RSPCA prosecuting the Heythrop hunt

Was the RSPCA right to use over £326,000 in donations to prosecute the Heythrop?

  • Total voters
    0
Mike007 said:
CPtrayes you are incorrect. The court awards the costs or not,at its discretion ,but it doesnt set the amount.
Click to expand...


I am not incorrect. A Magistrates Court can decide that the convicted person can afford only part of the costs and award that amount.
 
Mike007 said:
But this wasnt a magistrates court.
Click to expand...

I believe it was, held in front of a District Judge who regularly sit in MAgistrate's Courts. District Judges do not sit in Crown Courts.

I also believe that Crown Court judges have to have the same regard for a defendant's ability to pay and therefore also have discretion over the amount of prosecution costs that s/he is directed to pay.

No convicted criminal is ever supposed to be made to pay costs that will bankrupt them or take a lifetime to pay back.
 
Last edited:
indie999 said:
So the courts were wrong? Publicity is the only way to get action sometimes and supporters a bit like our politicians trying to get votes. I suppose they could have just done nothing then but I disagree even if you work in veterinary practice I would still say any animal ripped apart is a bit inhumane. Would still rather PTS humanely. Much kinder. Good old RSPCA I say.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on the case regarding the hunt. Rather the way the RSPCA portrays an image of helping sick and injured wildlife, RTA stray cats etc, then rakes in the donations and spends them on 'political' cases such as the hunt thing, whilst HQ are useless at helping anyone ringing with an injured animal and usually direct them to a private vets.

Donate to the PDSA, Dogs Trust, WHW or CPL - it will help more animals.
 
cptrayes said:
I believe it was, held in front of a District Judge who regularly sit in MAgistrate's Courts. District Judges do not sit in Crown Courts.

I also believe that Crown Court judges have to have the same regard for a defendant's ability to pay and therefore also have discretion over the amount of prosecution costs that s/he is directed to pay.

No convicted criminal is ever supposed to be made to pay costs that will bankrupt them or take a lifetime to pay back.
Click to expand...

Good greif! Do you actualy believe that.
 
Ok Oxford magistrates court,. Now let us assume both parties believe they are in the right. The court cannot satisfy both . If the defendent is found not guilty,the prosecution can appeal. If the prosecution has an enormous amount of money to throw at this case ,they can effectively "buy " a conviction by simply making it too expensive for the defendent to continue.
 
Mike007 said:
Ok Oxford magistrates court,. Now let us assume both parties believe they are in the right. The court cannot satisfy both . If the defendent is found not guilty,the prosecution can appeal. If the prosecution has an enormous amount of money to throw at this case ,they can effectively "buy " a conviction by simply making it too expensive for the defendent to continue.
Click to expand...

It is extremely rare for the prosecution to appeal. I am not sure that it is even allowed in a Magistrates Court.
 
cptrayes said:
It is extremely rare for the prosecution to appeal. I am not sure that it is even allowed in a Magistrates Court.
Click to expand...

The CPS is rather pragmatic,but this case was not brought by the CPS ,it was a private prosecution. I believe that an easy exaple of the prosecution appealing ,would be "Frees land drainage" sorry I cant help with a better reference .I do know it was over 20 years ago though.
 
cptrayes said:
Yes. Find me reports of a criminal case where costs have been awarded against a private individual who does not have the means to pay them back within a reasonable time period.
Click to expand...

"proceeds of crime". prettywell everything can be taken upto and including bankruptcy.
 
cptrayes said:
It is extremely rare for the prosecution to appeal. I am not sure that it is even allowed in a Magistrates Court.
Click to expand...

I've googled it and no prosecution appeal is allowed at that level of offence.



These people are convicted criminals, not the victims that you want to believe them to be.
 
Mike007 said:
"proceeds of crime". prettywell everything can be taken upto and including bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Proceeds of crime are not costs. Totally irrelevant to this case.

And by definition, the criminal has them or an order cannot be made to recover them.
 
Mike007 said:
The CPS is rather pragmatic,but this case was not brought by the CPS ,it was a private prosecution. I believe that an easy exaple of the prosecution appealing ,would be "Frees land drainage" sorry I cant help with a better reference .I do know it was over 20 years ago though.
Click to expand...

It was a private criminal prosecution, as are most animal welfare cases. Costs and appeals are handled the same as if the prosecution was done by the CPS

There was never ANY prospect of the private individual defendants being crippled by costs.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
I've googled it and no prosecution appeal is allowed at that level of offence.



These people are convicted criminals, not the victims that you want to believe them to be.
Click to expand...

Yet we are talking about prosecution "costs" of a third of a million for an offence at that level. I believe that if you look up "frees land drainage" in a law book such as stones justices manual ,you will find it. This was an alleged motoring offence .The defendent was found not guilty in the magistrates court and the prosecution appealed , and then lost again.
 
Mike007 said:
Yet we are talking about prosecution "costs" of a third of a million for an offence at that level. I believe that if you look up "frees land drainage" in a law book such as stones justices manual ,you will find it. This was an alleged motoring offence .The defendent was found not guilty in the magistrates court and the prosecution appealed , and then lost again.
Click to expand...

