agreed......
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Caution for illegal killings (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mr Happy
- Start date
agreed......
RE Birder
Birding not twitching
Not too sure why a court would be any harsher? There were obviously reasons why this wasn't put before a court.
Recent court disposal for someone found in possession of 4 bags of heroin. £40 fine. The bags cost £10 each.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Most likely the cops got him to admit the killings by suggesting he would only get a caution as a result. They improve their clear-up statistics and he is not charged let alone prosecuted, so CPS don't get to decide on proceeding.
Bedfordshire sounds like huntin shootin and fishin country, is that the case?
John
Bedfordshire sounds like huntin shootin and fishin country, is that the case?
John
RE Birder
Birding not twitching
Pure speculation John, it wouldn't effect the police detection rates if a caution was issued or sent for CPS review, it all goes down as a detected crime.
Last edited:
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Yeah but getting a result without all the nause of a prosecution saves the cops a lot of work. For them, what's not to like?
BTW, affect in your context, not effect.
John
a.dancy
Registered User
I did not say a court would give a harsher sentence. However you ask the question why would it? The straight forward answer to that is because the law allows it! Perhaps by stating that the police 'take Wildlife Crime seriously' might be an indication to the court that the force in question really does take such crimes seriously. As it stands the comments made by the police will stand as nothing more than rhetoric and, as such, will be seen for what it is. Further other similar crimes have attracted larger sentences. One would hope at the very least that a fine would have been given. If the individual concerned can afford to keep pigeons he should be able to pay an appropriate fine and prosecution costs. Even with substantial mitigating factors (which I imagine do not exist) a real sentence should have been handed out albeit at the lower end of the scale.
The courts often throw up bizzare sentences and the fine awarded to the scum bag found in possesion just indicates what a crackpot (pun intended) judiciary we have. It's no wonder our society has fallen apart at the seams. Having said that, we don't know all the facts and mitigating factors but at least an open court got to hear them.
