Si Hunt Barks - "What's Wrong With Justice?"

[Si Hunt]

This story today caught my eye.

Badger killer avoids prison term

A father-of-five has been sentenced to 90 days in prison, suspended for two years, for illegally killing a badger by lamplight.

Mark Paddock, 37, of Aintree Close, Leegomery, Telford, will also have to observe a night-time curfew and do 200 hours of unpaid community work.

He was found guilty on Wednesday of illegally hunting and killing a badger at night - with his two lurchers.

Speaking after the trial Paddock said his case fell on "deaf ears".

He claimed he had been out "rabbiting" on December 14, 2005, when his dogs went for the badger and he had killed it for humane reasons.

But the district judge at Telford Magistrates' Court, Nicolas Cartwright said that the evidence, brought by the RSPCA, was "overwhelming".

Mr Cartwright said that Paddock had exposed his two dogs to injuries, caused extreme suffering to the badger and had deliberately made his 13-year-old daughter an accomplice to the crime.

Paddock had tailored his evidence to suit his own purpose and had shown no remorse, he added.

After his arrest in March 2006, Paddock's former home in Donnington was searched and two lock knives were found. One of the knives had badger blood on it.

Mobile phone footage of the attack was also used in court.

Paddock said: "My case was basically heard on deaf ears... and they had no proof even when they raided my house."

Sentencing him, Judge Cartwright said he would have jailed him had it not been for the recent death of the mother of three of his children.

He was also ordered to pay £2,600 in court costs after the judge decided he could not afford the full cost of £26,000. The remainder will be paid by the RSPCA.

It's not so much the severity of the sentence that annoys me (although going scot free for bludgeoning a badger to death unprovoked is irritating) it's the way the law lessens it according to factors that have nothing to do with the crime.

Why should a recent bereavment mean less punishment? If he's capable of the crime, surely he's capable of paying for it? And, without knowing the man, if he can manage to pursue and murder an animal in cold blood, it doesn't exactly suggest that the combined weights of grief and prison will tip him over the edge. And if it did, maybe he should have thought about that before.

Worse, the fine is decreased by 90% because he 'can't afford it'! So a charity has to pay instead! This is outrageous! Can't they make him pay it in instalements until it's all paid? Or make him work, unpaid, to pay it back in his spare time?

Does anyone else think this whole case shows the law to be an absolute mockery? We seem to punish people for something, then take away the punishment out of good will! So if someone richer had done this crime, they'd have been fined more! How is that justice?

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

Much of what you say is true, young Simon.

[Nathan]

It's called mitigating circumstances.

One law for the rich and poor alike, which prohibits them equally from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.

[Captain Tancredi]

Why should a recent bereavment mean less punishment? If he's capable of the crime, surely he's capable of paying for it?

I'd imagine because his children were already distressed at losing their mother without their father going to prison and quite possibly facing the prospect of being put into care for the duration.

As far as the RSPCA goes, I'm never quite convinced that they're as white as they're painted. When I was back in Birkenhead the other week, there was a cause celebre in the local papers in the shape of a woman who was known locally as somebody who would take in injured animals and look after them, whereas the local RSPCA would put them down. Somebody complained to the RSPCA, who then went down mob-handed with the police in tow- the local paper was subsequently inundated with dozens of letters from her neighbours saying that there was never a problem, and when they'd contacted the RSPCA about an elderly neighbour whose cat had just had kittens, their response had been that they'd take the kittens but only to put them down. They seem to like interfering where there's no need and making an example of people- you'll notice that the case was brought by the RSPCA and not by the Crown Prosecution Service, so the authorities presumably didn't think it was in the public interest to spend thousands of pounds and the court's time on a dead badger.

[Jon Masters]

I'd agree with almost everything you said , Si.

However, like many vets I have no sympathy whatsoever with the RSPCA having to pay the costs. If only the general public knew more about this 'wonderfully caring' animal charity

[Si Hunt]

Do tell more. What Ian said was interesting, I'd like to hear your views on it as well Jon.

Si.

[Wayne]

If only the general public knew more about this 'wonderfully caring' animal charity

I'm intrigued!

[Jon Masters]

OK, as I'm not in the Royal College any longer....

The public persona of the RSPCA, from programmes like Animal Hospital and other animal rescue shows is that the rescue staff will move heaven and earth to save or treat any injured or distressed animal. Like the Guide Dogs for the Blind, their coffers are so huge that they more or less run off the interest from their investments without ever using the capital.

