I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse …..

Glorianny, the point is not what she did, which is inexcusable, but whether she caused unnecessary suffering to the horse. Despite what we all think about what she did, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that her actions caused unnecessary suffering. If we were members of the jury and had heard all the evidence including the testimony of expert witnesses, we would probably, and with regret, have reached the conclusion they did.

Kate1949

Or the people standing around were her friends and saw nothing unusual in her behaviour because it is normal behaviour for her maybe?

Exactly. And I'll ask again - does anyone who has actually seen that video think that is an acceptable way to behave towards any animal? As I said before, I've been around horses all my life and I would never have slapped or kicked any one of them.

Or the people standing around were her friends and saw nothing unusual in her behaviour because it is normal behaviour for her maybe?

Disgusting individual. She should have been given a prison sentence for animal cruelty.

So either they are all unfeeling people who support cruelty, or there really wasn't any

Well, that's an interesting thought. Perhaps most of the people there thought that kicking and punching horses is an acceptable way to behave.

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you addressing me? Few video clips are likely to show the whole story but do credit the prosecution with putting forward all available evidence.

Of course but there were many people standing around when the incident happened. The fact that no one came forward to give evidence for the prosecution indicates that none of them regarded it as cruelty. So either they are all unfeeling people who support cruelty, or there really wasn't any.
The remark about the video was to all who seem to think it is a reliable source of information. It Isn't.

Thanks Germanshephersmum for the explanation and we obviously both agree that there is no excuse for kicking and slapping (no matter how lightly it was administered) a wayward animal. None.

I would be interested to know how many vets in the country thought the animal suffered unneccesarily, and how many didnt.

Are you addressing me? Few video clips are likely to show the whole story but do credit the prosecution with putting forward all available evidence.

So every film you all see where someone appears to be hit or kicked hard you evidently believe that you are seeing exactly what happened do you? If you don't understand that film really doesn't give you an accurate or clear picture of the actual events then you need to do a bit of research. You cannot tell from the video how much force was involved or what contact there was. Interestingly the RSPCA advertised asking anyone who witnessed what happened to contact them. Obviously there were no witnesses who wanted to give evidence against Sarah Mould.
This was a prosecution which wasted money the RSPCA could have put to much better use. It was not only a trial triggered by social media it continues to be one. It's plainly unjust.

My post explains, I hope, how she ‘got away with it’. The crime is causing unnecessary suffering, not punching, kicking or being angry. I would have liked to have seen her found guilty and banned from keeping animals, but for there to have been any possibility of that the prosecution would have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she caused unnecessary suffering and I have no doubt that the defence produced an expert witness to say with sufficient authority that she had not. We all hate to see animals mistreated but as I have already said, had she done what she did to a much smaller animal the standard of proof may well have been met.

I don’t know how she got away with it, people like her should be banned from having animals, really upset to hear this.

Chardy

Dickens I don't think parents in days of yore thought punching a child hard in the face or kicking them was teaching them a lesson.

I'm sure they didn't.

But I think you missed the point I was making... or I failed to make it clear.

There can be no excuse, whatever happened before. The jury will have seen and heard far more than we have but I have offered above what I believe is a plausible reason for their not having convicted her. Their thoughts were probably very much like ours, but if the prosecution hadn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had caused unnecessary suffering they would have to acquit her despite her deplorable behaviour.

To those using the excuse (including the perpetrator) that she was being judged on a snippet of what happened and and that it was taken out of context - can anyone please explain what circumstances could have possibly preceded her hitting and kicking her horse to justify it? It beggars belief that she tried to imply that if the public had seen the whole footage, then they would have seen that the horse deserved it!!! Her behaviour was utterly disgusting and there's absolutely no excuse for animal cruelty, which it most certainly was.

Thanks germansheherds mum. I hoped you’d contribute. Your assessment sounds correct and I agree, her behaviour was abhorrent. As others have said, this is unlikely to have been an isolated incident
People who act so aggressively to a dog/pony in those circs -it’s their default action

Such a shame that the horse cannot appeal! It was really disgusting behaviour on the teachers part.....we can only hope that the horse remembers her and throws her off at some point in the future, preferable in a pile of manure....she wouldn't come out of that smelling of roses!
What a vile woman, wouldn't want her teaching any of my GC!

Disgusting, she should be banned from keeping, or working with, horses ever again.

And when she's angry or frustrated does she stop at animals?

I couldn’t agree more Smileless. No animal should be mistreated in any way. Taking your temper out on an animal is unforgivable.

That does make sense GSM and without any obvious injury, proving unnecessary suffering would be hard to prove. Someone like her shouldn't be around horses or any animals come to that.

I suspect the charge was one of causing unnecessary suffering to the animal. Her actions were abhorrent but may not have caused unnecessary suffering, which is what would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I haven’t read up on the case but my guess is that the prosecution were unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she caused unnecessary suffering. I imagine that what would make say a cat suffer may not make a horse suffer, because of their relative sizes. Please note that I am not in any way condoning what was done, merely trying to find a possible explanation for the verdict.

Personally if she been my child's teacher, I'd have been very relieved that she'd been removed from caring for them. And if my child was in the class that she's now teaching at, I'd be worried about how she'd show her anger and exasperation in a classroom of 30+ children.

Glorianny

Kate1949

To me, thats not the point Glorianny. If they had examined the horse, he may not have any visible marks/injuries from the kick/slaps. What does that prove? That she didn't kick hom hard enough?

Don't you understand that it really doesn't matter what you think. You were not there. You did not witness it. You have not been given all the evidence. Videos are notoriously bad at showing the actual event, but you feel you can judge by one short clip. It's the worst form of social media hounding and however you feel you should accept the jury's judgement. The posts suggesting this was some sort of technicality are so wrong the jury debated for 5 hours and she was found not guilty.

I can't believe that anyone who saw the video clip could think that her behaviour was in any way acceptable. I've sat through enough court cases in my time to know that there would be a lot more evidence than just that short clip, but are you really trying to tell me that you think it's acceptable to slap and kick a horse like that?

fancythat

DaisyAnneReturns

An expert witness is a person whose opinion, by education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. In this case, the expert was a vet.

'Expertise' (your quotes) is not "being questioned"; being the expert witness exposed to the evidence in this trial is. As far as I 'm aware no GN poster acted as such a witness. Therefore, they don't know the evidence presented to the jury, which may or may not have included the piece of film - their only evidence.

You are ready to stick to facts when facts are in favour of your argument Maisie, but very thin-skinned when they are not. Your loaded comment, "What level of abuse are you willing to find acceptable?" is an underhand attack. I am never prepared to accept abuse.

Thanking the jury for their service, Recorder Graham Huston said: 'Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I know it was not an easy case, no case is easy, but some cases are more difficult than others.

^'What is obvious is you gave this case the utmost attention and you proceeded with your deliberations carefully and thoroughly and I am very grateful to you.'^

The "expert" vets didnt agree with each other.

An equine vet, Dr Suzanne Green, told jurors the striking was "not proportionate", but another vet, appearing for Moulds' defence, said Bruce would probably have felt just "transient discomfort".

Experts don't necessarily agree. They are there to give expert opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. It must also be evidence which gives the court the help it needs in forming its conclusions. If expert opinions differ it will show the jury that experts differ in the area they are judging. They are not there to tell the jury what to believe or make their minds up for them.