Want to kill your animal and avoid prosecution?

P

patty19

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 May 2009
Messages
434
Visit site
[ QUOTE ]
Norman Llewellyn killed the animal with a single kick during an angry row with his fiancee, Julie Blyth, at her home Cirencester, Glos.

Despite Mr Llewellyn, 52, from Hertfordshire, admitting criminal damage he accepted a caution for causing suffering to Phoebe the dog, which was a gift to his fiancee.

He was also facing possible RSPCA prosecution but the animal charity decided not to charge him with ill treatment because the dog died instantly and did not suffer.

Beverley Carpenter, Ms Blyth's sister, criticised the decision.

"The RSPCA told us they could not do any more about it," she said.

"We think it is disgusting. My sister is devastated about it. It seems no-one wants to know - and we are upset he has got away with it.

"What sort of message does it send out to people?"

The RSPCA defended its decision.

Spokeswoman Judith Haw said: "The RSPCA is deeply troubled by the violent death of this pet dog and investigated immediately once alerted by the police.

"A forensic veterinary surgeon carried out a post-mortem which concluded that the dog died instantly and did not suffer.

"Evidence of suffering is necessary for cruelty to be proven in the courts and as an expert ruled that suffering did not occur, animal welfare offences could not be considered."

She added: "The Society fully understands and shares the public's concern and frustration but of course we can only act within the law.

"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it."

A Gloucestershire police spokeswoman said they decided not to prosecute him because he showed remorse and had no previous convictions.

She added: "An independent investigation in relation to animal welfare was carried out by the RSPCA, fully supported by Gloucestershire Constabulary.

"The conclusion of this examination was that the dog died instantly and did not suffer, therefore no animal welfare offences could be considered."

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...on-despite-kicking-fiancees-dog-to-death.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically folks if you feel the urge to kick an animal to death just make sure you do a good job of it by making sure the first blow will kill it instantly.

What a fantastic bloody message to send out - NOT.
mad.gif


The "charity" should just simply confess that there was not any financial gain in it for them to prosecute the man.
 
Is this really what the law states?? An animal has to feel pain before a conviction can be made?? Pathetic!! I watched an episode of Animal Cops: Houston a few nights ago and they made a guy spend a day and night in jail without any food or water. He had starved his dog to the point when he could no longer be helped. He also got fined something like $1,000. At least the dog got some kind of justice. Unlike here where a killer does not even get a slap on the wrists!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
to my mind this sums up the RSPCA perfectly no money to be made not interested

[/ QUOTE ]

True.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It didnt suffer. Well that's ok then.

It just died.
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

The message seems to be that, if you ever feel the urge to kick an animal to death go right ahead and do so but make sure you can get the job done with 1 swift blow otherwise the RSPCA will prosecute you.

The RSPCA say they prosecute people who are cruel to animals. So basically kicking a little dog to death is not cruel.


Yes very confusing indeed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is this really what the law states?? An animal has to feel pain before a conviction can be made?? Pathetic!! I watched an episode of Animal Cops: Houston a few nights ago and they made a guy spend a day and night in jail without any food or water. He had starved his dog to the point when he could no longer be helped. He also got fined something like $1,000. At least the dog got some kind of justice. Unlike here where a killer does not even get a slap on the wrists!!

[/ QUOTE ]

O but wait. That dog suffered, the little yorkie didnt - theres the difference. What a bloody lame excuse for letting a man get away with kicking a poor little dog to death.

The long and short of it is that there were no £ signs flashing.
mad.gif
 
I think the animal welfare laws need a huge overhaul. Some of these stories are scandalous and the guilty get let off.

Does it apply to humans? If you kick someone and they die but didn't suffer cos it was instantaneous and you didn't intend for them to die is that manslaughter or murder.
 
Much as I cannot bear the RSPCA they ARE contrained by the law. If there is no law under which this man can be prosecuted then they cant really take him to court can they!?
 
"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it"

haha and they have never done this before have they.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Much as I cannot bear the RSPCA they ARE contrained by the law. If there is no law under which this man can be prosecuted then they cant really take him to court can they!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that killing an animal - well a pet - was against the law? And had a 60 day custodial sentence or something.........

And I have NO idea where i heard it from..but i remember it from my youth.
 
WishfulThinker - you might be thinking of the Criminal Damage Act, because of course if you kicked somebody else's pet dog, and they made a complaint of this - you would have damaged their property.

Look guys, you are all missing the point. He has accepted a caution, therefore there is a recordable outcome against him, but without the expense of a court case. He should receive some recognition for at least taking responsibility for what he did, unlike some other high profile offenders who have cost the public vast amounts of money
 
I was thinking about joining the RSPCA but the more I read about it, the more embarassing that organisation became. This is just another case in point. Shocking.

:quote:watched an episode of Animal Cops: Houston a few nights ago and they made a guy spend a day and night in jail without any food or water. He had starved his dog to the point when he could no longer be helped. He also got fined something like $1,000. At least the dog got some kind of justice. Unlike here where a killer does not even get a slap on the wrists!!:quote:

yes I watched that programme a lot and they dont give a seconds thought about bringing these things to justice
 
i hardly think that the RSPCA can be that bad, all charities are regulated and if there were such huge problems with the organisation then this would be brought to light, partiularly when such an organisation is in the public eye
 
[ QUOTE ]
Much as I cannot bear the RSPCA they ARE contrained by the law. If there is no law under which this man can be prosecuted then they cant really take him to court can they!?

