the law, have they got me?

[mick1212 389]

Is this no the 3rd time for the same topic?

 

What was the charges, you never say, if you are in court you will have a charge, so spill it, unless you are not telling the whole story.

 

In which case, quit harping on about it.

there charging me for poaching, the officer said they were taking action to stop game keepers pushing people into ditches, as there had been complaints. I was after knowledge of any one who had been charged for a similar scenario, not smart arse remarks.

Sorry but what you have put above is rubbish. no way would a copper no matter how green he was would try and push this through a court! :wacko:

Ill find the summons and put the exact text on for yall doubters, i might add i thought it was ridiculous and a joke but when you get a summons you get a summons.

i beleive you i got nicked on there in october pleaded guilty got a 75 pound fine was the bizzy a baldy c**t its his shoot hell nick you for anything

[sussexpoacher 45]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

[highdanzil 0]

Is this no the 3rd time for the same topic?

 

What was the charges, you never say, if you are in court you will have a charge, so spill it, unless you are not telling the whole story.

 

In which case, quit harping on about it.

there charging me for poaching, the officer said they were taking action to stop game keepers pushing people into ditches, as there had been complaints. I was after knowledge of any one who had been charged for a similar scenario, not smart arse remarks.

Sorry but what you have put above is rubbish. no way would a copper no matter how green he was would try and push this through a court! :wacko:

Ill find the summons and put the exact text on for yall doubters, i might add i thought it was ridiculous and a joke but when you get a summons you get a summons.

i beleive you i got nicked on there in october pleaded guilty got a 75 pound fine was the bizzy a baldy c**t its his shoot hell nick you for anything

yeh baldy little fart who goes an beats like a peasent, and, thanks them for the privelage of being a peasent by nicking people who can actually catch shi't jealous little bum licker

[baw 4,360]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

 

You reading this Baldrick???

 

Well done sussy

[rolysmate 49]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

 

 

I"m really liking your answers, you either know what your talking about or barking mad either way good stuff

[highdanzil 0]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

 

 

I"m really liking your answers, you either know what your talking about or barking mad either way good stuff

thanks much appreciated

[undisputed 1,664]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

 

 

Surely having two dogs and shining a lamp is enough to establish intent then

[sussexpoacher 45]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

 

 

I"m really liking your answers, you either know what your talking about or barking mad either way good stuff

 

she does and she is

[celtic hound 2]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

did they have good lamps in 1862?

 

 

I"m really liking your answers, you either know what your talking about or barking mad either way good stuff

 

she does and she is

[torchey 1,328]

this is a very very old and virtually unused Act and i'd say you've been bloody unlucky!. My advice would be to get a solicitor on it a.s.a.p but first thoughts are to say go not guilty. It is up to the Crown to demonstrate that you were poaching/intending to and if you had permissions then that's strong evidence in your favour. Being in a vehicle with 2 lurchers and a lamp is not an offence per se, they will have to prove intent to commit an offence.

On a lighter note, if you really want to go for it, it's vaguely possible that the Summons is not valid as the the Act states that an officer has the power to stop and search and that "such officer" may apply to Justices for a Summons. That implies that the summons must be signed by "such officer" i.e the officer who stopped you. These days summons are computer generated with an electronic signature of the Chief Constable. A tenacious ( and most likely barking mad!) lawyer could have some real fun with that one (there is some ancient case law from 1800's which support it!!)

Good Luck

Mrs Sussex Poacher

 

 

Surely having two dogs and shining a lamp is enough to establish intent then

i,ve got a bit of permission and many a time i,ve browsed over fields on the way home out of the motor....curiosity not poaching...

[3 Turns 326]

ALRIGHT MATE.

ID SAY YOUR FECKED.

THEY,LL BUST YOU FOR BEING AQUIPPED.

TOSSERS.

[Cold Ethyl 63]

Im surprised they havent sent the rspca to check the dogs yetjust be careful make sure your squeeky clean and get character referances for your lawyer to put across

[jacksbignose 8]

ALRIGHT MATE.

ID SAY YOUR FECKED.

THEY,LL BUST YOU FOR BEING AQUIPPED.

TOSSERS.

 

Being equipped for what? Catching rabbits which he has permission for!

 

Unless I've missed something the guy is driving along with two dogs and a couple lamps and various other persons in the car, on return from his permission with no game or rabbits or anything more incriminating in the car; it has to get laughed out of court... unless there is more to this.

[CorkyJohn 808]

Any 'barely capable', never mind competent brief would have this thrown out with immediate effect. If this charge was acceptable I'd suggest everyone leaves their lamps etc at their permission & ask the farmer if he'd charge your batteries you'd best restrict your permission to one farm/estate or your activities could get expensive. I've been pulled with dogs/gear in car leaving a field & I just give them any old bullshit, unless they can pin anything on you they're wasting their time as trespass isn't worth pursuing unless its somewhere like railways/airport land etc

[whippet 99 2,613]

they charged you knowing fully well that it will get chucked out of court, but they do this just too show people that there cracking down, and this gets added to the statistic number so it looks like there doing some thing about it. there just usingyou as an escape goat as there too lasy to catch people red handed , you were an easy target they took advantage of - low lifers