Jump to content

Grove and Rufford hunt convictions overturned


Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, sussex said:

Who withheld the photos ? , is it not illegal to withhold evidence ..hopefully those that did will be making an appearance to explain why ......:hmm:

 

I'm no lawyer, but that's "attempting to pervert the course of justice", surely ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackbriar said:

I'm no lawyer, but that's "attempting to pervert the course of justice", surely ?

Only if your not part of the “system “ ...anyone in the system , police,  government etc gets a “ mistake “ card , we’re if things go tits up you produce your “ a mistake has occurred “ card and that allows you to bypass the bit we’re your arse gets dragged across burning coals , mere mortals would be doing a stretch at her Maggoties pleasure ..it’s a good system .....made better if you have the gold edged card ....:whistling:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2018 at 01:34, sussex said:

Who withheld the photos ? , is it not illegal to withhold evidence ..hopefully those that did will be making an appearance to explain why ......:hmm:

2

 

On 3/16/2018 at 05:06, Blackbriar said:

I'm no lawyer, but that's "attempting to pervert the course of justice", surely ?

According to the article, the CPS is quoted "This decision was not taken due to disclosure issues."

I am curious as to why it was overturned but we've discussed in other threads that when breaking the law intent has to be demonstrated. If an entire pack has had this overturned because intent couldn't be demonstrated it's very good news indeed for John Q Dogwalker!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that was needed was a few photos to show 'non-intent' then surely it would have been completely reasonable to have doubt in the absence of them?

"Justice"............ LOL

There is a hunting related case going to trial shortly which is equally as unbelievable based on the evidence to date.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

If all that was needed was a few photos to show 'non-intent' then surely it would have been completely reasonable to have doubt in the absence of them?

"Justice"............ LOL

There is a hunting related case going to trial shortly which is equally as unbelievable based on the evidence to date.

If I was conspiracy minded I'd be thinking that there are forces at work making these stupid convictions and then subsequently overturning them to make this stupid and unworkable law even more stupid and unworkable...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

If I was conspiracy minded I'd be thinking that there are forces at work making these stupid convictions and then subsequently overturning them to make this stupid and unworkable law even more stupid and unworkable...

The Labour Party will fix that problem. :laugh: :cray:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, baker boy said:

Every time a hunt is found not guilty on an illegal hunting charge the publicity just makes the antis and lefties more commited to getting the hunting act tightened up

Luckily the public give less of a sh*t about now than before the ban was passed.

All this is good, IMHO. We have an unworkable ambiguous law on the books that anyone convicted under will likely be overturned on appeal depending on the offence. How many people will accept a political party that will spend parliamentary time debating this with all the issues currently going on in Britain?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChrisJones said:

Luckily the public give less of a sh*t about now than before the ban was passed.

All this is good, IMHO. We have an unworkable ambiguous law on the books that anyone convicted under will likely be overturned on appeal depending on the offence. How many people will accept a political party that will spend parliamentary time debating this with all the issues currently going on in Britain?

If your first statement was indicative to the answer to your question then I'd agree it is a good thing. Unfortunately I think the whole animal rights/anti hunting business is an easy sell to the modern Labour supporter (read anti Tory). They don't give  toss really but equally nod in support. I honestly think it'd be an easy sell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, baker boy said:

When has a Govt or a single issue pressure group ( in this case the LACS) ever given a shit whether joe public cares or not, THEY supposedly care and thats all that matters to them

Agreed but I just don't think there is parliamentary will to tackle an existing law when you have every other problem from Brexit to road quality all in front of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...