# I know that I shouldn't chortle, but .. !



## Alec Swan (3 December 2015)

For how much longer are charitable organisations going to be allowed to waste staggering sums of money on prosecutions which the CPS firstly refuse to take up,  and secondly counsel against?  There are those certain charities which hide under an umbrella which is a complete contradiction to their charters,  and to the point of having no respect for Justice or the Courts.  Rachel Newman,  a qualified solicitor and she offered encouragement to those who it would seem were prepared to perjure themselves?  

Below is an interesting read.

Alec.

"Questions need to be asked" as Hunting Act case collapses 

The League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) private prosecution under the Hunting Act against six members of the Lamerton Hunt collapsed this morning, three days into a scheduled 10-day trial at Newton Abbot Magistrates' Court. LACS withdrew all evidence following an application by the Lamertons barrister, Peter Glenser, to have expert witness Professor Stephen Harris removed from the proceedings.

Professor Harris had revealed under cross examination that he had a close personal relationship with a LACS employee, and was also read an email which he himself had written in 2012 stating that it would be very damaging if the police knew of his relationship with LACS. The court sought confirmation from absent LACS acting chief executive Rachel Newman, a qualified solicitor, that she had advised Professor Harris not to disclose the relationship with the LACS employee. Professor Harris had also been accused of embellishing his experience of hunting whilst giving evidence. Rather than answer these very serious questions LACS withdrew all charges. The defendants were represented by barrister Peter Glenser and solicitor Jamie Foster who will seek costs from LACS at a hearing next week.

This case raises a series of fundamental questions about the abuse of the criminal justice system by vindictive private prosecutors. LACS spent more than £100,000 of charitable funds on a case that the police had correctly judged simply did not stand up. In desperation it has then sought to present as independent an expert witness who was clearly deeply prejudiced against the defendants and used the court process to harass six innocent people over an 18-month period. Questions need to be asked at the highest levels about this abuse.

Our congratulations go to the six defendants who have been cleared and had the weight of this prosecution lifted from their shoulders, and to solicitor Jamie Foster and barrister Peter Glenser who represented them so effectively. The Countryside Alliance has been working with them all from the first moment LACS allegations surfaced nearly two years ago. Helping those dragged into this sort of vindictive prosecution is one of the reasons we exist.

I am pleased to report that there were no prosecutions of hunts from the 2014/15 hunting season, and that this was the last outstanding Hunting Act prosecution involving a hunt. Animal rights groups will continue to make allegations, and perhaps even bring prosecutions, but as long as we stand together we will continue to beat them. 

Tim Bonner
Chief Executive
Follow on Twitter @CA_TimB


----------



## ExmoorHunter (3 December 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			For how much longer are charitable organisations going to be allowed to waste staggering sums of money on prosecutions which the CPS firstly refuse to take up,  and secondly counsel against?  There are those certain charities which hide under an umbrella which is a complete contradiction to their charters,  and to the point of having no respect for Justice or the Courts.  Rachel Newman,  a qualified solicitor and she offered encouragement to those who it would seem were prepared to perjure themselves?  

It's great news isn't it and absolutely right.  It will be interesting to see what costs are awarded and what "a close personal relationship" involves!!  What a shame that 6 innocent people had this hanging over them for so long.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Countryman (3 December 2015)

This really is completely disgraceful. I hope they get full costs awarded. Why should the taxpayer have to subsidise their political campaign?


----------



## popsdosh (4 December 2015)

Must admit the parody Wessex hunt sabs on facebook are very close to the truth on the incompetence sometimes.
Hopefully the acting CEO of LACS will get struck off as a solicitor as well.


----------



## Alec Swan (4 December 2015)

The worrying point about those charities which have been granted the power to prosecute,  is that,  unlike the CPS,  they have no sense of justice and will win at any cost,  including perjury.  

The CPS,  unlike these charities,  is compelled to present truthful and unbiased evidence before a Court.  Should the Police present evidence to the CPS which has been adulterated,  then the offending officers will themselves face justice.  

Is it not time that the knowingly deceitful representatives of the lacs and the rspca who present perjured evidence also face the same level of justice?  I believe that it is.

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (4 December 2015)

I dont know if you have seen it at all Alec but the government are very seriously looking to take away the RSPCAs right to prosecute(or persecute) cases and hand it back to the CPS . The home affairs committee is very uneasy about how they prosecute with political motives.


----------



## Shay (5 December 2015)

Sadly the costs awarded - if awarded and if paid! - will cover only the legal costs of the defence. (And possibly not all of those...) It does not cover the cost of the court which is paid by the tax payer.  All of us suffer when these vexatious prosecutions are brought.