However, when the cameras aren't there its a very different story. Vet practices often get calls at night or the weekend from members of the public who have found injured or lost animals (both wild and pets). Usually they will have tried to contact the RSPCA first, and will have met the following:

(a) An answer machine message which tells them that no-one is available to deal with their issue. This might be for the whole weekend.
(b) Being told that they should phone the nearest vet who will turn out and deal with it - at no cost to them or the RSPCA !!
(c) An instruction to take it to their nearest vet who will hospitalise it or treat it and the RSPCA will pay. In truth, if a vet is foolish enough to do this, the RSPCA later deny any involvement and refuse to pay anything.

I personally had calls in the past like these, including once being asked to go to Worthing beach at about midnight to catch and hospitalise an injured seagull, because the lady had been told by the RSPCA officer that they couldn't deal with it but we would ! At one point it got to the stage that, even with us insisting on them giving us authorisation numbers before we would treat anything, the practice was on the point of taking the RSPCA to court for failing to pay hundreds of pounds worth of bills.

The same is true for court cases. Louise once had to post mortem a cat which had been buried for over a month because a number of cats had been shot with airgun pellets in the area. Not a pleasant job as you can imagine. The RSPCA made a huge fuss, then decided they couldn't bring a case to court, so chose not to pay their bill until they were forced to.

It was interesting that some years ago Rolf Harris was invited as a guest speaker to the international conference of the British Small Animal Vet Association at the ICC in Birmingham, for his role in Animal Hospital. There were actually some delegates boo-ing and heckling as he made his way to the stage, one guy shouting out how the programme had brought disgrace on the whole vet profession.

[Wayne]

Blimey! Thanks for the response, Jon. Somehow the cynic in me not that surprised to read all that.......

[Dirk Gently]

I'm not surprised, we have a cat & a Rabbit that the RSPCA couldn't be bothered doing anything about. There 'advice' was to call local rescue centres or the local vet for assistance.

[Si Hunt]

What's wrong with this country?

A couple whose baby daughter suffered brain damage in a crash caused by a dangerous driver have received £800,000 in compensation.

Cerys Edwards is still on a ventilator after the crash in Streetly Lane, Sutton Coldfield, in November 2006.

Her parents Gareth and Tracey were paid by insurers for Antonio Singh Boparan at Birmingham High Court.

The money will help build a special house in which they can care for Cerys, who is currently treated in Surrey.

Cerys, who was 11 months old when the crash happened, now needs 24-hour care.

Millionaire's son Boparan, whose parents run a West Bromwich food company, had been driving a high powered Range Rover at 70mph in a 30mph zone, his trial was told.

The 21-year-old, of Little Aston, Sutton Coldfield, was convicted of dangerous driving at Birmingham Crown Court last month and jailed for 21 months.

He was told by Judge Frank Chapman he had shown an "arrogant disregard" for safety.

He didn't even get the maximum sentence, though that's only 2 years.

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

That's disgusting! I assume his licence has been revoked for no less than 5 years?

[Si Hunt]

I've tracked down the petition for this - please sign it if you agree, and don't forget to click the subsequent e-mail link to make your signature count.

http://www.cerysedwards.co.uk/

Si.

[Wayne]

Terrible case.

I've tracked down the petition for this - please sign it if you agree, and don't forget to click the subsequent e-mail link to make your signature count.

http://www.cerysedwards.co.uk/

Si.

Done.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I would imagine in the badger case, as has been said, it was more about the three children being left without parents and taken into care than it was about the badger-murderer's bereavement.

[Captain Tancredi]

What's wrong with this country?

We have laws made by Parliament and applied through the courts. If we didn't we'd have lynch law.

You can't make laws on the basis of the most emotive case that they're likely to cover, or allow the courts to apply sentences over and above what the law allows, because they'd be struck down on appeal. In this case, the driver was convicted of dangerous driving, not of causing any injury to the child, which does make me wonder whether it's one of those occasions where a lesser charge is brought because there's a better chance of conviction. Motoring offences tend to carry lower sentences precisely because a moment's carelessness or distraction at the wheel can end in tragedy- whatever the driver thought he was doing, he probably didn't set out to maim a child that day.

As regards the sentencing, the courts will probably only give the maximum for any crime when there's clear evidence of intent to do harm, rather than being stupid and careless. It's also difficult to apply an effective punishment to somebody who will presumably never worry about money and has a family firm to go into if nobody else will employ him.

I wish I could believe that everybody who signs that petition will never speed or jump a red light, though.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

As regards the sentencing, the courts will probably only give the maximum for any crime when there's clear evidence of intent to do harm, rather than being stupid and careless.