The current law according to the government site I just looked up is that only indictable only offences can be appealed by the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
The current law according to the government site I just looked up is that only indictable only offences can be appealed by the prosecution.
Click to expand...

I bet you there is more to it .It probably has small print attached .If what you say were true then it would be a devil of a job to establish points of law .As we so often say ,until it is tested in court....Well if the prosecution cannot appeal in certain circumstances how do we do it? I have made it a rule never to trust government sites ,they merely give you the governments view. The law is a different matter entirely.
 
Mike007 said:
Ok Oxford magistrates court,. Now let us assume both parties believe they are in the right. The court cannot satisfy both . If the defendent is found not guilty,the prosecution can appeal. If the prosecution has an enormous amount of money to throw at this case ,they can effectively "buy " a conviction by simply making it too expensive for the defendent to continue.
Click to expand...

Surprised to see you are concerned about criminals being able to pay their dues.

Don't forget, the Heythrop were fully aware of the law. They deliberately choose to break it.
They knew they were guilty but they decided to fight the case in the knowledge that it would cost them a considerable sum.

The Heythrop are responsible for causing so much money to be spent on this case by acting illegally and then denying it.

Or should criminals never face justice and laugh at our legal system ?

Who decides what laws we obey. Society or individuals ?
 
The Heythrop took a gamble that because if who they were, and how much financial backing they could raise, if they wanted it, the RSPCA would withdraw. Well, the Heythrop blinked first and are now trying to make something out of the costs. Nice try, but the Heythrop have lost all round. The case, reputation and sport, be nice if they just packed up, there is no reason for them to exist any more.
 
indie999 said:
I wish someone pro hunting can 100% guarantee that each fox dies a humane and dignified death peacefully, just like when I had my horse PTS? Thats my dilemma I dont understand.
Click to expand...

HOW do you think a wild animal can die like that?? Probably the BEST chance they have is to be hit by a car or shot - IF the result of either is instant death. Often it's not, of course, so they die slowly, alone, and in acute pain! Or they die of starvation, or mange.

With hounds, it's quick - and none left wounded (unless a bunch of do-gooders are RIGHT there and put hounds off so fox CAN 'escape' wounded - or worse still, be 'rescued'! A fox is always confident he can escape - otherwise he wouldn't run - he'd freeze!
 
JanetGeorge said:
Often it's not, of course, so they die slowly, alone, and in acute pain! Or they die of starvation, or mange.
Click to expand...
I don't think we can make these assumptions of how wild animals die. If it's organ failure for eg they may well just lie down, sleep go unconscious and die.

If we are going to take the tack (excuse/rationale) that we are saving them from a worse death then perhaps we should offer the same service to all wild animals? :D
 
I didn't understand the psychology of the fox Janet George, I didn't realize how much of a willing participant in this jolly jape the fox was. Nor how pleasant and swift a death following a brief period of exhaustion.

Self effacing justification doesn't really fool anyone though.
 
So it is acceptable to rape someone, as long as you can afford to pay any costs you may incur as a result of being let off?
It is OK for footballers to get away with speeding as they can afford that specialist legal man - name escapes me.
The law only exists to keep poor people under control?
 
horserider said:
Surprised to see you are concerned about criminals being able to pay their dues.

Don't forget, the Heythrop were fully aware of the law. They deliberately choose to break it.
They knew they were guilty but they decided to fight the case in the knowledge that it would cost them a considerable sum.

The Heythrop are responsible for causing so much money to be spent on this case by acting illegally and then denying it.

Or should criminals never face justice and laugh at our legal system ?

Who decides what laws we obey. Society or individuals ?
Click to expand...

My concern is for the disproportionate manner a registered charity used funds to pursue a prosecution. It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of hunting. Charitable status brings with it certain obligations regarding many finnancial issues. I believe that they should no longer be allowed to hold registered charity status.And Horserider,I think the point is that the Heythrop chose NOT to fight the case because of the ludicrous costs being run up .The sums in question would have been considerably greater if this had been fought.
 
Mike007 have you read my post?
"The Heythrop chose not to fight the case"

Errrrrr I will repeat again, they hired a Barrister TO fight the case before the RSPCA did! A lot of the costs ARE down to some of the actions of the defendants during the entire case!
I shall bring to your attention again the rumour that one benefactor funded this case .... And regardless of people's views on it, we are all still talking about it, and they now have a criminal record which is entirely their fault.
 
Clodagh said:
So it is acceptable to rape someone, as long as you can afford to pay any costs you may incur as a result of being let off?
It is OK for footballers to get away with speeding as they can afford that specialist legal man - name escapes me.
The law only exists to keep poor people under control?
Click to expand...

If someone is guilty of rape, you can't buy a not guilty verdict unless you bribe the jury.

Getting the best legal representation is the privilege of the wealthy, just as private health care is.

Therefore the best way to avoid such a problem is to not break the law.

It would save the public's money too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top