I continue to be amazed that private prosecutions of this type can fall within charitable status.  However on the positive note there is now recorded precedent as to the actions of the LACS in preparing cases which will assist any others who find themselves in a similar position.

And on that note - off to the stables to load up to hunt this morning....


----------



## Alec Swan (5 December 2015)

Thinking further,  it now surprises me that in normal Court proceedings,  the Police present to the CPS the evidence needed to affect a prosecution.  It isn't the Police who actually prosecute.  Under previous arrangements,  the charities similarly presented to the CPS the evidence which they had and again the CPS would decide upon the safety of the case and whether to proceed.  

Are we now,  logically going to see the CPS hand over the power of prosecution to the Police?  The Police,  a regulated body,  don't directly prosecute,  so why are an unregulated body apparently given the facility to act in a cart blanche manner and which appears to act with out any regard but their own promotion?  

I'll be honest,  I'm left wondering how this ridiculous state was arrived at in the first place,  unless it was because those who handed over the power to prosecute 'imagined' that those charities concerned would apply some sense of ethics to their newly achieved status.  Will those who grant such freedoms now insist upon reform,  or will they simply remove the facility in total?  Sadly,  I suspect that 'reform' will be the way forwards and that reform will in time,  increase the powers granted to (specifically the rspca) and to give them powers of entry and put them on a level footing with those agencies which are currently and directly,  under Government control.  Were the same facilities granted as are available to say Trading Standards and the Police,  then perhaps that would be a good thing,  but then for that to happen,  and to avoid compromise,  their charitable status would have to be removed to prevent the inevitable conflict of interest.  Were such a status granted to the rspca would we then see them working in even closer collusion with the lacs who,  if it can be imagined,  display an even greater level of corruption and contempt of our legal system?  

Alec.


----------



## Countryman (5 December 2015)

Alec, the right to prosecute hasn't been specifically given to these charities - everybody can bring a private prosecution  - individuals like you and I, companies and yes, charities. This is an ancient idea - until the police force was formed in the 1830's, practically every prosecution was a private prosecution (although some were brought by public officials, they were acting as private individuals). Then the police took over, until amid much corruption in the 70's and 80's (I think) the CPS was formed to be a more 'impartial' prosecutor.

However, the CPS can take over a case from a private prosecutor and then declare it not in the public interest to proceed. Equally, a person or organisation who misuses the courts system for their own purposes (e.g political ones) can  be designated a 'vexatious litigant' and have their power to prosecute suspended. Who knows what will happen next?


----------



## chillipup (5 December 2015)

As I have stated on more that one occasion on this forum, anyone in England and Wales can bring a private prosecution to court. That includes you and I. The Rspca has never been given a right nor have they ever been granted the power, to take their own prosecutions. They didn't need to. CPS never reviewed Rspca case files prior to prosecution. The Rspca have been taking their own investigated animal cruelty prosecutions to court, ever since they were founded back in 1824.(prior to a full Police force being formed in England). The CPS have, on occasion, taken an animal cruelty prosecution to court when evidence has been produced following a joint investigation by the Rspca and the Police. They have also taken prosecutions when only the police have investigated and have sought the rspca's expertise in animal welfare law.   

The Rspca use their own in house legal team to assess and review each and every case that has been investigated by an Inspector and put forward for possible prosecution. If there is insufficient evidence to suggest a likely conviction being attained in a prosecution, it will not proceed to court. Just like the CPS cases.
Of course, it is this fact, of using their own staff, as opposed to using the CPS or some other independent body, to review and assess potential prosecutions, prior to proceeding to court, that is causing such a hoo-ha and it is perfectly understandable.


----------



## Countryman (5 December 2015)

The problem with the general system is, any organisation that is prepared to spend exorbitant amounts of money to achieve their goal are granted an inbuilt advantage. 

Face it, if I prosecuted you using a team of top QC's and warned you from the outset that unless you pleaded guilty, their cost to me would be around £2 Million.

 And I then explained that if you plead Not Guilty, if you are found guilty -and minor miscarriages of justice are fairly common - the court would order you to pay my full costs i.e £2 Million ... you might very well decide to take a small fine compared to the chance (no matter how confident you are of your case) of being bankrupt for the rest of your life.


