JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It is interesting that the Crown Prosecution Service aren't prosecuting this case (hence the RSPCA are) as this indicates the defence info the CPS reviewed means they don't think the case is in the public interest, or that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it doesn't. The RSPCA - along with the ILPH and other equine charities - were first on the scene. They gathered the evidence - and the RSPCA led the prosecution. This is pretty normal - the equine welfare organisations have experience and expertise in animal cruelty cases that the CPS doesn't have.
If the police had been first on the scene and had gathered the evidence, then almost certainly the CPS would have led the prosecution.
And - for the record - the legal definition of 'cruelty' is 'causing unnecessary suffering'.
It is interesting that the Crown Prosecution Service aren't prosecuting this case (hence the RSPCA are) as this indicates the defence info the CPS reviewed means they don't think the case is in the public interest, or that there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it doesn't. The RSPCA - along with the ILPH and other equine charities - were first on the scene. They gathered the evidence - and the RSPCA led the prosecution. This is pretty normal - the equine welfare organisations have experience and expertise in animal cruelty cases that the CPS doesn't have.
If the police had been first on the scene and had gathered the evidence, then almost certainly the CPS would have led the prosecution.
And - for the record - the legal definition of 'cruelty' is 'causing unnecessary suffering'.