That can't possibly hold true if the crime itself is dangerous/careless driving? You can't set out with deliberate intent to do harm and still have it classed as careless driving. So surely being careless and dangerous is all that is required to be given the highest sentence for dangerous driving.

[Si Hunt]

You can't make laws on the basis of the most emotive case that they're likely to cover

If for emotive you mean tragic, when why not? And we're not talking "speeding or red light jumping", we're talking driving FORTY MILES over the limit. FORTY miles should not be considered "without intent"; and why shouldn't the law allow for the sentence to fit the crime when such deliberate disregard for peoples lives leads to consequences like in this case?

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

If for emotive you mean tragic, when why not?

Because the vast majority of prosecutions for similar offences won't have such heart-wrenching circumstances, and the law has to be objective or it isn't worth having laws and courts to enforce them. The next case in court could be a 80-year-old lady who loses control of her car at speed and knocks over a single unemployed man- same offence, different set of circumstances, different emotional arguments but the law can only take that into account within certain narrow parameters.

why shouldn't the law allow for the sentence to fit the crime when such deliberate disregard for peoples lives leads to consequences like in this case?

Because a halfway civilised society recognises the difference between justice and revenge.

[Si Hunt]

You seem to implying that it's because it's a little girl that I'm so appalled - it's not, it's because she's been left a brainless cripple by someone who would have been given twenty years in prison if he'd killed her with a gun, but has got only two because he did it with a car (and forty miles over the limit to me is so reckless that it makes him exempt from claiming it was accidental, in the same way that someone responsible for an accidental shooting would find it hard to claim he didn't mean the gun to go off).

If the unemployed man had been left with brain damage (and, incidentally, why unemployed? Do you suspect I harbour murderous intentions towards the jobless? What have I done to give you this impression?) then I'd be quite happy for you to lock the old lady up. If she was doing 70mph in a 30mph zone.

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

(and, incidentally, why unemployed? Do you suspect I harbour murderous intentions towards the jobless? What have I done to give you this impression?)

Nothing- I was just trying to load the situation the other way, as the press would no doubt do if they got hold of the story of how 80-year-old Ena faces spending the rest of her life in jail for running over a drunken jobless dole scrounger.

The ability to see two sides of an argument really is a curse at times.

[Jeff]

I very much empathize with Si's viewpoint and argument here.... That being said though, I think Ian is right.

When I was in high school a student went out jumping his car on a hilly road, driving well over 100 mph and killed another high school student in a head on collision... He himself was in a coma for a long time and was only able to stand trial years later. He made a stupid mistake, but I don't think he should have to spend the rest of his life in prison for it.

I will say though, that there should be different and much harsher penalties for anyone who has been involved in an accident of this sort, and then is caught driving recklessly later (or heaven forbid, takes another life in a later accident) - and I include multiple time drink drivers in that. They should perhaps be getting 10-20 year sentences, since apparantly 1 or 2 wasn't enough of a deterrent.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Because a halfway civilised society recognises the difference between justice and revenge.

While I agree with the refreshingly sane general gist of what you're saying, I think there's a definite case for say that driving at over twice the speed limit (with no extenuating circumstances such as losing control of the vehicle) is quite a serious offence, particularly if it leads to death, so there is certainly room to award a harsh punishment for this without being accused of being emotive or a knee-jerk reactionary.

And there is clearly precedent in things like assault cases where the outcome IS taken into consideration. For instance if a drunk punches someone in the face, and that person then cracks his head on the pavement and dies, he can expect a much harsher punishment than if the other party just suffered a cut lip even though the intent would be the same in both cases. So there is an argument for the MAXIMUM punishment for speeding to be set quite high, but to only go near that maximum when ridiculous speeds and deaths are involved.

Or am I mad?

[Si Hunt]

Just to clarify what I have been strongly suggesting, if this was accidental in terms of something that could happen to anyone, then perhaps there should be mitigating services. But the thing I have a problem with is that anyone who drives at that speed, or who drinks and drives, has as far as I'm concerned deliberately and with intent placed themselves in the position of threatening someones life. And therefore the 'it was an accident' claim doesn't enter into it - it may well have been, but driving at that speed was NOT an accident, unless you figure his accellerator got stuck.

That's why I was arguing for longer sentences, not because of the sort of person involved.

Si.

[Si Hunt]

Also while I don't advocate the punishment fitting the wealth of the perpetrator, does it seem screwy to everyone else that the chap who ran her over's family are millionaires, yet the parents are still having to fund-raise to pay for the little girl's care?

Si.