MillyMoomie
Well-Known Member
Alec Swan I am happy to be proven wrong if you would kindly re-paste where I have misinterpreted or misread.
Alec Swan I am happy to be proven wrong if you would kindly re-paste where I have misinterpreted or misread.
Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!
With the most minimal posts, you seem to seek-out argument. You will find none here.
Alec.
Alec I beg to differ. I merely state facts. No opinions, no arguements.
Perhaps it is you who needs "misinterprets" what I have written. Does your sense of justice not allow for a stranger to simply provide information for others to read? !!
Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence.
What a happy little niave view of the world you have.
The reason why the CPS did not bring the proseutions itself was that the level of evidence was insufficient. If the CPS won't take the case, that itself should demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt.
The second point is that the initial trial will be in a magistrates or county court - and, as has already been demonstrated many times, such courts are very capable of making incorrect judements that then have to be overturned on appeal.
When we get the antis trying to bamboozle courts with supposed "evidence" like university profressors swearing under oath that they can tell from the sound what quarry hounds are hunting in a piece of film - something that very few, if any, hunting people would claim - then you can understand why the Courts do get confused.
So these people have to take the risk of a mis-judgement over inadequate evidence, resulting them facing costs, the only way of avoiding which is to take the case to appeal in a higher court - thus incurring yet more costs, and again running the risk that they might lose and have to go to the Supreme Court at yet more expense and yet more risk.
All of which for for a penalty of a few hundred quid.
If you are saying that you are surprised that people can be frightened out of such risks, when the alternative is just to cop a plea, pay a small fine and move on, then you are either being disingenuous or , as I said, extremely niave.
.The CPS will regularly ask what it considers the 'animal welfare experts' to proceed with these types of case.
And are you claiming that this is what happened in this case - or is this merely more disingenuity...?
The point being, however, that in this case, as I understand it, neither of these things happened. The CPS did not take it on itself and it did not ask the RSPCA to do so, either.
Had the evidence been as "open and shut" as you seem to wish to portray, then there seems no reason for the CPS not to have done one of those two things - that is, after all, their job.
It is therefore a logical to assume that the "evidence" was ambiguous at best - and therefore it would boil down in court to an argument about the interpretation of inconclusive evidence - and in such cases, money (and the ability to hire expensive lawyers and impresive sounding "experts" that it brings) talks.
And, therefore, my point (and Alec's) is valid.
If the level of evidence was insufficent the defendants would not have been found guilty, especially after 'a right to a fair trial'. This stands in a magistrates or any court. My orignal point of the burden of proof still stands, (beyond all reasonable doubt) BUT, lets remember the defendants pleaded guilty before even a trial. You say to avoid further costs for the sake of a few hundred quid, lets look at the fines/costs. £1000/£2000/£1,800/£2,500/£4,000/£15,000. hmmmmm i wouldnt say that was insignificant. Yet if the evidence was so ungenuine and as false as you say why wouldnt a defendant go to trial, produce his own evidence and get HIS costs back? This is after all the system.
One final point, they didnt 'cop a plea'. They pleaded guilty. Regardless of my opnions on hunting or otherwise, of which you have no idea. The excuses are pathetic and feeble and i would have much more respect of the defendants if they held their hands up and accept they were caught in the act. No pun intended.
If you REALLY work "within the law" (don't we all ) then you ARE naive. Innocent people are often found guilty; and guilty people often get off! I don't know if the trial would have been in front of a jury - but if it was - you can bet that ALL the jurors would have been - at best - ambivalent about hunting! There would have been no-one who actually hunts on the jury! So the jury would have started with an element of bias against the defendants.
If a case is before magistrates - or a judge - then any hunting magistrate/judge would have to stand down - but judges/magistrates with strong personal feelings against hunting would still sit on the case (unless he/she actually had a conviction for sabbing or was on the council of the LACS!)
Having seen several of the videos that were 'evidence' they certainly aren't clear-cut - so - with a little bias against hunting - they would convince a judge or a juror of the defendants' guilt. So it could have cost the defendants collectively upwards of £0.25 million for an unsuccessful defence! And that's without taking into account fines/prosecution costs which would have been higher if they'd fought the charges!
As for the CPS - it was NEVER given the chance to prosecute this case. If it had been, it might - or might not have done so based on its view of whether the evidence was 'sufficient'! But the RSPCA wouldn't have cared too much about whether it was a foregone conclusion or not - the headlines they got for prosecuting David Cameron's 'mates' was well worth it - to them!
JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
You're right, in that you are entitled to your own opinion. Were you to consider reasoned argument though, you may see things from a different stand point.
"I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed".
Would you maintain such a principled stance were you faced with the risk of such crippling costs; Costs I would add, of which the prosecuting body (a worthless charity), would most certainly have made you aware?
The argument all through this thread, has been that neither you nor I may have the spare funds to risk such a case. The Master obviously did have, and considering his world, and his responsibilities, he elected to plead guilty to a charge which others may have defended.
If the above paragraph makes no sense to you, perhaps I can explain it in another way; If I have have nothing to lose, because I have nothing, and I take to myself 3 couple of hounds, and I hunt with them, do you honestly think that the rspca would bother with the risk of a quarter mill costs, for a case where they have no chance of retrieving those costs? Well, do you?
Alec.
.......
Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
.......
I suspect that you may be alone, with that level of logic!
Alec.
Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
.
JanetGeorge ALL your arguements whilst reasonable are beside the point!
I entirely agree many miscarriages of justice happen. Not in this case, I reiterate again, they pleaded guilty before a trial!!!! All other theory's are now fantasy. I personally would not plead guilty to a criminal offence that I had not committed.
I do not wish to keep repeating myself nor do I wish to influence others, I am happy in what I believe. Nonetheless I still think the action of pointing fingers and feeble excuses is pathetic. I would have rejoiced in a respectful and dignified heads held high. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
Yes i believe if you caused an animal to suffer and there was the evidence to prove that then you would be held accountable for that offence by the RSPCA.
if having a criminal record is a reputation booster.
JanetGeorge why on earth do you state I'm living in cloud cuckoo land? You don't know me!
If what you state above is true then yes that is ridiculous.However I will go on my many very positive experiences of the RSPCA and wait for a negative one with all the facts to hand before I begin the bashing thank you.
I'm not questioning wether the huntsman you mention is a nice man or not, quite possibly he shouldn't have broken the law. I suggest YOU JanetGeorge are living in cloud cuckoo land if having a criminal record is a reputation booster. If so why don't you all strive to get one and stop whining about the ban. Personally I find following a laid scent exhilarating.
I'm sorry Herne but you have simply ignored everything i have written and rephrased your orginal arguement.
I am beginning to enjoy this banter though.
They merely bring about private prosecutions based on independant vets' opinions of whether an animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it is not removed or circumstances change.
Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!
Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence. Lets also point out that the RSPCA don't decide if someone is guilty or not, they merely present the evidence as a private prosecutor that specialises in animal welfare with a significantly higher success rate than the cps. The defendants pleaded guilty even before a trial. Did not even argue. The evidence must have been unquestionable. They broke the law and were caught red handed. You cannot pick and choose what laws you want to uphold. But then something told me you already knew all that Alec?
.......
Your basic premise of "if they were innocent they would have nothing to fear" would only hold true if we had a perfect legal system where miscarriages of justice never took place.
.......
Whoops. Oh dear, your entire argument just disappeared in a puff of logic. Goodbye.