What was Jamie Grays' line of business?

[Paddywhack]

[ QUOTE ]
patty - question for you. The thinest, poorest looking horses on the farm, how long had they been in JGs possession, ie, how long had he owned them for?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the question again for Patty in case she can't find it

Lets see how many green frogs will be jumping out of Patty's mouth this time

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
patty - question for you. The thinest, poorest looking horses on the farm, how long had they been in JGs possession, ie, how long had he owned them for?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the question again for Patty in case she can't find it

Lets see how many green frogs will be jumping out of Patty's mouth this time

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya SL, aka PW. I just knew you does LUFF me reeeeeeelly because you have an extremely odd way of showing that you are not interested what I have to say. Mwa KISHES 4 ya.

Off the top of my nut JG had owned them from around the 18th of December.

 

[PoppyAnderson]

So he'd owned tham a couple of months or so then? Sorry, I genuinely don't know the timeline of events.

 

[brummel]

Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications.

 

[brummel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually sit in the public gallery?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually sit in the public gallery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I sat in the public gallery. It consisted of 3 (could have been 4) rows of blue chairs with fold away writing tables on the right hand side of each chair. There was about 5/6 chairs per row. Kirsty Hampton sat at a table just in front of the gallery alongside a short hair woman with a wide butt. To the left of their table was another table where the defence veterinary experts sat. In front of those experts was a table where Nigel Weller sat - to the right of Mr Weller sat Mr Odonald who was the solicitor for the RSPCA. Just to the right of him was a single desk which Mr Peter Green (prosecution expert vet) sat. In front of these were long tables where Defence barristers sat and the prosecutor sat to the right of them. Then there was the clark of the court who faced the the said people - then behind her was the risen bench where the district judge sat facing the people. The defendants sat in a row with the public gallery to their right. Just in front of Mr Green was the desk where the prosecution witnesses gave their evidence. When it was time for the defence to give evidence the desk was moved to the other side of the court room. Anything else?

 

[dozzie]

The raid was on the 4th of January.

Hope that helps.

 

[brummel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patty

How often did you attend the trial and did you sit in the courtroom's public gallery on each occassion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was there throughout the trial and always sat in the court room. There were several days that I did not attend but those days consisted of legal arguments and applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually sit in the public gallery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I sat in the public gallery. It consisted of 3 (could have been 4) rows of blue chairs with fold away writing tables on the right hand side of each chair. There was about 5/6 chairs per row. Kirsty Hampton sat at a table just in front of the gallery alongside a short hair woman with a wide butt. To the left of their table was another table where the defence veterinary experts sat. In front of those experts was a table where Nigel Weller sat - to the right of Mr Weller sat Mr Odonald who was the solicitor for the RSPCA. Just to the right of him was a single desk which Mr Peter Green (prosecution expert vet) sat. In front of these were long tables where Defence barristers sat and the prosecutor sat to the right of them. Then there was the clark of the court who faced the the said people - then behind her was the risen bench where the district judge sat facing the people. The defendants sat in a row with the public gallery to their right. Just in front of Mr Green was the desk where the prosecution witnesses gave their evidence. When it was time for the defence to give evidence the desk was moved to the other side of the court room. Anything else?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't in the least bit interested in the description of the layout of the courtroom, just whether you actually sat in the public gallery every time you attended. The reason being, according to a reliable source, there where only reporters present on quite a number of occassions..

 

[Paddywhack]

Too detailed information of the court room if you ask me
(Patty IS on ignore btw but i could see the above post )..and also since she lives across the Atlantic i doubt very much that she attended at all...naah she is full of it,green frogs again

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn't in the least bit interested in the description of the layout of the courtroom, just whether you actually sat in the public gallery every time you attended. The reason being, according to a reliable source, there where only reporters present on quite a number of occassions..

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not have bothered going if I was not going to sit in the public gallery. That would have been pretty pointless.

As for your reliable source, I'm afraid that source cant possibly be reliable as alot of the time I was the only person in the public gallery. On many occassions there was not a single reporter there. On the last day it was packed inside and outside the court. I saw a woman there who posts here - I recognized her from the photos posted of the convoy for OE. She was wearing a green jacket with writing on the back. I think her name may be Michelle but I could be wrong.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
Too detailed information of the court room if you ask me
(Patty IS on ignore btw but i could see the above post )..and also since she lives across the Atlantic i doubt very much that she attended at all...naah she is full of it,green frogs again

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh SL, please do get over yourself. I live in the UK and there are 4 posters here who can verify that.

