Hare Coursing

[Gaz_1989 9,539]

few questions pop to mind after reading this topic was you on permission? was you caught with anything? was you seen slipping dogs? what have you said on interview? did they pull you n then put you in that interview van and question you there ? they must have something on you for you to be summoned ? whatever it may be lad theyre gunna want a prosecution just to show that theyre not wasting tax payers money on setting up these anti coursing operations, it all boils down to government figures/statistics at the end of the day, whatever happened lad good luck on friday

I was interviewed and summonsed to court with zero evidence mate. They had absolutely nothing on us.

 

At the first hearing the CPS granted them another week to find some evidence (this is 10 weeks after the night in question) and then it got threw out at the second hearing.

 

Massive waste of tax payers money. I can only assume they just wanted to scare us into a guilty plea. When we hadn't broken the law.

[the big chief 3,099]

Tell them there is no such thing, as coursing with a lamp

 

Best of luck for Friday...

 

 

Hope it goes well..

thats what i tell them and that mine aren't saluki x's

 

just feed them shit most don't have a clue

[rob284 1,682]

say you were coursing mice haha

[Allan.A 27]

So with regards to the law. Would it be illegal to "flush" a hare to a gate or long net using a dog? Of any kind. Under the current legislation?

 

Please only answer this if you actually know the answer.

 

YIS Allan

[Giro 2,648]

You have make your own interpretation of the act..

 

I would be confident armed with nets, permission & insurance to argue the toss..

[Allan.A 27]

You have make your own interpretation of the act..

 

I would be confident armed with nets,

permission & insurance to argue the toss..

Thanks Giro, what kind of insurance?

 

Also what would be the case be if say. The dog mouthed the hare after the hare was secured in the net?

[Matt 160]

I think the exemption only applies to using a dog to flush to guns (not nets).

 

But I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

 

The bottom line is if you were somewhere you were supposed to be, doing something you can prove is legal, then you should have absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

If you weren't, then speak to a good solicitor and provide him or her with adequate information to prove a defence. As others have already said, the police are not allowed to lie when they are taking a statement. They can however, use 'tactics' to try and convince you that it would be better to come clean and admit wrongdoing.

 

I think that speculation without all the facts will help no-one.

[Giro 2,648]

BASC or Similar...

 

They could mouth no problem mate..

 

The dog is securing the quarry in the net until you arrive to humanely dispatch..

 

I have not had to defend my actions but believe they are truly lawful.

 

 

Other methods are flushing to waiting guns - Birds of prey.. The retrieval of shot quarry..

 

Humanely dispatching with dogs if you believed the animal to be injured or unwell..

 

Example a deer on 3 legs or hurt from road traffic accident.. Walking wounded type of scenario.

[Gaz_1989 9,539]

I think the exemption only applies to using a dog to flush to guns (not nets).

 

But I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

 

The bottom line is if you were somewhere you were supposed to be, doing something you can prove is legal, then you should have absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

If you weren't, then speak to a good solicitor and provide him or her with adequate information to prove a defence. As others have already said, the police are not allowed to lie when they are taking a statement. They can however, use 'tactics' to try and convince you that it would be better to come clean and admit wrongdoing.

 

I think that speculation without all the facts will help no-one.

You say the police are "not allowed to lie"...

 

That doesn't mean they don't. It means they aren't meant to.

 

They "aren't allowed" to nonce kids off. But they do

[Matt 160]

If you can prove that a police officer has lied to a court of law then they would end up in very serious trouble

 

As always, the difficulty is in proving anything

 

There are liars and cheats in all walks of life; some find excuses for it, others don't bother.

 

All unimportant really, as we do not know all the facts.

[Gaz_1989 9,539]

If you can prove that a police officer has lied to a court of law then they would end up in very serious trouble

 

As always, the difficulty is in proving anything

 

There are liars and cheats in all walks of life; some find excuses for it, others don't bother.

 

All unimportant really, as we do not know all the facts.

Never mentioned lying to a court of law mate. We were talking about lying to us. To prompt a confession.

 

People including yourself have said the police aren't allowed to lie. Suggesting that they don't.

 

But they do

[Allan.A 27]

BASC or Similar...

 

They could mouth no problem mate..

 

The dog is securing the quarry in the net until you arrive to humanely dispatch..

 

I have not had to defend my actions but believe they are truly lawful.

 

 

Other methods are flushing to waiting guns - Birds of prey.. The retrieval of shot quarry..

 

Humanely dispatching with dogs if you believed the animal to be injured or unwell..

 

Example a deer on 3 legs or hurt from road traffic accident.. Walking wounded type of scenario.

Thanks again Giro, all as I suspected. But it's good to know someone else shares my thinking. Also food for thought as I'm also a falconer. Although I don't have a bird at the moment. Further to that I dont own any kind of hunting dog at this moment. But this is soon to change, as my nice new lurcher was born last week. So I look forward to working it within to confines of the the law ?.

[Giro 2,648]

Its a grey area the hunting act..

 

Permission and insurance will seal the deal in my opinion..

[arcticgun 4,548]

You can only flush too gun or hawk

[Matt 160]

 

If you can prove that a police officer has lied to a court of law then they would end up in very serious trouble

 

As always, the difficulty is in proving anything

 

There are liars and cheats in all walks of life; some find excuses for it, others don't bother.

 

All unimportant really, as we do not know all the facts.

Never mentioned lying to a court of law mate. We were talking about lying to us. To prompt a confession.

 

People including yourself have said the police aren't allowed to lie. Suggesting that they don't.

 

But they do

 

 

Actually, no

 

Go back and read what I've written properly

 

Police officers are as capable and willing to lie as anyone else. The thing is, if they get caught out, they are in proportionally more trouble than anyone else . Ever heard the term 'breech of trust'?

 

The fact that a police officer may lie (indirectly, or directly) 'off the record' in order to convince a suspect that it's in their best interests to confess, has never been disputed by me.

 

However, if it can be proven that a police officer has fabricated evidence, or lied while making a statement, then it's a stretch on Rule 43 for them

 

We can all speculate about the when, where, if's and why's in this case as much as we please, but unless the OP wants to furnish us with all the relevant facts then it is pretty pointless.

 

What do I mean?

 

Well, as others have suggested, if this is a 'hot' area, and the OP has any history with the police, then the chances are they will go for it and chuck some serious resources at establishing proof.

 

If, on the other hand, the OP was on permission, lamping rabbits, and the evidence of illegality is ambiguous, then I doubt it will go too far.

 

Happily, we don't have 'trial by media' in this country. Facts are put before a court and a decision is made based on those facts.