Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
Unashamedly 'borrowed' from the latest CA round robin;
..
LACS and the criminal justice system
Much of the recent press coverage about the implosion of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) and its considerable efforts in squandering a £3.5 million legacy is irrelevant to the issues on which it campaigns. On the subject of the private prosecution of six members of the Lamerton Hunt there is, however, clear abuse of the criminal justice system and some fundamental questions that remain unanswered.
The first point is that the decision LACS made to prosecute those individuals was clearly significantly influenced by factors other than the evidence and public interest, which are the only tests that would be considered by a statutory prosecutor. The availability of funds, and it seems from LACSs accounts some donations were made specifically to support this prosecution, seems to have been a major factor in bringing the case. Devon and Cornwall Police had already, quite correctly, taken the view that there was no evidence on which to bring charges against anyone, yet LACS charged no fewer than six people and immediately launched a PR campaign repeating allegations against the individuals and the Lamerton Hunt. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prosecution was seen by LACS as an opportunity to get publicity and smear those people it prosecuted, rather than any serious attempt to achieve convictions.
Secondly there remains a huge question mark over the cost of this case. When the trial was halted three days into its 10 day schedule LACS claimed to have spent just £25,000. Frankly that is fanciful. This case involved six separate defendants, took 14 months and several hearings before it finally reached a trial listed for two weeks in the magistrates court for which LACSs solicitors had instructed a QC. Anyone claiming to have spent just £25,000 on that process is quite simply not being truthful. This is not an academic point. LACS is a charity and the money LACS spent on the prosecutions was sourced from charitable donations.
Thirdly, there is the extraordinary inability of LACS to accept its own utter failure to even make a case against the people it tried to prosecute, and its continued smearing of them. You would have thought that a period of silence would have been wise after the humiliation of the collapse of a high profile private prosecution as a result of a conflict of recollection between its expert witness and Chief Executive. LACS, however, is still laughably claiming that this was a very strong case of illegal hunting.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, there seems to be a contradiction between what LACSs expert witness Professor Stephen Harris has said about his relationship with the charity, and what its Trustees say. Professor Harris has said that he spoke to LACS from time to time, whilst LACSs Trustees have apparently believed for years that it is too reliant on Professor Harris. This matters because Professor Harris has consistently given such evidence under oath.
************
I'd further suggest that the Courts of our land start to see the 'charities' for what they really are. It's high time that when the rspca and the lacs quite clearly perjure themselves in Court, that they are held to account just as is the common man.
The Charities Commission could also, perhaps, start to consider the OED explanation of the word 'Charity'.
Alec.
LACS and the criminal justice system
Much of the recent press coverage about the implosion of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) and its considerable efforts in squandering a £3.5 million legacy is irrelevant to the issues on which it campaigns. On the subject of the private prosecution of six members of the Lamerton Hunt there is, however, clear abuse of the criminal justice system and some fundamental questions that remain unanswered.
The first point is that the decision LACS made to prosecute those individuals was clearly significantly influenced by factors other than the evidence and public interest, which are the only tests that would be considered by a statutory prosecutor. The availability of funds, and it seems from LACSs accounts some donations were made specifically to support this prosecution, seems to have been a major factor in bringing the case. Devon and Cornwall Police had already, quite correctly, taken the view that there was no evidence on which to bring charges against anyone, yet LACS charged no fewer than six people and immediately launched a PR campaign repeating allegations against the individuals and the Lamerton Hunt. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prosecution was seen by LACS as an opportunity to get publicity and smear those people it prosecuted, rather than any serious attempt to achieve convictions.
Secondly there remains a huge question mark over the cost of this case. When the trial was halted three days into its 10 day schedule LACS claimed to have spent just £25,000. Frankly that is fanciful. This case involved six separate defendants, took 14 months and several hearings before it finally reached a trial listed for two weeks in the magistrates court for which LACSs solicitors had instructed a QC. Anyone claiming to have spent just £25,000 on that process is quite simply not being truthful. This is not an academic point. LACS is a charity and the money LACS spent on the prosecutions was sourced from charitable donations.
Thirdly, there is the extraordinary inability of LACS to accept its own utter failure to even make a case against the people it tried to prosecute, and its continued smearing of them. You would have thought that a period of silence would have been wise after the humiliation of the collapse of a high profile private prosecution as a result of a conflict of recollection between its expert witness and Chief Executive. LACS, however, is still laughably claiming that this was a very strong case of illegal hunting.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, there seems to be a contradiction between what LACSs expert witness Professor Stephen Harris has said about his relationship with the charity, and what its Trustees say. Professor Harris has said that he spoke to LACS from time to time, whilst LACSs Trustees have apparently believed for years that it is too reliant on Professor Harris. This matters because Professor Harris has consistently given such evidence under oath.
************
I'd further suggest that the Courts of our land start to see the 'charities' for what they really are. It's high time that when the rspca and the lacs quite clearly perjure themselves in Court, that they are held to account just as is the common man.
The Charities Commission could also, perhaps, start to consider the OED explanation of the word 'Charity'.
Alec.