Sarah Moulds

[Mrs. Jingle]

My views are immaterial, she was tried by a court and found not guilty, she is therefore not a criminal and committed no offence. If people feel that this is wrong, then surely they should lobby for a change to the law, not hound one individual?

As her acquittal hinged almost entirely on her defense convincing the jury and the judge (who I can best guess have very little personal equine experience or knowledge) that her abuse of the horse is 'normal and acceptable' in the horse world, I think it would be a forgone conclusion that the verdict would be discussed and strongly opposed by a huge majority of equestrians, and rightly so.

So are you also saying that you agree that it is correct to say her undeniable physical abuse is acceptable and normal within your circle of equestrians? She would have had full knowledge and agreed to that line of defense being taken, ergo she feels what she did was acceptable and nobody should be criticising her.

Of course this case will be discussed over and over on social media, in the papers and pretty much anywhere else more than two people who value the welfare of horses and all animals happen to meet, virtually or in reality. Unless she is extremely stupid she would have known that would be the ultimate outcome if she was found not guilty when discussing what line her defense would take.

You are extremely naive if you think this huge miscarriage of justice would NOT be discussed and debated far and wide, whatever the 'law' might have decided.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

By the way I have not seen anyone on this thread or elsewhere on social media, threaten or intimidate this woman. I have only seen her actions and statement afterwards and the case being discussed.

 

[equinerebel]

eta @equinerebel I so sorry to hear about your friend. Hugs.

Thank you so much. It was a fair few years ago now, but it never really leaves you.

 

[Sandstone1]

Is there any possibility that there will be a appeal?

 

[equinerebel]

Is there any possibility that there will be a appeal?

IMO, no. Not because there shouldn't be, but because there's a lack of legal framework for a guilty verdict. The defence argued that punching a horse is acceptable and not uncommon behaviour, and without the legislation or personal experience to say otherwise, the jury (wrongly, IMO) agreed. I genuinely believe that if the welfare act extended to shows and "animal gatherings", the jury would have returned a guilty verdict. The legalisation is written for those transporting horses for monetary gain. They would have been breaking the law had they done exactly what SM did, but it doesn't extend to people like us, or SM.

Again, SM would have been breaking the law had she been gaining money for transporting that horse. But because she wasn't, the law has no basis for considering the exact same behaviour a crime.

 

[Most Curious]

There are always two sides to every story.
If she had this bunch of hunt saboteurs intimidating and harassing her and the youngsters she was looking after, it was quite possible a rash / foolish decision was made.



In my opinion her actions were wrong, but please lets put things into context.

 

[Nancykitt]

If Sabs were in the vicinity the very last thing I would be doing would be giving them any ammunition at all.

Even if Sabs were being verbally abusive, it doesn't follow that it would then be understandable for me to punch and kick a pony. Infact, putting it down to stress makes it worse IMO - 'people were annoying me so I took it out on my pony...'

 

[skinnydipper]

but please lets put things into context.

Could you give me an example please of any situation you feel would excuse her behaviour?

ETA. Nancykitt puts it so much better. There is no excuse.

 

[Rowreach]

I feel that the verdict was a direct result of the wording of the charge brought, and a better worded charge would probably have resulted in a different verdict. Not the first time a prosecution has failed for this reason.

 

[equinerebel]

There are always two sides to every story.
If she had this bunch of hunt saboteurs intimidating and harassing her and the youngsters she was looking after, it was quite possible a rash / foolish decision was made.

View attachment 121576

In my opinion her actions were wrong, but please lets put things into context.

Sorry, but there is no excuse to punch a horse. Try again.

 

[Cortez]

Sorry, but there is no excuse to punch a horse. Try again.

You are quite right, but it rates as very poor horsemanship, which is not (currently) a crime.

 

[equinerebel]

You are quite right, but it rates as very poor horsemanship, which is not (currently) a crime.

It’s a crime if you’re transporting a horse for monetary gain. It’s not (currently) for the rest of us.

 

[Cortez]

It’s a crime if you’re transporting a horse for monetary gain. It’s not (currently) for the rest of us.

....and she wasn't transporting the horse for monetary gain was she? Ergo the verdict that was reached is correct.

