pavman Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) the CPS and Police have in the past used the aggravated trespass law to try to stop anti going onto private land and or disrupting a person going about there lawful activity (shooting and drag hunting) ........... this has failed at times due to wrangling over things as obscure as the intended target not having a risk assessment and therefore anti has claimed the shoot or drag hunt is not 100% and if so they could not be charged.... and CPS have folded Things have change a bit on account of this case removing the wiggle room http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Judgment-closes-loophole-defence-cases-aggravated/story-21079259-detail/story.html now interestingly anti hunt protesters with the specific intent of disrupting (and therefore stopping) a legal hunt or shoot (as opposed to peacefully protesting) can no longer use many of the arguments they have relied on in the past so if you are disrupted this season its worth getting evidence you had to stop for safety or other reasons and record as much as you can so the Police can charge Anti who's sole intent is to stop you going about your lawful business. There is a case in Suffolk still on going that will hopefully result in convictions and serve as a warning to others intent on stopping legal activity on private land (next court hearing is later this year) http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/six_alleged_hunt_saboteurs_deny_trying_to_disrupt_suffolk_drag_hunt_1_3993674 worth keeping an eye on Edited August 26, 2015 by pavman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 Thanks for posting, good news! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 Well worth knowing. Many thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del.gue Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 In some cases it is poor understanding of the issues by the CPS hence the easy thing to do is offer no evidence. There is a right of appeal by a victim if the CPS decide not to proceed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 A valuable post for those hunts and shoots bothered by nit wits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoot and be safe Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 That made for intresting reading. Thanks for sharing As an aside. Does this now mean that the brindle shoot could seek damages for the lack of judgement by the CPS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) That made for intresting reading. Thanks for sharing As an aside. Does this now mean that the brindle shoot could seek damages for the lack of judgement by the CPS? I doubt there is any scope for redress of past cases, but going forward if anti is convicted on the above it will set a bench mark for others disrupted in as much as stopping a person going about their lawful business falls outside peaceful protest. The CPS now have a proven case that its what the person doing by way of disruption remains the focus and not what the people being disrupted are doing so long as it is lawful.... again as above a lawful drag hunt being disrupted so they had to stop = Disruption. The law clearly states if you are disrupted and stopped from any lawful activity that includes all legal forms of hunting and shooting you have protection under the aggravated trespass law and this has always been the case. In the past Anti has offered all kinds of arguments to stop prosecution's and the CPS like odds of 85% and above in their favour. If the odds of success are lower they have in the past thrown in the towel much to the disgust of the lawful effected parties. What a mockery when the Law defines Legal hunting and then falls short of protecting participants Policing Anti is a costly business and you would like to think once convictions start coming organisations aliened to harassment of lawful activity will be briefed by the Police as to what they can expect. A criminal conviction will most likely not stop the die hard few but many protesting groups have young left wing uni types and a blot on your record is not going to help future employment prospects as it points to a volatile nature and disregard for the rights of others whos view you don't share Once you know the names of Anti many come up in search engines with interesting reading.... I wonder if their employers know what sort of person is working for them (if indeed they are working at all) PS rest assured Anti is very active on the WWW and there are in all likelihood members on every forum including PW..... Edited August 27, 2015 by pavman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 If found guilty will this case make legal precedent? Anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outandabout Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I caught someone letting out birds from my larsen trap a couple of months ago, and it wasn't their first time interfering with my traps. If I thought at the time a prosecution would have been possible I'd have called the police straight away. Next time I will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 If found guilty will this case make legal precedent? Anyone? I believe so (unless we know otherwise) I am sure there are events that go un reported because folk perhaps think they wont get the help they deserve......... in our defence we all need to stand up and at the very least if disrupted you must record report and reiterate that your rights need to be protected as indeed they are in Law. If you don't obtain any evidence (vids or pics) or don't make the call to the Police your not helping anyone in our world. another thing worth noting is the Law on harassment https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/taking-action-about-harassment/ Don't let anyone tell you this only relates to domestic situations (you will find plenty of folk who will give this interpretation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I caught someone letting out birds from my larsen trap a couple of months ago, and it wasn't their first time interfering with my traps. If I thought at the time a prosecution would have been possible I'd have called the police straight away. Next time I will do. You really should do the next time. If the police are not contacted they cannot take any action because they are unaware of the 'crime'. As Pavman knows very well, the Norfolk and Suffolk Police Forces are now combining their efforts to get this sort of crime under control. They have taken a long time to get their act together but now seem to be taking the fight to the antis. We, the shooting community, must aid them in this. The police resources are under enormous strain at the moment and we must do our bit if we want their support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outandabout Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 You really should do the next time. If the police are not contacted they cannot take any action because they are unaware of the 'crime'. As Pavman knows very well, the Norfolk and Suffolk Police Forces are now combining their efforts to get this sort of crime under control. They have taken a long time to get their act together but now seem to be taking the fight to the antis. We, the shooting community, must aid them in this. The police resources are under enormous strain at the moment and we must do our bit if we want their support. I've no doubt there will be a next time, whether it's the same culprit or not! I'll make sure I gather any evidence I can and call the police. You're right, the law can't be enforced if the police don't know it's been broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I've no doubt there will be a next time, whether it's the same culprit or not! I'll make sure I gather any evidence I can and call the police. You're right, the law can't be enforced if the police don't know it's been broken. I have fitted some trail cams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del.gue Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Pavman. I have advised on this forum before to fit very small locks to larsen traps. When they pull the lock off it is criminal damage. On camera that will be good evidence. I recall that for aggravated trespass the complainant has to be on the land at the time of the offence (exact wording is in the act). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted August 28, 2015 Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Pavman. I have advised on this forum before to fit very small locks to larsen traps. When they pull the lock off it is criminal damage. On camera that will be good evidence. I recall that for aggravated trespass the complainant has to be on the land at the time of the offence (exact wording is in the act). Agreed re. padlocks. Criminal damage is a nice clear-cut offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted August 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2015 Pavman. I have advised on this forum before to fit very small locks to larsen traps. When they pull the lock off it is criminal damage. On camera that will be good evidence. I recall that for aggravated trespass the complainant has to be on the land at the time of the offence (exact wording is in the act) or adjoining land a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity, (b)of obstructing that activity, or ©of disrupting that activity. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/V/crossheading/disruptive-trespassers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.