----------



## Lizzie66 (7 December 2015)

Surely the answer is relatively straightforward. Anyone wishing to pursue a criminal court case in England & Wales should present evidence to the CPS, the CPS then decide on whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed. If so then the CPS takeover the prosecution if not then the 3rd party (be it a charity or individual) has to sign a waiver to cover all court costs this would include both sides legal fees, the court time including judges, clerks, jury costs and expenses etc.

If the court finds the defendant guilty then the judge MAY make a ruling that some or all costs are payable by the defendant. These should be capped at his/her own legal costs plus up to 10 x maximum fine . This would then mean that private prosecutors are aware up front that even if successful they should moderate their legal expenses in line with the severity of the case otherwise they run the risk of getting a huge bill. It also means that a defendant knows up front what the maximum cost to them may be and they are therefore less likely to plea guilty just to avoid the risk of crippling costs.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 December 2015)

Lizzie66 said:



			Surely the answer is relatively straightforward. Anyone wishing to pursue a criminal court case in England & Wales should present evidence to the CPS, the CPS then decide on whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed. If so then the CPS takeover the prosecution if not then the 3rd party (be it a charity or individual) has to sign a waiver to cover all court costs this would include both sides legal fees, the court time including judges, clerks, jury costs and expenses etc.

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

^^^^ This.  Generally,  I feel that our Justice system is fairly straightforward,  and as you suggest,  if those pressing the CPS in to taking action,  have their request turned down and decide to ignore the advice that they're given,  then they need to accept the consequences of failure.  The case when those of the Heythrop were charged,  had those involved pleading guilty because bankruptcy was the risk which they faced if they persevered with a defence.  That isn't justice,  anymore than a secondary prosecuting body being in a win-win situation is.

Hopefully,  the flaw in the current processing system will be ironed out by those who administer to us all.

Alec.


----------



## popsdosh (8 December 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			^^^^ This.  Generally,  I feel that our Justice system is fairly straightforward,  and as you suggest,  if those pressing the CPS in to taking action,  have their request turned down and decide to ignore the advice that they're given,  then they need to accept the consequences of failure.  The case when those of the Heythrop were charged,  had those involved pleading guilty because bankruptcy was the risk which they faced if they persevered with a defence.  That isn't justice,  anymore than a secondary prosecuting body being in a win-win situation is.

Hopefully,  the flaw in the current processing system will be ironed out by those who administer to us all.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

The BIG issue is the RSPCA do not go to the CPS first they prosecute directly as it is a cash generating operation for them. They dont want the CPS to prosecute as it leaves them no opportunity to levy unreasonable cost on people ! A lot of it would be curtailed if some judges had the guts to refuse their extortionate cost claims so making it less lucrative. If you look very cynically at their prosecutions very rarely do they prosecute those who have no money at all. They have no morals at all as an example a friend rented a farm from an old lady who unknown to him had left it in her will to the RSPCA.The old lady died one evening and 9 o clock the next morning a solicitor from the RSPCA was at his door with a notice to quit!


----------



## chillipup (8 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			The BIG issue is the RSPCA do not go to the CPS first they prosecute directly as it is a cash generating operation for them. They dont want the CPS to prosecute as it leaves them no opportunity to levy unreasonable cost on people ! A lot of it would be curtailed if some judges had the guts to refuse their extortionate cost claims so making it less lucrative. If you look very cynically at their prosecutions very rarely do they prosecute those who have no money at all. They have no morals at all as an example a friend rented a farm from an old lady who unknown to him had left it in her will to the RSPCA.The old lady died one evening and 9 o clock the next morning a solicitor from the RSPCA was at his door with a notice to quit!
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA investigated *159,831 *cruelty complaints last year, most resulted in their Inspectors issuing advice/guidance. *2,419 *resulted in actual prosecutions. The Rspca *do not* choose prosecutions based on the income of the defendant(s) Whether rich or poor, if you've committed a cruelty offence that warrants prosecution, - (where all criteria to do so has been met) so be it. Whether you believe it or not, the Rspca  follows the Crown prosectution services' own guidelines whether to prosecute or not. 

Many prosecutions include multiple animals being involved. If the animals concerned, are seized and removed, (unless the defendant signs any of the animals over to the Rspca) they have to be given veterinary care (often extensive) plus appropriately boarded. In the case of equines, all on this forum must be fully aware of the escalating vet costs that can be involved and full livery doesn't come cheap either. This must continue until the case comes to court. (I believe the Inspector investigating, has only a maximum of 6 weeks to compile a completed case file before it's sent to headquarters for approval and a yay or nay to a prosecution)

All costs are applied for in Rspca successful prosecutions,(as a charity, they can do little else in this respect) as do any other prosecutor. Whether they are granted costs in full, depends on the Magistrates or Judge.
In most cases brought to court, the defendant is *not* wealthy, in fact most will either be on a low income or maybe unemployed. Once any fines have been imposed by the court, (based on income) costs can then be decided upon. I seriously doubt whether the Rspca recoups any where near the full costs involved in these  prosecutions.