 

[equinerebel]

....and she wasn't transporting the horse for monetary gain was she? Ergo the verdict that was reached is correct.

I don’t think anyone’s disputing that, we’re saying it shouldn’t be and that animals need better protection under the law.

 

[Tiddlypom]

....and she wasn't transporting the horse for monetary gain was she? Ergo the verdict that was reached is correct.

Keep up.

 

[Cortez]

Keep up.

Eh?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Post #180. Apologies for the curt response, but in this case the law is an ass, it is highly frustrating.

The verdict was probably correct, but the law failed the pony.

Apparently it is fine to punch a pony when you are not a professional transporter. If you are a professional transporter and you punch a pony, you get done for it.

It's not that the law is too strict for professional transporters, it is that it is too lax for amateurs.

If we want to get into the legal technicalities, lets do it. I study law for a hobby and am always looking to expand my knowledge.

There is currently no legal framework for the welfare of animals or livestock at shows or "animal gatherings" - which I assume a meet came under. However, there is for transporting animals. The law is clear there:



However, unfortunately, the law does not apply in this case as SM was not transporting a horse in the course of business, trade, hire or reward. Had she been, she most likely would have been prosecuted for the exact same thing she was found not guilty on. So forgive me if I'm not willing to consider her free of crime. It's an absence of the law that benefited her, not the absence of any wrongdoing.

 

[Pebble101]

My FIL was impressed when someone punched a horse hard enough to wind it and bring it to its knees - it was when he was in the Kings Troop and the horse had but bitten somone (this was many years ago). MIL bought this up last night in support of SM - I told her that I was not impressed. I think the difference to the SM case was the 'punishment' was instant not some minutes later. FIL was not an animal lover, he once launched their cat out of the top window of their house because it had messed in the bathroom.

 

[SO1]

Yes these people look scary but that is not a reason to punch or kick a horse in the way she did.

I think we need to forget about the hunting element to this case. As an equine community we need to stand together and say that what she did was wrong and not acceptable. She is a teacher and a pony instructor a role model for kids my concern is that kids are going to think this is an acceptable way to reprimand a pony.

I would say she does not deserve death threats and violent threats on social media there are peaceful ways of educating people and telling
them what they did was unacceptable. People are allowed to say that what she did is unacceptable and most people do not use that level of anger and violence to train or reprimand a horse. If that is acceptable what level of violence towards a horse is unacceptable?

I can see for a lay jury that that it maybe it is confusing as to it being "normal" to smack a horse with a whip or "kick on" to get them going in some scenarios but not ok to kick and punch the horse in the way Sarah did. Add into the mix that it was a children's pony and the defence saying it's behaviour if not corrected could have led to a child getting hurt and I can see the logic as to why she was acertained to be not guilty by a lay jury. After all how many people can say they have not been told by an instructor to "give a horse a tap/smack or use more "leg".

I would hope that organisations that represent horse welfare will stand up and say in their opinion this is not an acceptable way of training horses. I would like to see a statement from the BSH and the Pony Club that their training methods do not advocate punching horses in the head and kicking them in this manner. However I expect this will not happen as it may draw attention to the fact that whips are rountinely used as a training method and it is not nice to smack and kick horses on their sides to get them to do things but that lots of people do it.

There are always two sides to every story.
If she had this bunch of hunt saboteurs intimidating and harassing her and the youngsters she was looking after, it was quite possible a rash / foolish decision was made.

View attachment 121576

In my opinion her actions were wrong, but please lets put things into context.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

My FIL was impressed when someone punched a horse hard enough to wind it and bring it to its knees - it was when he was in the Kings Troop and the horse had but bitten somone (this was many years ago). MIL bought this up last night in support of SM - I told her that I was not impressed. I think the difference to the SM case was the 'punishment' was instant not some minutes later. FIL was not an animal lover, he once launched their cat out of the top window of their house because it had messed in the bathroom.

My goodness Pebble 101, how on earth did you manage to even be in the same room as your FIL??? I really don't think I could have maintained any pretence of polite in law interaction with that sort of animal abuser.

 

[ycbm]

I feel that the verdict was a direct result of the wording of the charge brought, and a better worded charge would probably have resulted in a different verdict. Not the first time a prosecution has failed for this reason.

