But the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has announced it will not prosecute Cheale Meats, in Brentwood, because campaigners trespassed to obtain the footage.
Not the Conservatives' fault.
Except there has never been a ruling that says covert camera footage is inadmissible in court cases. Indeed there is long history of prosecutions based on such footage.
The difference is that wealthy rural farmers can now pay a few backhanders to their Tory friends in Defra and get let off.
It remains that breaking the law, to obtain evidence of lawbreaking, ruins the admissability of any evidence obtained.
I thought evidence could be used and our law isn't as strict as the US's 'poisoned tree'?
Comment from the Sky article perhaps explains why the case was dropped-
"Given the source of this material, Elmkirk would not accept that all or any of the activities shown on this video relate to their premises.
"A complaint has been made to Essex Police by our clients in relation to any unlawful entry into our client's premises by an employee of Animal Aid. The outcome of that complaint is awaited."
ie the owners would challenge the authenticity of the evidence and might try arguing that the activists staged the attacks on the animals themselves. Faces of the people abusing the animals aren't clear in most of the footage Sky showed. I guess as it was covert surveillance, might also fall foul of RIPA.
As for DEFRA, well, to an extent they've increased cruelty to animals by loading stacks of regulations and costs on abattoirs forcing many to close. So animals end up getting transported further, increasing stress and can help spread diseases.
Complete nonsense argument, if someone was trespassing and saw someone raping, abusing or killing someone and caught it on camera do you you really think the courts would rule it inadmissable?
Complete nonsense argument, if someone was trespassing and saw someone raping, abusing or killing someone and caught it on camera do you you really think the courts would rule it inadmissable?
The whole point would be that the reason for trespass was in order to obtain evidence of law breaking.
One would hardly trespass in order to video a rape, abuse or a killing now.
You are right that trespass is usually a tort and therefore a civil matter.
It can be a criminal offence if it is aggravated trespass where you trespass with the intention of disrupting or intimidating people carrying out lawful activities.
I guess we don't know all the facts but, on the face of it, it doesn't look like aggravated trespass as putting up cctv cameras without being noticed wouldn't equate to intimidation or disruption, and surely what went on in the slaughterhouse was not lawful.
It might well be a case of aggravated trespass, given that entry was gained to obtain evidence without a warrant or other lawful order.
Because if it's the state, get used to it, there is no money left.
Are people really so naive that they don't see/understand the link between the state not having money to spend and so deciding what they do have, they spend on things that are higher up the list of priorities?
What's the common link between countries with very bad animal welfare records, poverty.
Comments
Hence these signs you see warning that "Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted" practically being meaningless as it's not unlawful but "uncivil".
Except there has never been a ruling that says covert camera footage is inadmissible in court cases. Indeed there is long history of prosecutions based on such footage.
The difference is that wealthy rural farmers can now pay a few backhanders to their Tory friends in Defra and get let off.
I thought evidence could be used and our law isn't as strict as the US's 'poisoned tree'?
Comment from the Sky article perhaps explains why the case was dropped-
"Given the source of this material, Elmkirk would not accept that all or any of the activities shown on this video relate to their premises.
"A complaint has been made to Essex Police by our clients in relation to any unlawful entry into our client's premises by an employee of Animal Aid. The outcome of that complaint is awaited."
ie the owners would challenge the authenticity of the evidence and might try arguing that the activists staged the attacks on the animals themselves. Faces of the people abusing the animals aren't clear in most of the footage Sky showed. I guess as it was covert surveillance, might also fall foul of RIPA.
As for DEFRA, well, to an extent they've increased cruelty to animals by loading stacks of regulations and costs on abattoirs forcing many to close. So animals end up getting transported further, increasing stress and can help spread diseases.
The whole point would be that the reason for trespass was in order to obtain evidence of law breaking.
One would hardly trespass in order to video a rape, abuse or a killing now.
It might well be a case of aggravated trespass, given that entry was gained to obtain evidence without a warrant or other lawful order.
To be fair, maybe you're a bit of a millitant away from these forums, though?
Who foots the bill?
Because if it's the state, get used to it, there is no money left.
Are people really so naive that they don't see/understand the link between the state not having money to spend and so deciding what they do have, they spend on things that are higher up the list of priorities?
What's the common link between countries with very bad animal welfare records, poverty.