[/ QUOTE ]

The word cruelty springs to mind.
 
[ QUOTE ]
"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it"

haha and they have never done this before have they.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if saving the £££ means sending out a message that it's acceptable to kick an animal to death, then thats just fine. NOT!!!
mad.gif
mad.gif
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Look guys, you are all missing the point. He has accepted a caution, therefore there is a recordable outcome against him, but without the expense of a court case. He should receive some recognition for at least taking responsibility for what he did,

[/ QUOTE ]

MH, you cannot possibly be serious?
shocked.gif


No one is missing the point. The point is, that b.....rd kicked a little dog to death and the RSPCA did NOTHING about it.

He was cautioned - BIG POXY DEAL.


By cautioning him the RSPCA are aknowledging the fact that he had committed a crime. People who are believed to be innocent dont get cautioned for a crime they are not believed to have committed.

Sorry but the message is loud and clear - there was no cash to be made by prosecuting them man.


[ QUOTE ]
unlike some other high profile offenders who have cost the public vast amounts of money

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to have to inform you but it's the RSPCA who have cost the public vast amounts of money.
 
How is this typical RSPCA!!! A VET gave witness that the animal did not suffer so how can you persue a case of animal suffering!!????? It would be a waste of charity money to chase this prosecution....

I'm not saying that the man was right in anyway and I'm just as frustrated as everyone that he's not being punished BUT it is not illegal to kill your own dog as long as it is done in a humane way without causing suffering... Which in this case a VET states it did not suffer.... So HOW is this the RSPCA's fault?????
 
patty - you really are not getting it.

there was no legal basis to prosecute this man, you might not like it but that is the law and the police and the RSPCA and all other prosecuting agencies have to work within the law. In fact it might have been slightly unethical to to allow a caution - but it is at least a recordable outcome.

this isn't about money, you silly hysterical anti RSPCA activist - but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story - it hasn't stopped you so far.
 
mother_hen- dont you think the rspca would have more money and resources, to put into cases like this if they did not have to be poured into scum like james gray and his friends
wink.gif
???????????
 
[ QUOTE ]
patty - you really are not getting it.

there was no legal basis to prosecute this man, you might not like it but that is the law and the police and the RSPCA and all other prosecuting agencies have to work within the law. In fact it might have been slightly unethical to to allow a caution - but it is at least a recordable outcome.

this isn't about money, you silly hysterical anti RSPCA activist - but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story - it hasn't stopped you so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

M_H I fear you are beating your head against a brick wall here
crazy.gif
But you have my continued admiration for trying to explain the legal facts to people about cases such as this
smile.gif
 
Patty and others who have posted that this man should have been prosecuted for cruelty, would you prosecute a person who shot a rabbit, or hit a rat with a shovel? Just intererested, also do you consider the killing of a dog to be on the same scale as killing a person?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Patty and others who have posted that this man should have been prosecuted for cruelty, would you prosecute a person who shot a rabbit, or hit a rat with a shovel?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to because I think it's cruel . Somehow the RSPCA dont believe it's cruel to kick a little dog to death. And going by your question, it would appear you dont think it's cruel either.


People are shooting rabbits every day. Maybe you think it's okay for little dogs to be kicked to death every day too?

On a side note, I dont even like rats - infact I hate them, but I would never find it acceptable to beat one to death with a shovel.


[ QUOTE ]
Just intererested, also do you consider the killing of a dog to be on the same scale as killing a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I dont, but I still think that kicking a little dog to death is nothing other than bloody cruel. And there is no way on this planet that the man should have got away with it. I'm not a violent person but if my husband ever did anything like that to an animal I think my mind would just go blank, and I would probably tear into him like a wild animal and draw blood. It make my blood boil just thinking of it.
 
My friend was recently beaten up by a gang of chavs. He was minding his own business at the bus station on his way home from my house.

The police did not get sufficient evidence for prosecution and so the case was dropped. Even though a group were caught on CCTV, the attack itself was not. Therefore it would not stand up in court.

Does this mean it is ok to go round beating innocent people up? No.

But the fact is, without EVIDENCE of a CRIME, nothing can be done. The RSPCA would waste resources on a case they could do nothing about.
 
[ QUOTE ]
mother_hen- dont you think the rspca would have more money and resources, to put into cases like this if they did not have to be poured into scum like james gray and his friends
wink.gif
???????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they do have the money to put into such a case. Sadly, cases such as this dont whip the public into a frenzy in such a way that they to dig deep in their pockets.

The bottom line is - they weighed up the odds and could not foresee any financial gain.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is - they weighed up the odds and could not foresee any financial gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't BELIEVE I'm defending the RSPCA here - but you ARE talking total tosh! The RSPCA will only prosecute a case if it thinks it can secure a conviction. That doesn't just mean evidence - it means considering the law.

Personally, I'd like to see ANYONE who kicks a dog get a good kicking back! But the dog died instantly which means there was no "suffering" - unnecessary or not! And the test of cruelty is whether it caused "unnecessary suffering".

The ONLY thing this poor excuse for a man could be prosecuted for is criminal damage - and that would NOT be within the RSPCA's remit as an animal welfare charity!

IF the RSPCA brought a prosecution for cruelty the man WOULD be acquitted! AND get costs against the RSPCA or the taxpayer (in RSPCA cases, where the defendant 'wins', costs are usually awarded 'from the public purse' - ie the taxpayer!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top