And just for the record, I dont believe for a single moment that you have me on ignore.

 

[brummel]

[ QUOTE ]
As for your reliable source, I'm afraid that source cant possibly be reliable as alot of the time I was the only person in the public gallery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, I can assure you they are very reliable.

 

[SpruceRI]

I know I wasn't going to comment further - but found this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/rspca-gray-others-witnesses.pdf

Very long but an interesting read.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your reliable source, I'm afraid that source cant possibly be reliable as alot of the time I was the only person in the public gallery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, I can assure you they are very reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smallholder, I can assure you that your source is not very reliable. Either that or your source may have thought I was a reporter because I was writing notes. Either way I was most certainly there in the public gallery.

Maybe you should ask your reporter friend why he/she was not there a lot of the time.

 

[brummel]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should ask your reporter friend why he/she was not there a lot of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, they where in the public gallery more often than you.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should ask your reporter friend why he/she was not there a lot of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Patty, they where in the public gallery more often than you.

[/ QUOTE ]


I should know how often I was in the court. Your reporter friend is most certainly not a reliable source.

 

[Happy Horse]

I have been re-reading the ruling and have noticed that the horses were removed from Spindles Farm on January 9th yet John Parker, the vet giving evidence for the defence was not instructed until January 14th and did not examine them in their places of safety until January 20/21 a full 11 days following their removal from Spindles Farm.

He therefore did not see the state of the animals removed from the farm or the conditions they were removed from and did not see them until they had received 11 days of feeding and proper veterinary care and treatment.

Why did this delay occur? Why was he not called to examine the animals as soon as they were removed? There is no way the condition of the horses would be the same as at the time of removal after 11 days of proper care.

He did not visit Spindles until February 1st, 22 days following the removal of the horses by which time I am certain that the conditions would have changed for his visit.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February which included his noted body score forms. He uses a different range than the range advocated by the Equine Industry Welfare Guideline Compendium. His scores were different to those used by the vets dealing with the horses on the days of seizure and at the refuges. Partly, possibly, because of the different arithmetic involved. Mr. Parker was not able to spend as much time with each equine as he may have wished with so many to see in a short time.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Paddywhack]

Patty was not there that's the end of it

 

[RantBucket]

Neither of the veterinary expert witnesses gave assistance to the court, they were both hired guns acting for JG and the Judge realised this so their evidence was dismissed. I found this rather interesting report written by Ms Madeleine Forsyth in which she goes to great lengths to state that the Vet expert witnbesses should assist the court in arriving at a verdict, but she obviously has not acted upon it as she and John Parker were anti RSPCA and did all they could to assist JG even to the point of making themselves look entirely stupid.
[ QUOTE ]
Veterinary Expert-or not ? By Ms Madeleine Forsyth
The role of the veterinary surgeon as a witness in Court proceedings is a position of enormous importance, professionally, ethically and morally. And it isn’t taken seriously enough.
Recent cases make it clear that many veterinary surgeons do not understand their duty to the Court, their status as a witness, the effect of their opinion, and it is just as clear that the moral and professional dilemmas that often arise haven’t been considered before the Expert exposes themselves to inevitable criticism.
What sort of Witness ?
You may be a Witness of Fact, where you simply state your observations, or an Expert Witness, or both at the same time. It is in the latter case that an immediate conflict arises. If the witness of fact then gives an Expert opinion on their factual statement which leads to charges being laid, it is very difficult for that person to be objective if contrary ( and persuasive) Expert opinion is offered, as a change of mind will destroy the prosecution case. The RSPCA often employ a second veterinary Expert Witness to support the opinion of the Expert of fact, which avoids the dilemma.
Veterinary Surgeons employed by state agencies such as Defra and MHS have a further dilemma in that it is their duty to enforce the legislation. This increases their need for objectivity, but also increases the risk that the law might be used as a weapon to control those who do not perfectly comply with those who audit their farms and abattoirs.
The Game.
UK law is adversarial, unlike the inquisitorial European systems where information is provided to the Court which makes its determination on the facts. In this country the prosecution and defence present their contrary cases and argue (often aggressively) to persuade the Magistrates or Judge to decide in their favour. It’s a game, and a game of war in which the object is to discredit the Expert Witness for the other side.
By nature the veterinary surgeon does not enjoy criticism and is accustomed to providing advice and guidance, which in the main is accepted with gratitude. However, under cross examination it is entirely normal for the opposing advocate to attack the statement, opinion and competence of the unsuspecting Expert, which can seem a most unpleasant personal and professional assault, but is to be expected in contested cases.
Effect of Opinion.
The effect of a veterinary surgeon’s opinion that unnecessary suffering has been caused to an animal is to provide the prosecution with a hugely powerful tool to secure a conviction, and of course this results in criminalising the defendant. Added to this there may be a custodial sentence or financial penalty ( 1 year and £20.000 under the Animal Welfare Act 2007), and disqualification from keeping animals, or any particular sort of animal for any length of time.
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, most criminal convictions can become 'spent' or forgotten after a 'rehabilitation period' of five years.
There is however a very large category of people for whom convictions can never be spent, including people working in the following professions: doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives, lawyers, opticians, teachers, police officers and people working with children and vulnerable people.
Giving an opinion which may result in someone receiving a criminal record carries with it a very heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that the opinion is objective, educated, considered, and truthful, and these duties are laid down in law.
Duties of an Expert Witness
An expert, according to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 35 is a person “ instructed to give or prepare evidence for the purposes of Court proceedings”, and this requirement is also followed in criminal matters as laid down by Lord Justice Cresswell in the case “The Ikarian Reefer” :
The evidence of an expert should be:
Independent objective and unbiased.
Relate to matters in their field of expertise.

