of the evidence presented to court..but what I did see was inconclusive and not even the CPS believed there was anything substantial for a case to be brought.

Bring on the appeal

 

[spaniel]

My thought too Clare. He will appeal.

 

[AlanE]

Well, I have to eat my prediction! Tony W. was found guilty of the charge BECAUSE the fox was not shot IMMEDIATELY on being flushed!The judge wanted more guns out as well!!He relied on a dictionary definition of 'flushing', without any allowance for the fact that what constitutes 'flushing' is entirely dependant on the terrain. He (the judge) seems not to have recognized the 'as soon as possible' in the act.

They will be asking permission to appeal, I think, since the verdict seems non-sensical to most people who followed the case.

 

[flying_change]

Just goes to show, you are capable of being wrong sometimes......

RS

 

[AlanE]

Never mind,Ruggs, my infallibility will be shown on Appeal!

 

[Jiffy]

I think I read that LACS were awarded £250 towards the £100,000 it cost to bring this case to court! Did I hear that correct?

 

[combat_claire]

Yup that is how much of their bill Mr Wright will be forced to pay...estimates of the cost to LACS vary from £65,000 to £100,000

 

[flying_change]

Mental note... must send LACS a donation cheque....

 

[Sooty]

Just a thought...how are you supposed to know how many foxes you are going to flush??? Does British justice now require all huntsmen to be psychic? This is just hilarious.

As to how many guns are required - just grab a machine gun! Just what we need in the countryside...

 

[Exmoor_Blairite]

Sir Paul will pick up the tab! LOL!

 

[redthing]

>>This is insane...admittedly I didn't see much of the evidence presented to court..but what I did see was inconclusive and not even the CPS believed there was anything substantial for a case to be brought.<<

Not true, actually. According to which version you believe, either the CPS never saw the evidence, or they did, and asked Avon & Somerset Police to supplement it with something (what, I don't know), that was not forthcoming. Either way, there could not have been an 'official' prosecution in this case. As it is, though, things have radically changed. You need only look at A&S Police's response to this, which essentially says that the rules have now shifted, and that they have a much better idea of what constitutes a breach, to know that things are now going to be much harder for hunts.

Think you can get away with it? Think again. You arrogant thingummybobs.

*Waves*

RT.

Hullo RS, by the way...

 

[combat_claire]

The CPS asked them to provide more evidence other than the video tape which was initially presented by the League. Avon & Somerset police opted not to pursue the matter which led to the private prosecution.

I wouldn't get too cocky, this is only a judgement from the lowest level of court in the land, it is what happens on appeal to the crown court, the high courts and then the House of Lords which really matters and will set any future legal precedent. So what actually constitutes a breach will be decided at appeal..since Judge Farmer seems to have used a wide ranging interpretation of flushing, which is not defined within the act.

Interesting times ahead me thinks.