I think this public interest malarky is a red herring. I dont think the case was ever reviewed by the CPS. Furthermore the cost of the prosecution do not appear to feature in the CPS criteria for public interest.
I like the idea of recovering as much of the costs as possible from criminals.
A simple look at the RSPCA website at the top of the page -
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - the UK's largest animal welfare charity. We rescue, rehabilitate and rehome hundreds of thousands of animals each year in England and Wales. We offer advice on caring for all animals and campaign to change laws that will protect them, which we will enforce through prosecution.
So any one donating to the RSPCA should clearly know from the start that their donation can be used to fund any of those aims.
In this particular case RSPCA Chief Executive, Gavin Grant, said: We are being true to our 188 year history of fighting for justice for animals.
Whether they should of funded a private prosecution shouldn't come as any surprise, it's been doing that for much of it's history. Today it was Heythrop Hunt whereas in times past it's been the shocking conduct of the Smithfield meat market, to punish cat skinners, men who used dogs as draft animals, and to alleviate the misery of horses.
The fact that some one was breaking the Law, however it may be classified as an offence it's still the Law, whilst the CPS has proven pretty in-effective since the Hunting Act was introduced, so they took the position open to anyone or organisation and undertook a private prosecution.
A simple case of standing by your stated beliefs and convictions as well as being wholly in line with what they've been doing for generations, namely we will enforce through prosecution. Just that in this case it got more publicity than the many other less high profile convictions it secures, or attempts to privately prosecute every year.
Hats off to them
Here's a little background that may help understand why the CPS decided not to prosecute. I have no idea why they did decide not to pursue the case though.
The CPS defines public interest as: 'Public interest' means that the crime is important to people in society and most people would want it to go to court. Hmm thats taught me something as I always believed it meant 'in the interest of the public' not 'that the public is interested in it'. Well you live and learn :jagsatwork:
The CPS criteria for deciding whether to prosecute is very long but its opening line states:
'A prosecution is more likely to be required if:
a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;'
But the maximum fine under the Hunting Act 2004 is £5000 and there is no scope for imprisonment.
As Ben quite rightly says the CPS doesn't take into account the likely costs of a trial, but it does say:
'A prosecution is less likely to be required if:
the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty;'
I am happy that any money i donate to the RSPCA is used in this way.
Why didn,t the guilty have to pay 325k?
Why weren't the hounds confiscated?
Was either matter mentioned in the summing up?
I think you have been misinformed blue.
I think the RSPCA chose to drop some of the charges when the main ones were admitted to.
I think the magistrate awarded as much as the hunt could afford.
I still wonder why the hounds weren't confisctaed.
I do wish court records were published.
Some info here;
On Monday in Oxford Magistrates' Court two men pleaded guilty to four charges, each under a minor piece of legislation which carries a maximum penalty of £5,000. Their company – one was an employee, the other a director – pleaded guilty to four identical offences. The judge fined one of the men £250 for each offence and the other £450. The company was handed four £1,000 fines.
You might think that is the end of a not-very-interesting story but you would be wrong, because the offence the two pleaded guilty to was breach of the Hunting Act and the company was the Heythrop Hunt Ltd.
If a prosecution involving a hunt was not enough to get media juices flowing, the Heythrop Hunt happens to be the only one based in David Cameron's constituency – and the Prime Minister is known to have hunted with the Heythrop hounds..
Such a coincidence was bound to put the story on the front pages but the fact that it was David Cameron's local hunt was no coincidence. The two men, Julian Barnfield and Richard Sumner, and the Heythrop Hunt were not investigated by the police and prosecuted by the CPS, but targeted by the RSPCA. Of the 175 packs of foxhounds in the UK, the RSPCA chose to bring only one private prosecution – against the Heythrop. Nor was this the first attempt to prosecute the Heythrop and huntsman Julian. In 2008 the CPS brought four charges against him based on allegations by animal rights activists, but that prosecution failed. Last year the RSPCA summonsed Julian on another two charges, but again the prosecution failed.
So this year the charity returned with a prosecution unprecedented since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005. It brought no fewer than 52 charges against the hunt, its masters and employees, detailing ten allegations of illegal hunting.
The trial was due to start last week and would have lasted until the end of February. The cost of defending the case would have been well into six figures and then there were the RSPCA's costs to consider. There was clearly a big legal team at work and it did not look cheap. The RSPCA did not use its in-house solicitors, but hired top-end city firm Fishburns, which was clearly ready to spend whatever it took to get a conviction.
Julian and Richard took a pragmatic decision that defending such a big case was practically and financially almost impossible. They accepted that on four occasions they had allowed hounds to chase foxes that had jumped up while they were hunting artificial trails. The RSPCA dropped all other charges against them and against two others who had originally been prosecuted.
District Judge Tim Pattinson noted that in 500 hours' hunting last season the four allegations totalled just 15 minutes of criminality. He then handed down the fines, at the low end of the scale, and came on to the sticky issue of costs.
The RSPCA had been extremely reluctant to divulge how much it had spent on the case and when the judge calculated the total it was clear why – it had spent £326, on solicitors, barristers and associated costs. The judge called the figure "staggering", asking whether "the public may feel RSPCA funds could be more usefully employed". While Judge Pattinson was only commenting on this case, his question has wider implications. Increasingly, the RSPCA is becoming not simply an organisation focused on protecting animal welfare, but a political campaigning group promoting an animal rights agenda. New chief executive Gavin Grant has already ruffled feathers with his threat to "name and shame" people involved in the badger cull trials and by calling for boycotts against farmers in cull areas. Judge Pattinson's question can equally be applied here: is such a campaign the best use of RSPCA funds? Indeed, is it in the best interests of animal welfare?
There is something monstrously hypocritical about such profligacy and waste when the RSPCA is placing fundraising advertisements , claiming that "animal cruelty, neglect and suffering are reaching unprecedented levels in modern times". Paying a handful of lawyers more than £300,000 for a few weeks' work which had no impact on animal welfare, months after announcing 130 redundancies to address deficits on its £115 million annual turnover, suggests an organisation that has lost its way.
RSPCA membership has plummeted to just 29,000 and, while it will not disappear overnight, unless it refocuses on real animal welfare issues rather than a political animal rights agenda it will progressively lose the support of the moderate majority.
