A Pro -active Angling Trust.

It's not often I disagree with Keith Arthur, we share mostly the same views on many of the politics within angling, we are both passionate members of Angling Trust and do everything we can to promote it.
Kings Lynn AA hold a club membership with Angling Trust, last year some of their club waters were illegally netted, the river Wissey to be specific, a couple of Eastern Europeans were caught complete with large nets, a motor boat,and other essential equipment to enable them to rape and plunder valuable natural fish stocks,informed opinion is they were doing this on a commercial basis, such was the level of the operation.

They were caught and prosecuted, all of their equipment was confiscated and they were ordered to pay £60 each for costs........ no court fine and no compensation for Kings Lynn AA.

To me, they got off very lightly, we do not even know if the equipment they used was purchased legally, but that aside, they got away with it in my book.

Now to the reason for this post, Fish Legal, the legal dept of Angling Trust have written to the two men asking the pair to make "an enforceable promise" that they will never again fish any of KLAA clubs waters, if they refuse to comply, then Fish Legal will apply for County court injunctions against them trespassing on club waters.

Keith seems to think this is a petty waste of time and unenforceable, I could not disagree more.

For as long as I can remember I have longed for a pro-active angling organisation with bite, I believe angling now has it in the Angling Trust, if a Court injunction is taken out on these two thieves and subsequently broken by them they could be facing a custodial sentance...... that is a proper ,forceful deterrent and sends out a loud and clear message to fish thieves up and down the Country...... if you mess with our member clubs,if you steal their fish, we will be coming for you, we will seek you out and hunt you down, using the law we will bang you up!!!!

As a part time voluntary club Bailiff , a club that is a member of Angling Trust,my club ( with similar problems) can expect the same sort of protection offered Kings Lynn AA, I am greatly heartened by this stance, if the courts fail us in the first instance , we have a back-up , a potent back-up too!

Keith calls for more positive press regarding the Angling Trust in his piece, well Keith, if I were running a club with similar fish theft problems but dithering over the annual subscriptions to join the Angling Trust, I think this latest pro-active stance would have persuaded me to join.......and pronto too!

Here is a link; http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=157&itemTitle=Anglers%92+fury+with+derisory+sentencing+of+poachers

Why not the AT prosicute privately for the lost of the fish o nbehalf of the angling club

I think it is the right move by the AT, after all if we (the AT) don't do it, who will?

Good question m'lud.

Our club is taking 2 persistant theives to court I havent heard the outcome yet

I am surprised more of you , especially the sceptics and knockers of Angling Trust, have not responded by posting on this threadto the positive action they have undertaken on this matter, It appears to me, someanglers are eager to condemn Angling Trust at every opportunity in an effort to justify non membership,but far less inclined tosupport and encouragethem when theycarry out their duty's in such a pro-active, forcefull and ingeniousway...........I expect there is a name for such a phenomenon./forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif

once again I think this should not be down to AT,the court should of automatically banned them from any KLAA waters

This is totally absurd. I wonder what sentence I would get if I walked out of a shop with half of their stock without paying?

<blockquote class=quoteheader> Lord Paul of Sheffield (DFKDFC) (SSDD) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>Why not the AT prosicute privately for the lost of the fish o nbehalf of the angling club</blockquote>
<blockquote class=quoteheader>Cakey wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>once again I think this should not be down to AT,the court should of automatically banned them from any KLAA waters</blockquote>


You're both confusing the criminal jurisdiction courts and their powers with the civil court's jurisdiction and powers.

Criminal courts can only do what they are empowered to do by way of sentence for the offence brought before them. They have no general power to start 'automatically' banning people from particular waters.

They would however have had the power to do so if someone had had the bright idea of tacking on an application for an ASBO in conjunction with this prosecution. Then such conditions could have been applied to any ASBO order made. Hopefully someone in the right place at the right time will think about adding an ASBO application to any such prosecutions in future.

Your Lordship, you can't 'prosecute' for damages. Damages are a civil remedy not a criminal penalty - that's why the old 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' signs always were and still are inaccurate.