Sometimes, in the case of aged and/or infirmed defendants, the Rspca will only request the court impose an order that the animal(s) kept by the defendant be reduced in numbers (especially where hoarding has occurred) and have very reluctantly taken the person to court because of their refusal to do so themselves against all advice given.

I do not believe a solicitor acting on behalf of the Rscpa attended a house of a deceased person the following as you say above. Everyone knows any will left, has to go through the appropriate legal proceedings/probate. That doesn't happen overnight.


----------



## popsdosh (8 December 2015)

chillipup said:



			The RSPCA investigated *159,831 *cruelty complaints last year, most resulted in their Inspectors issuing advice/guidance. *2,419 *resulted in actual prosecutions. The Rspca *do not* choose prosecutions based on the income of the defendant(s) Whether rich or poor, if you've committed a cruelty offence that warrants prosecution, - (where all criteria to do so has been met) so be it. Whether you believe it or not, the Rspca  follows the Crown prosectution services' own guidelines whether to prosecute or not. 

Many prosecutions include multiple animals being involved. If the animals concerned, are seized and removed, (unless the defendant signs any of the animals over to the Rspca) they have to be given veterinary care (often extensive) plus appropriately boarded. In the case of equines, all on this forum must be fully aware of the escalating vet costs that can be involved and full livery doesn't come cheap either. This must continue until the case comes to court. (I believe the Inspector investigating, has only a maximum of 6 weeks to compile a completed case file before it's sent to headquarters for approval and a yay or nay to a prosecution)

All costs are applied for in Rspca successful prosecutions,(as a charity, they can do little else in this respect) as do any other prosecutor. Whether they are granted costs in full, depends on the Magistrates or Judge.
In most cases brought to court, the defendant is *not* wealthy, in fact most will either be on a low income or maybe unemployed. Once any fines have been imposed by the court, (based on income) costs can then be decided upon. I seriously doubt whether the Rspca recoups any where near the full costs involved in these  prosecutions.

Sometimes, in the case of aged and/or infirmed defendants, the Rspca will only request the court impose an order that the animal(s) kept by the defendant be reduced in numbers (especially where hoarding has occurred) and have very reluctantly taken the person to court because of their refusal to do so themselves against all advice given.

I do not believe a solicitor acting on behalf of the Rscpa attended a house of a deceased person the following as you say above. Everyone knows any will left, has to go through the appropriate legal proceedings/probate. That doesn't happen overnight.
		
Click to expand...

Its not a house its a farm ! perhaps you should read more thoroughly.
Well I assure that is totally true or are you calling me a liar( its a very good friend of mine and an ongoing legal case as they have security of tenure something else the RSPCA seems to want to chuck money at in a futile attempt to extract the maximum out of the estate)  in cases were they are in for a large estate they put one of their legal team in as executor which means they are administering the estate. Of course there is always the example of the house and land that was left to them with the express wish the land was protected for wildlife.Funnily enough that got sold off for development! 

If they are so squeaky clean maybe you can explain why the committee of MPs has recomended that there prosecution rights are taken away . These are not private prosecutions however there have been serious questions asked over their political motives in some of the cases they take on and the disproportionate cost involved in relation to their prosecution success. However you cannot convince everybody . They have had very little success re the hunting act but keep on all the time taking out prosecutions for political reasons.


----------



## Alec Swan (8 December 2015)

chillipup said:



			&#8230;&#8230;... Whether you believe it or not, the Rspca  follows the Crown prosectution services' own guidelines whether to prosecute or not. 

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry,  but such a statement is born of either naivety,  or a blind faith and to argue against it has nothing to do with a 'belief',  but simple fact.  There is clear and irrefutable evidence of those who represent the rspca,  in Court,  clearly committing perjury.  There is no shortage of clear evidence,  supported by the fact that many cases are thrown out of Court over statements which are so easily dismissed as to be quite wrong and demonstrably so.  

Alec.