The expert should:
State facts and assumptions which form the basis of their expert opinion.
Consider facts which are capable of detracting from their opinion.
Clearly indicate when a matter falls outside their expertise, or that there is insufficient information to form more than a provisional opinion.
Where the expert could not swear that the content of their report was true without adding a qualification, the expert should state that qualification.
If it is so an expert should state, after exchange of expert reports, that their opinion has changed.
The expert should provide the other party with photographs, clinical data, laboratory results etc to which their evidence refers.

The duty of the expert is to the Court, irrespective of the party instructing them.
A very common misconception is that because an Expert is called either by the prosecution or defence lawyers, their loyalty lies towards that party. This could not be further from the truth. The duty is to assist the Court with technical details of
veterinary issues that the Court might not otherwise understand, and help them come to a fair conclusion.
Of course the expert may have formed a view as to the strength or otherwise of the alleged charge, but it is NOT their duty to be judgmental, but to provide a balanced view of all associated issues so as to best allow the Court to make the ultimate decision.
Writing Statements.
The opinion should be that of the independent practitioner, and as such not dictated or assisted by a third party, nor written on the headed paper of that third party. The format of the statement can be found on any expert Witness website and should contain a statement of truth, qualifications and experience of the writer relative to the issues at trial, be dated and signed by the author and in complete compliance with the rules of the Ikarian Reefer and/or CPR 1998 Part 35, depending on whether the matter is heard in the Criminal or Civil Court.
The evidence should not be discussed with any other Witness in the same case, nor should the writer be coerced into attending joint meetings with any other witnesses or enforcement agents as this is regarded as witness “coaching” . 1 It has the potential for a prosecuting body to allow the witnesses to rehearse their evidence before trial, and repair any weaknesses in the case.
Court Etiquette.
As a professional person you have a duty of courtesy to the Court which should be reflected in your dress-sober and formal, your manner, professional, objective and properly detached and particularly under cross examination, your manners. To the naïve witness the perceived aggressive affront during the testing of their evidence can cause a confrontational reaction-much to the satisfaction of the opposing advocate because it can reduce the credibility of the witness in front of the Court, particularly a lay bench of Magistrates. In the Crown Court the Judge is less likely to permit bullying of a professional witness, but the object is still the same-to discredit the witness to any extent.
It is sensible to ask advice of the advocate as to how to address the bench, when to sit or stand, and how to answer questions, whether in full, or succinctly, but it would be even more useful for the aspiring witness to attend Court before appearing themselves to see the gladiatorial theatre !
In summary.
A Veterinary Expert Witness is not judge or jury, or a hired gun for either party, but a robustly independent professional person, with best knowledge and understanding of the matters at issue before advancing an opinion that may assist to criminalise a
1 R v Momodou [2005] EWCA 177 02/02/2005.
defendant. They should consider all the evidence available, and ensure that is sufficient to form their opinion, rather than make an immediate assumption based on a “snapshot” of information.
Everything about their behaviour should express their objectivity, and their proper conviction.
Madeleine Forsyth (Expert Vet witness)

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[RantBucket]

James Gray expected in court today 2nd June 2009 on welfare charges http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/283664.html

[ QUOTE ]
The trial of Buckinghamshire horse trader James Gray on trading standards charges restarts today (Tuesday) at Folkestone Magistrates Court.