I think the wording had to come from the Act which is broken? Just pulling someone's hair without pulling it out, or giving someone a slap that leaves no mark at all, for examples , would be charged as assault by beating.
.

 

[fetlock]

I wonder if the verdict may have been different, had the make up of the jury been more evenly split (11 men and 1 woman on the jury for this case).

Not particularly insinuating anything here, men v women wise, it was just something in reports that caught my eye sufficiently to ponder upon.

 

[Rowreach]

I think the wording had to come from the Act which is broken? Just pulling someone's hair without pulling it out, or giving someone a slap that leaves no mark at all, for examples , would be charged as assault by beating.
.

Yes, it's just that by bringing these cases at hundreds of thousands of pounds the charity is, arguably, misdirecting funds which would be better spent elsewhere on charges that are practically impossible to prove, based on the wording of the charge

 

[ycbm]

Yes, it's just that by bringing these cases at hundreds of thousands of pounds the charity is, arguably, misdirecting funds which would be better spent elsewhere on charges that are practically impossible to prove, based on the wording of the charge

Couldn't agree more. Compete waste of charitable donations on an unwinnable charge (given a reasonable jury, which they aren't always! ).
.

 

[AdorableAlice]

Yes, it's just that by bringing these cases at hundreds of thousands of pounds the charity is, arguably, misdirecting funds which would be better spent elsewhere on charges that are practically impossible to prove, based on the wording of the charge

The RSPCA has been misdirecting funds for years, in more ways than one. There are many cases of abhorrent cruelty evidenced to them that they do not investigate. They prefer cases with publicity.

 

[DabDab]

Post #180. Apologies for the curt response, but in this case the law is an ass, it is highly frustrating.

The verdict was probably correct, but the law failed the pony.

Apparently it is fine to punch a pony when you are not a professional transporter. If you are a professional transporter and you punch a pony, you get done for it.

It's not that the law is too strict for professional transporters, it is that it is too lax for amateurs.

But what Cortez is getting at is a fair point to make. It's difficult to legislate for what physical contact constitutes abuse, or violence or whatever. Physical force/pressure is routinely used to train horses. Anyone who knows anything about horses (or training animals in general) can see plain as day that what she did was bang out of order and falls into the category of abuse in most of our minds. But she successfully argued that the physical contact used was suitable as a horse training technique.

It wasn't. It was shoddy horsemanship. It was punitive. It involved physical contact to the face (which is always a clear red line in my book). But those aspects of what she did are not currently accounted for in law, and they are also quite different to adequately define in law.

 

[equinerebel]

It is defined in law, it just doesn’t apply to ordinary horse owners.

make sure anyone handling the animals are trained or competent in the task and do not use violence or any methods likely to cause unnecessary fear, injury or suffering

If I were prosecuting on a case where that legislation did apply, ie a professional horse transporter, I would argue that punching a horse at such a time after the behaviour she claims provoked it was indeed violent and would cause unnecessary fear and injury to the animal. We all know that was inappropriate treatment of the animal, and with legal legislation prosecution would have been able to prove it.

Alas, it doesn’t apply in this case so defence had the legal upper hand - which is why they won. I think it should apply to anyone and everyone handling horses and would love to see stronger legislation.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Just a thought. If Moulds left her horse tied up for the farrier and bumbled off to make a coffee for him or whatever. Then came back to witness him applying her version of justifiable punishment to her horse for not standing still or some minor demeanour, would she think that OK do you think?

Purely hypothetical of course, but would be interesting to follow through on her thought process that deemed it acceptable to do this herself. Would she also feel quite as happy about it being doled out by someone else against her horse, who could also claim it was essential for safety to reprimand it in such a violent and abusive way,

 

[neddy man]

Curiosity, if every time she went hunting the sabs filmed her doing similar punishment to the pony when it was naughty loading would she be found innocent week in week out?

 

[Red-1]

There are always two sides to every story.
If she had this bunch of hunt saboteurs intimidating and harassing her and the youngsters she was looking after, it was quite possible a rash / foolish decision was made.

View attachment 121576

In my opinion her actions were wrong, but please lets put things into context.

See, if that were the case, it would make me ever more protective of children and ponies. No, it would not make me punch the pony. I would be highly on my guard to protect both as I would be fearing for the safety of both.