CPS slammed as they lose case in their pro-burglar stance: Kenneth Hugill cleared

yorkie · 10 Mar 2017

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301324/Farmer-weeps-cleared-shooting-burglar.html

Kenneth Hugill, 83, was arrested after he shot Richard Stables, 44, in the foot

Incident took place at his isolated farm at Wilberfoss, near York, at 2am

Mr Hugill denied GBH and told police he was just acting in self defence

Today a jury took just 24 minutes to clear the pensioner of any wrongdoing

He cried outside court following verdict, as his family slammed CPS for bringing case to court in the first place

A farmer who shot a convicted burglar he thought was stealing diesel from his farm cried outside court today after a jury took just 24 minutes to clear him of GBH.

Richard Stables, a convicted burglar, was hit in the foot and driven straight to hospital by his friend Adrian Barron, a seasoned criminal with convictions for burglary and violence.

Apologies for linking to the Daily Mail but it's breaking news and I can't find a better outlet yet.

Edit: here's another article http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/farm...ting-burglar/story-30194387-detail/story.html

Today, following a three-day trial at Hull Crown Court, a jury found him not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm after Mr Hugill maintained throughout he was "just trying to frighten them away".

Speaking after the verdict, he told of the anguish caused to him and his wife of 67 years Sheila, over the past 15 months.

He said: "I am very, very pleased with the verdict. It's marvellous. I do not scare easily. I thought he was going to kill me"...

...His son David Hugill lives near his father and made the initial call to the police following the shooting. He said: "We're farmers and we do not make a lot of money. We will have to borrow to pay the bill.

"He did it in fright. We feel the law is going in the wrong direction for the British people. It needs looking at very seriously."

Anyway, the CPS has - yet again - wasted taxpayers money by attempting to bring unjust action against a good person. The CPS have dubious morals and questionable judgement, in my opinion.

The CPS' war on hardworking people and defence of people who act recklessly or unlawfully continues unabated. Can anyone bring the CPS to account?

Anyway I am glad to hear the result of this case. Common sense prevailed.

I note their website has the misleading slogan "CPS: Prosecuting crime for the public we serve"; in actual fact "Prosecuting the public and protecting criminals" would be more apt in this case.

RailUK Forums

Senex · 10 Mar 2017

yorkie said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301324/Farmer-weeps-cleared-shooting-burglar.html

Apologies for linking to the Daily Mail but it's breaking news and I can't find a better outlet yet.

Edit: here's another article http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/farm...ting-burglar/story-30194387-detail/story.html

Anyway, the CPS has - yet again - wasted taxpayers money by attempting to bring unjust action against a good person. The CPS have dubious morals and questionable judgement, in my opinion.

The CPS' war on hardworking people and defence of people who act recklessly or unlawfully continues unabated. Can anyone bring the CPS to account?

Anyway I am glad to hear the result of this case. Common sense prevailed.

I note their website has the misleading slogan "CPS: Prosecuting crime for the public we serve"; in actual fact "Prosecuting the public and protecting criminals" would be more apt in this case.

Like you, I'm glad to hear the result. The defence, as it has been reported in the local press, seems tenuous in the extreme.

455driver · 10 Mar 2017

Got to keep the masses in line!

Cant do much with the 'lower end' of society, ie their bread and butter, but we dont want the masses getting ideas above their station.

Good result but once again its a cas that should never have been brought, but then its not them paying it is it!

Howardh · 10 Mar 2017

Hmm, I've no sympathy for the burgler but one thing does worry me, I used to deliver prescription drugs and a lot of my patch was rural; and often these were delivered quite late at night - and scrambling around outbuildings trying to find a door in the dark is hard enough, add the thought that someone with a gun might think you are up to no good is a worry.

I can say that most would have been expecting me, left lights on etc, but those that had regular deliveries might not be expecting them at the time they came.

Same goes for deliveries, postmen etc.

Domh245 · 10 Mar 2017

Howardh said:
Hmm, I've no sympathy for the burgler but one thing does worry me, I used to deliver prescription drugs and a lot of my patch was rural; and often these were delivered quite late at night - and scrambling around outbuildings trying to find a door in the dark is hard enough, add the thought that someone with a gun might think you are up to no good is a worry.

