Piebob Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 http://news.stv.tv/tayside/1340621-fox-hunt-protester-family-fined-after-taking-their-own-film-to-police/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 An interesting case; A family of masked saboteurs have been found guilty of causing fear or alarm to members of a fox hunt in a ground-breaking legal case. Colin and Beverly Milne and their daughter Amy Lilburn were convicted of acting in a threatening or abusive way on an estate owned by one of Britain's richest families. Ironically, the clash with the huntsmen only came to light when the trio reported their suspicions about the legality of the hunt and showed video footage to police, before being locked up themselves. They were detained in custody over a weekend and found guilty after a week-long trial on Wednesday, although the sheriff also criticised the police's failure to investigate their claims about the hunt on Snaigow Estate. Perth Sheriff Court heard how the trio were dressed in "paramilitary" gear and had snoods pulled up and hats pulled down to mask their faces as they confronted members of the hunt. Sheriff William Wood said: "It is my view you went overboard and were reckless about the consequences. If you are not behaving reasonably then you have to take the punishment. "Any reasonable person would feel threatened by your conduct, even in the context of a fox hunt in which you say you were seeking to monitor events". "Any person would suffer fear or alarm due to the persistence of your conduct. You all accept you entered Snaigow Estate while you were masked. "You were certainly wearing snoods that covered your faces and hats that came down to your brows. You also accept you filmed members of the public. "You gave that footage to the police. You also accept you followed Mr Broad and his son for an extensive period. This was a joint enterprise. The outcome and impact on other people had not been fully thought about by you. "It doesn't seem to me that your conduct could be said to be reasonable in any way. You followed them over a distance of ten to 12 miles, for a period of one to two hours. "You lay in wait for them at a private road. You followed them on foot and continued to follow them even though there was no hunt in progress. You continued to film them when there was nothing to film. "I will take account of the somewhat surprising decision by the police not to investigate the circumstances and the time you have spent in custody." He fined offshore labourer Mr Milne, 49, and toilet attendant Mrs Milne, 39, £200 each and admonished unemployed Lilburn. All three live in Toutie Street, Blairgowrie, Perthshire and were found guilty of causing fear or alarm to Angus and Edward Broad on March 13 last year. Defence solicitor Jim Bready previously told the court: "It was clear from the reaction of the huntsmen at the time and also from how the Milnes behaved that there was no prospect of danger to them. "The conduct of the Milnes was impeccable in the situation even under the most extreme provocation. The one thing they seem to abhor more than anything is violence. "The way the Milnes were conducting themselves didn't give them any cause to have fear or alarm. They tried to conduct themselves carefully. "They simply did not anticipate the sinister notion of being masked. There are many innocent situations where people can be masked. "They did not anticipate that what they were doing was criminal. It was all done with the best intentions." Solicitor David Holmes argued the conduct of the trio had been reasonable as they believed they were interfering with a potentially illegal hunt. During the trial, gamekeeper Peter Nicol said the decision was taken to abandon the hunt after a masked person, dressed all in black, crept up behind a fellow huntsman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 This is a case of extreme significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted January 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 I thought it may have future implications - hence my original post. I don't know enough about legal aspects to understand how significant it could be. I always wondered why sabs were allowed to terrorise people and get off scot-free, so was pleased when I spotted this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougall Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 does a scottish ruling readily translate to the english courts too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzicat Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 Offshore worked & a criminal record = bye bye job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice cushie shooter Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 About time too! Shame the police opted not to do their job correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 A Labourer, toilet attendant and an unemployed female! Hmmmmmm? Sounds like a bit of good old class envy of the 'haves' by the 'have nots' Anyone know.......does the Scottish Sheriffs court create legal precedent? And does it do so in the English courts? Interesting! There are new stalking and harassment laws in place.......these cowards were masked, dressed in paramilitary gear designed to cause fear and alarm? Looks like they got what they deserved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redm0002 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 What is the implication for a member of the public coming across or even confronting someone shooting pigeons in full regalia including mask or veil (and obviously gun in hand)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver pigeon69 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 What is the implication for a member of the public coming across or even confronting someone shooting pigeons in full regalia including mask or veil (and obviously gun in hand)? Probably depends if the pigeon shooter, tresspasses on private property, follows the person/owner of the property and harasses the person for most of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 One would expect said pigeon shooter to remove the veil etc when speaking to another person. Scottish court ruling has no significance in England IIRC 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.