Mr Gray, of Spindle Farm, Amersham, faces fives charges, dating from September and October 2007, which are being brought by Kent County Council.


He is accused of travelling horses through Dover in an unsuitable lorry and without a valid health certificate for the animals.


The case was due to be heard on 27 May but Mr Gray was unwell. He denies all the charges against him.


A verdict is not expected until 17 July.



[/ QUOTE ]

 

[M_G]

OMG Patty are you still here

Tell me one thing, It has been asked in another thread but you chose to ignore it. Are you Anne Kasica?

 

[brummel]

[ QUOTE ]

I should know how often I was in the court. Your reporter friend is most certainly not a reliable source.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes Patty, whatever you say...

 

[native]

Just reading the link that madhossy put up.

First thing that struck me was that on 4th December he let out horses out that were in pen 3 hampering the investigation. It later goes on to say that there was the discovery of 2 dead horses in pen 3. Un-blurdi-believable that these horses were kept in such despicable rank conditions, and having to share with corpses.

I've been following this closely since the horses were rescued and it beggars belief that this man and his family have someone on here defending him.

 

[Gingernags]

That link was really interesting - shows to me that the right decision was reached and doesn't back up Patty.

Oh and re: the transporting charges they date back to 2007 therefore not adding more to this case, it predates by a long way!

So the tally so far, one cruelty charge - convicted, fined, horse siezed. Appeal UNSUCCESSFUL, current one guilty of lots of charges of cruelty, plus seperate transport charges being looked at currently.

Yup, paragon of society! Nice of them to provide their kid with such a good start in life too - homeschooled but 2 years behind the average for his age. Tried to say the horses were his. Lovely family eh?

 

[RantBucket]

And don't forget Gingernags, he was found guilty of assault on PC Metcalf, and also of vandalising an RSPCA van, and has a previous animal cruelty conviction dating back to 2006. He seems to be quite a little rascal doesn’t he, no wonder he has a delinquent son who is 2 years behind his year group! Never mind only 9 days to go until JG is sewing mail bags in prison!

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been re-reading the ruling and have noticed that the horses were removed from Spindles Farm on January 9th yet John Parker, the vet giving evidence for the defence was not instructed until January 14th and did not examine them in their places of safety until January 20/21 a full 11 days following their removal from Spindles Farm.

He therefore did not see the state of the animals removed from the farm or the conditions they were removed from and did not see them until they had received 11 days of feeding and proper veterinary care and treatment.

Why did this delay occur? Why was he not called to examine the animals as soon as they were removed? There is no way the condition of the horses would be the same as at the time of removal after 11 days of proper care.

He did not visit Spindles until February 1st, 22 days following the removal of the horses by which time I am certain that the conditions would have changed for his visit.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Parker produced a report on 1st February which included his noted body score forms. He uses a different range than the range advocated by the Equine Industry Welfare Guideline Compendium. His scores were different to those used by the vets dealing with the horses on the days of seizure and at the refuges. Partly, possibly, because of the different arithmetic involved. Mr. Parker was not able to spend as much time with each equine as he may have wished with so many to see in a short time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter Green who was the expert vet acting for the RSPCA had not EVER seen the animals. His opinions was formed by looking at photos.

 

[M_G]

It has been asked in another thread but you chose to ignore it. Are you Anne Kasica?

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
That link was really interesting - shows to me that the right decision was reached and doesn't back up Patty.

Oh and re: the transporting charges they date back to 2007 therefore not adding more to this case, it predates by a long way!

So the tally so far, one cruelty charge - convicted, fined, horse siezed. Appeal UNSUCCESSFUL, current one guilty of lots of charges of cruelty, plus seperate transport charges being looked at currently.

Yup, paragon of society! Nice of them to provide their kid with such a good start in life too - homeschooled but 2 years behind the average for his age. Tried to say the horses were his. Lovely family eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

The cruelty charges which resulted from the raid were also dated back to 07 - April 07 infact. The only animals seized by the RSPCA which belonged to Mr Gray during April 07 were pets which he had owned for years.

There were no pending cases against Mr Gray at the time of the raid.

 

[patty19]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been asked in another thread but you chose to ignore it. Are you Anne Kasica?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like many posters who have accused me of ignoring questions - you are wrong.

Take the time to look for them.