I can say that most would have been expecting me, left lights on etc, but those that had regular deliveries might not be expecting them at the time they came.

Same goes for deliveries, postmen etc.

But is 2AM "late at night"?

Tetchytyke · 10 Mar 2017

Shooting someone for stealing some of diesel is not a rational or proportional response. We can't just shoot people we don't like, even if we are old farmers.

It boils down to how reasonable and credible his fear of violence was. Obviously the jury took his side and felt it was both reasonable and credible. Doesn't mean the CPS were wrong to bring the case.

RichmondCommu · 10 Mar 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Shooting someone for stealing some of diesel is not a rational or proportional response. We can't just shoot people we don't like, even if we are old farmers.

Wait until you're 83 (and frail) and you're frightened and scared because an intruder is on your property. It's not a question of not liking them, more a case of being in abject fear of them.

Xenophon PCDGS · 10 Mar 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Shooting someone for stealing some of diesel is not a rational or proportional response. We can't just shoot people we don't like, even if we are old farmers.

It boils down to how reasonable and credible his fear of violence was. Obviously the jury took his side and felt it was both reasonable and credible. Doesn't mean the CPS were wrong to bring the case.

When you talk about "fear", please remember that what is "fear of violence" in the mind of someone in early adult life is not the same as "fear of violence" in the mind of someone 83 years of age.

I have seen more than I care to have seen over the years of images of elderly women and men with bruised faces and blackened eyes who were attacked in their own homes by a much younger person intent upon criminality.

OneOffDave · 10 Mar 2017

RichmondCommu said:
Wait until you're 83 (and frail) and you're frightened and scared because an intruder is on your property. It's not a question of not liking them, more a case of being in abject fear of them.

If you're frail and 83, how safe are you having a firearm and how well are you complying with the secure storage of weapon and ammunition separately?

If I stab, shoot or bludgeon someone in self defence I totally expect to go to court over it. It goes with the territory. As far as I'm aware, the UK doesn't have the same disparity of force arrangements that apply to self defence in other countries enabling weaker people to use greater force against stronger threats

yorksrob · 10 Mar 2017

Just goes to show how important the jury system is in interpreting and applying the law. The CPS probably had to bring this case according to the letter of the law. It wouldn't have served the cause of justice for the case to have succeeded. The jury was the key moderating factor.

AlterEgo · 10 Mar 2017

yorksrob said:
Just goes to show how important the jury system is in interpreting and applying the law. The CPS probably had to bring this case according to the letter of the law. It wouldn't have served the cause of justice for the case to have succeeded. The jury was the key moderating factor.

A jury isn't there to interpret the law. They're there to decide guilt, which is something quite different.

crehld · 10 Mar 2017

Firing a shotgun at someone is a pretty serious matter, whether in self-defence or not. If it were self-defence fair enough - the man was clearly threatened and afraid for his wellbeing. But it's the sort of excuse anyone firing a shotgun with malicious intent might use get off the hook, and simply taking an 83 year old's word for it by the pure virtue of their age would set a rather dangerous precedent in my opinion. Criminality does not end with the acquisition of a bus pass, so to my mind the man's age, deafness, or the fact he was a farmer have no relevance. So I see no problem with a case being brought and letting a jury weigh up the evidence and make a verdict. In fact I'm rather glad my taxes are spent to ensure justice. Indeed, had the CPS dropped a case where someone was shot with malicious intent and a real criminal escaped justice simply because the shooter said "self defence", no doubt we'd all be moaning how the CPS has failed to prosecute and protect hard working families from shotgun wielding criminals roaming the streets at night.

Hornet · 10 Mar 2017

Reasonable Force can be used in Ireland, even if it might end in a fatality.

Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011.
Justifiable use of force, etc.

2.— (1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or

(iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person uses force against—

(a) a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his or her duty,

(b) a person assisting a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his or her duty, or

(c) a person lawfully performing a function authorised by or under any enactment.

(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person using the force engages in conduct or causes a state of affairs for the purpose of using that force to resist or terminate an act of another person acting in response to that conduct or state of affairs, but subsection (1) may apply, if the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person using the force concerned does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.