----------



## chillipup (8 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			Its not a house its a farm ! perhaps you should read more thoroughly.
Well I assure that is totally true or are you calling me a liar( its a very good friend of mine and an ongoing legal case as they have security of tenure something else the RSPCA seems to want to chuck money at in a futile attempt to extract the maximum out of the estate)  in cases were they are in for a large estate they put one of their legal team in as executor which means they are administering the estate. Of course there is always the example of the house and land that was left to them with the express wish the land was protected for wildlife.Funnily enough that got sold off for development! 

If they are so squeaky clean maybe you can explain why the committee of MPs has recomended that there prosecution rights are taken away . These are not private prosecutions however there have been serious questions asked over their political motives in some of the cases they take on and the disproportionate cost involved in relation to their prosecution success. However you cannot convince everybody . They have had very little success re the hunting act but keep on all the time taking out prosecutions for political reasons.
		
Click to expand...

I still stand by my statement...I do not believe that a Rspca representative attended a *farm*  blaady, blaady blaa etc.

No, I am not calling you a liar. I just believe, for the same reasons I gave earlier, the situation you described happened differently. Only the will writer can name their choice of executors. If the Rspca are written into that person's will as an executor, it was their choice, and their choice alone.

I don't think all of the Rspca are squeaky clean. Neither do I think all of our Police force is nor our elected government. There is good and bad within any organisation. I'm afraid I must come back to continue my response as I am having difficulty understanding your second paragraph.


----------



## popsdosh (8 December 2015)

chillipup said:



			I still stand by my statement...I do not believe that a Rspca representative attended a *farm*  blaady, blaady blaa etc.

No, I am not calling you a liar. I just believe, for the same reasons I gave earlier, the situation you described happened differently. Only the will writer can name their choice of executors. If the Rspca are written into that person's will as an executor, it was their choice, and their choice alone.

I don't think all of the Rspca are squeaky clean. Neither do I think all of our Police force is nor our elected government. There is good and bad within any organisation. I'm afraid I must come back to continue my response as I am having difficulty understanding your second paragraph.
		
Click to expand...

By making that statement you are calling me a liar!!!!,you were not there and are yet so sure of yourself . They had pure money making motives for doing it ,however unless you understand the agricultural tenancy act I cant expect you to understand their motives basically they were trying to double their take on that property with no thought for the tenant or the fact their benefactor was not even cold yet.
I promise you in due course you will know more about it and maybe then you may have the grace to apologise. however till then conversation over I really cant be bothered.


----------



## chillipup (8 December 2015)

popsdosh said:



			By making that statement you are calling me a liar!!!!,you were not there and are yet so sure of yourself . They had pure money making motives for doing it ,however unless you understand the agricultural tenancy act I cant expect you to understand their motives basically they were trying to double their take on that property with no thought for the tenant or the fact their benefactor was not even cold yet.
I promise you in due course you will know more about it and maybe then you may have the grace to apologise. however till then conversation over I really cant be bothered.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You don't know me and I don't know you. However, we are each entitled to our own thoughts, beliefs and views. Just because my point of view is different from yours, doesn't mean I've called you a liar. And just because you've stated something (hearsay in this case) doesn't compel me to agree with you. 
I apologise if my views on this particular matter have upset you, but I shall not be apologising for something I haven't done.


----------



## popsdosh (9 December 2015)

chillipup said:



			Fair enough. You don't know me and I don't know you. However, we are each entitled to our own thoughts, beliefs and views. Just because my point of view is different from yours, doesn't mean I've called you a liar. And just because you've stated something (hearsay in this case) doesn't compel me to agree with you. 
I apologise if my views on this particular matter have upset you, but I shall not be apologising for something I haven't done.
		
Click to expand...

Just shows you know diddly squat and yet still seem fit to pass judgement that what 'I stated was hearsay'. Its actually personal experience having seen the incident and will be giving evidence as such. I was totally gobsmacked I think some people need enlightening about some of the tactics these so called great charities employ when money is involved. They have just completely took over the administration of probate even though there was a joint executor who they have totally dismissed. 

All I can say CP is I can see now why you have made yourself so popular on these forums your views are that your views and I just stated fact!!! that I have seen with my own eyes but sadly you havent so can not bring yourself to believe it happened Your attitude is pathetic and frighteningly blinkered.


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 December 2015)

Stop fighting, children - I THINK we are on the  same side.  The  costs for the  defendants in this case are being paid  by the taxpayer (outrageous, I know!!)

The thing that annoys  me most is that it has taken  SO long to get Prof Harris out of the witness box.  The CA had this evidence in late 1997 - I know because I negotiated the 'deal' that got it!  And then the  CA must have  LOST it - for 17 YEARS!!  Doesn't fill me with confidence in their competence.


----------