(4) It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances.

(5) It is immaterial whether the person using the force had a safe and practicable opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using the force concerned.

(6) (a) A person shall be regarded as using force in relation to another person if he or she—

(i) applies force in relation to or causes an impact on the body of that other person,

(ii) threatens to apply force in relation to or cause an impact on the body of that other person, or

(iii) detains that other person.

(b) A person shall be regarded as using force in relation to property belonging to another person if he or she—

(i) applies force to that property,

(ii) causes an impact on that property, or

(iii) threatens to apply force to or cause an impact on that property.

(7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death.

(8) An act is criminal notwithstanding that the person doing the act—

(a) if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—

(i) he or she acted under duress,

(ii) his or her act was involuntary,

(iii) he or she was in a state of intoxication, or

(iv) he or she was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for the act,

or

(b) was a person to whom section 52 (1) of the Children Act 2001 applied.

(9) The references in subsection (1)(b) to protecting a person or property from a criminal act include references to protecting the person or property from the continuation of the act, and the reference to preventing the commission of a crime or to effecting, or assisting in effecting, a lawful arrest shall be similarly construed.

(10) In this section—

“intoxication” means being under the intoxicating influence of any alcoholic drink, drug, solvent or any other substance or combination of substances;

“property” means property of a tangible nature, whether real or personal, including money and—

(a) shall be regarded as belonging to any person—

(i) having custody or control of it,

(ii) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest), or

(iii) having a charge over it,

(b) where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom the property belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and

(c) property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

(11) For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in this section to property includes, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to a dwelling.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/35/section/2/enacted/en/index.html

yorksrob · 10 Mar 2017

AlterEgo said:
A jury isn't there to interpret the law. They're there to decide guilt, which is something quite different.

That's fine in terms of "did he shoot some fellow in the foot", however this seems to be more a case of "did he break a law by shooting some fellow in the foot" in which case it would be pretty much impossible for a jury member to tell without interpreting the law he is accused of having broken.

Busaholic · 10 Mar 2017

Domh245 said:
But is 2AM "late at night"?

In the countryside, most definitely 'yes'.

Howardh · 10 Mar 2017

Domh245 said:
But is 2AM "late at night"?

We do have all-night pharmacies with 24-hr delivery, not my job though! Admittedly you wouldn't get "normal" deliveries at that time, but emergencies? Sure they would be expecting them, but suppose the delivery guy is searching for the property and stumbles across the wrong building out in the country (as I have done time and time again...farms/dwellings aren't easy to find sometimes, and satnav can be unreliable) and the bloke has a gun?

Of course, what time becomes "worrying" for the resident. Would anyone crawling round a garden at 10.30pm be any more frightening than 2.30am? The former could be a burglar with a weapon, the latter a drunk who has lost their way.

Does help a lot if the guy/woman with the gun asks "who are you, what are you doing?" first and gives one the chance to explain!!

Tetchytyke · 10 Mar 2017

RichmondCommu said:
Wait until you're 83 (and frail) and you're frightened and scared because an intruder is on your property. It's not a question of not liking them, more a case of being in abject fear of them.

Obviously the jury felt he behaved reasonably and rationally in the circumstances. He said he didn't mean to hit them, just frighten them, and the jury agreed. I can't disagree with their decision.

It doesn't mean the CPS have a "pro-burglar agenda" though. Burglars are pond life. Doesn't make it ok to shoot them.

yorkie · 10 Mar 2017

Howardh said:
Does help a lot if the guy/woman with the gun asks "who are you, what are you doing?" first and gives one the chance to explain!!

The article states:

Mr Hugill told the court yesterday that he was 'petrified' when the Land Rover 'revved up' without lights on and set off towards him.

He fired two shots – one towards the side of the vehicle and another in the air to frighten the occupants away...

These criminals got quite a shock as they are so used to getting their own way, and they know that in this country they can usually get away with their criminal acts (and even if caught, not a lot happens). The criminal who was injured is a serial liar too:

The injured man gave three different versions of how he suffered his shotgun injuries before eventually admitting a farmer shot him.

The court heard Mr Stables had a criminal history with convictions for burglary, theft and possession of an offensive weapon.

He was also on a police intelligence list as a person active in rural crime after an incident in the Yorkshire Dales where an officer threatened him with CS spray.

The defence claimed Stables and Barron were there to steal diesel not hunt for rabbits. Roderick Hunt, defending, told Stables: 'You just made it up. It is the dog defence that burglars have when they are stopped by the police.'

Clearly, the farmer was right to be fearful of this vile individual.

I wonder how Gerry Wareham would feel if it was his life in danger? He should admit he made the wrong decision, as the verdict being made so quickly clearly indicates. It's worrying that they are defiantly refusing to admit that they were wrong.

Tetchytyke · 10 Mar 2017

One can simultaneously be glad that someone got shot and troubled by civilians taking the law into their own hands. Look at that pond life Tony Martin killed: nobody laments his loss, but it's still not right to shoot him.

I think the CPS were right to put it to a jury to decide. The "trauma" of a jury trial is the choice you make when you shoot someone.

Busaholic · 10 Mar 2017

Arctic Troll said:
The "trauma" of a jury trial is the choice you make when you shoot someone.

Though not, in practice, if you're a police officer, whatever the circumstances, both in this country and the USA. Light blue touch paper and retire.

Jonny · 11 Mar 2017

Busaholic said:
Though not, in practice, if you're a police officer, whatever the circumstances, both in this country and the USA. Light blue touch paper and retire.

This one went to a jury though: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33386224

Trog · 14 Mar 2017

I think shooting someone is serious enough that there should be some sort of enquiry, and hopefully one involving a jury will ensure fair play.

muz379 · 14 Mar 2017

yorkie said:
I wonder how Gerry Wareham would feel if it was his life in danger? He should admit he made the wrong decision, as the verdict being made so quickly clearly indicates. It's worrying that they are defiantly refusing to admit that they were wrong.

What so now every time the crown looses a case the prosecutor involved has to apologise .That seems awfully pathetic . The CPS have replied on this matter that both the tests they use to decide when to prosecute have been met in this case and given the procedures the CPS use this would have been checked by more than one lawyer .

Certain elements of this case did raise the question of if his action was more pre meditated than spontaneous self defence which would have been criminal . . The fact that the man managed to quickly access his shotgun and the fact that he had repeatedly been the victim of diesel thefts and poachers that sounded incredibly similar to the case of Tony Martin who had also suffered several previous burglaries and had made statements about shooting the next burglar who came onto his property .

And for that reason the CPS are right question if the man's conduct was self defence . If not a court who are they to ask to adjudicate on that matter ?

Fortunately for the man the Jury agreed that his conduct was reasonable self defence or at least agreed that he should not be convicted . This is one of the benefits of the Jury systems operation in the UK , even if to the letter of the law or to a qualified interpretation someone has done something criminal the Jury can make a decision without giving reason thus allowing Jury nullification by the backdoor .

Starmill · 14 Mar 2017

The CPS have a duty to act according to their remit. If they did not do so, they would rightly come under harsh criticism. You can comment on the procedures the CPS uses to come up with cases that should be brought to court and how they gather information and decide, but to suggest that they were in the wrong because they didn't win is ludicrous.

Otherwise you could cut out the court and just have the CPS decide who is guilty and why. Or cut them out and have the Minister do it. And then you're in a country with no legal system and a dictatorship.

If there's an issue that needs to be looked at, it's one of procedure. One can comment on those if they're well informed on the duties the CPS have and cases the CPS deal with, have a base of evidence to refer to and a solid understanding of how Justice works in the UK. I don't, so I will leave it there, but one cannot simply say that the CPS have done something wrong because the Daily Mail reports that this is so - indeed the fact that the Daily Mail is complaining about the CPS rather suggests to me that they are doing their job properly.

WelshBluebird · 14 Mar 2017

The guy shot someone for crying out loud. Of course it is right and proper that it was investigated. Just because he was the victim of a burglary it doesn't mean he can't also be guilty of shooting someone. In this case the jury have decided his actions were reasonable, but if we started NOT investigating these cases (where again, I remind you, someone did get shot), then that is where I would start to worry.

yorkie · 14 Mar 2017

Starmill said:
The CPS have a duty to act according to their remit. If they did not do so, they would rightly come under harsh criticism.

They are certainly getting a lot of criticism at the moment (and not just for this case), and rightly so. (They came in for a lot of criticism at tonight's forum meal for another case but I'll be posting more about that in the relevant thread in a few days time)

It is not right that the real victim has had to pay £30k in legal fees.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-12/...0-000-legal-fees-of-farmer-83-cleared-of-gbh/

A fund has been started to pay the £30,000 legal fees of an 83-year-old farmer who was cleared of shooting a convicted burglar in the foot when he intruded on his land.

However, celebrity lawyer, Nick Freeman, known as Mr Loophole, has started an online fund for Mr Hugill, who has never been in trouble with the police before.

Mr Freeman felt so strongly about the case that he set up a crowdfunding page.

Writing on the page he created, Mr Freeman branded "the current legal system is a disgrace" adding that the outcome was "not justice".

Our current legal system absolutely is a disgrace, and is very much on the side of people whose lives are spent making others lives a misery. It is not on the side of hardworking people.

yorkie · 14 Mar 2017

WelshBluebird said:
The guy shot someone for crying out loud. Of course it is right and proper that it was investigated. Just because he was the victim of a burglary it doesn't mean he can't also be guilty of shooting someone. In this case the jury have decided his actions were reasonable, but if we started NOT investigating these cases (where again, I remind you, someone did get shot), then that is where I would start to worry.

The investigation should have concluded with the rather obvious outcome not to waste public money. I am not saying it should not be investigated (do you really think that is what I was suggesting?)

muz379 · 14 Mar 2017

yorkie said:
It is not right that the real victim has had to pay £30k in legal fees.

I would question how his legal fees have risen so high for a 3 day trial for a charge of GBH which is a relatively run of the mill offence that any criminal barrister would be capable of providing defence representation for .

I would agree that anyone tried with a criminal offence should be entitled to legal aid to fund reasonable costs to defend the charge against them .

But then the availability of legal aid to individual defendants is not something that the CPS is responsible for , nor is it something that they should be taking into account when deciding who and when to prosecute .

yorkie · 14 Mar 2017

I'm not blaming the CPS for the fact he ended up with a large legal bill obviously but ultimately they were wrong to pursue the case.

But our legal system in general seems to leave much to be desired; hardworking people (especially those in a position of responsibility) have much to lose and fear while low-lives who go round burgling and committing violent crimes really don't care because they know punishments they get are not harsh enough to act as any sort of deterrent.

muz379 · 14 Mar 2017

yorkie said:
I'm not blaming the CPS for the fact he ended up with a large legal bill obviously but ultimately they were wrong to pursue the case.

Apart from the fact that they lost the case which is not enough in my view is there anything else which suggests they were wrong to pursue the case ?

There where substantial questions over if he had acted in self defence when using a shotgun against someone to me it would be wrong if they did not ask a court to make a decision over that conduct

yorkie said:
But our legal system in general seems to leave much to be desired; hardworking people (especially those in a position of responsibility) have much to lose and fear while low-lives who go round burgling and committing violent crimes really don't care because they know punishments they get are not harsh enough to act as any sort of deterrent.

But that is more in my view a social problem . People fairly often get sent to prison for crimes like Burglary and random violent attacks but because they do not have a lot going for them in life going to prison makes no odds to them . Indeed in certain circles people have such low self esteem or have such backwards morals that going to prison is seen as some sort of badge of Honour . Is making the sentences any harsher going to act as any form of deterrent . I mean compared to some other offences for example supply and sale of class A drugs is often given a relatively harsh sentence and yet plenty of young men in bigger towns and cities turn to gang activity centred around this for various social reasons , irrespective of the fact that they could go down for years .

Similarly when I was growing up possession of a knife or gun was given a mandatory sentence of 5 years minimum which for merely possessing something is an incredibly long time to spend inside . Yet plenty of people still went round carrying both irrespective of the sentence .

CPS slammed as they lose case in their pro-burglar stance: Kenneth Hugill cleared

Forum Staff

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Forum Staff

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member