While the malefactors could be sued for damages in a civil court the costs are likely to be wholly disproportionate to the exercise and the outcome academic, as the Defendants are unlikely to be good for the money or easily enforced against.

What the AT have done here is quite clever and cost effective: instead of launching into the expense of injunction / restraining order proceedings both feet flying they have asked the Defendants for voluntary undertakings to stay away.

If they give these undertakings and abide by them then they are one more problem eliminated from those waters.

If they give these undertakings and then breach them then a civil court will frankly throw the book at them.

If they refuse to give such undertakings then the question has to be asked 'why not ?' - it is after all only an undertaking to abide the law. If refused the inference therefore liable to be drawn is 'because they want to be free to go back to the river and resume their wicked ways'. In which case an application to the civil court for a restraining order becomes an absolute shoe-in as I believe the modern phrase is.

Good to see the AT using quality and effective legal advice and not just chucking money around on reflex issue of expensive proceedings using our contributions. One up for the good guys.

Now, where are all those pratts who not so long ago asked what the AT was going to do for us.... look, they're doing it ! Going to change your minds and support it now ? No, of course not. Rationality was never really a part of your opposition was it now....

Listen to Windy, he's a retired lawyer.

Thanks Marsbar, that's buggered up my credibility.... Now a reformed character and going slowly further out of date and less reliably informed with each day that goes past.

But very much less stressed, thank the Lord. Keeping up to date in these days of frenetic over-legislation and obsessive micromanaging subsidiary regulation is a very very time consuming and stressful task.

Remember, free legal advice is worth every penny.

Best post you've written for a long time Windy. So much better than your usual tripe/forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

The AT in action.

That reminds me, I must join...

Good answer Widy - and it answers my question -

Now Windy - Why can't the AT just shoot 'em?/forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

*Blush*

Thanks Corkster.

I'm still trying to keep to myself imposed discipline of not posting at all and sundry provocation at a whim without thought, plus strictly keeping whimsy and controversy in the Bait Box. On the fishing threads I am definitely still a reader and learner. Another 50 years and I may even by then have learned something about fishing worth posting !

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Gorgeous Bob Bradford wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>I am surprised more of you , especially the sceptics and knockers of Angling Trust, have not responded by posting on this threadto the positive action they have undertaken on this matter, It appears to me, someanglers are eager to condemn Angling Trust at every opportunity in an effort to justify non membership,but far less inclined tosupport and encouragethem when theycarry out their duty's in such a pro-active, forcefull and ingeniousway...........I expect there is a name for such a phenomenon./forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif</blockquote>
I did wonder actually why you put the first post up Bob. I thought it might be to advertise the AT again and blow their trumpet for them. I am a sceptic and a knocker as you quite rightly pointed out; however this is the first bit of positive action ive seen so far but I do admit that it does look encouraging. If more positive action is forthcoming then I shall also take some positive action and join the cause. I doubt that I shall be the only one.

Its a good thing to see them take action

Im not disagreeing with Windy Im say thats how it should be !

<blockquote class=quoteheader>trev (100M bronze) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote><blockquote class=quoteheader>Gorgeous Bob Bradford wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>I am surprised more of you , especially the sceptics and knockers of Angling Trust, have not responded by posting on this threadto the positive action they have undertaken on this matter, It appears to me, someanglers are eager to condemn Angling Trust at every opportunity in an effort to justify non membership,but far less inclined tosupport and encouragethem when theycarry out their duty's in such a pro-active, forcefull and ingeniousway...........I expect there is a name for such a phenomenon./forum/smilies/big_smile_smiley.gif</blockquote>
I did wonder actually why you put the first post up Bob. I thought it might be to advertise the AT again and blow their trumpet for them. I am a sceptic and a knocker as you quite rightly pointed out; however this is the first bit of positive action ive seen so far but I do admit that it does look encouraging. If more positive action is forthcoming then I shall also take some positive action and join the cause. I doubt that I shall be the only one.</blockquote>


Guilty as charged Trev, I thought it might prove fruitful to advertise some of what Angling Trust are set up for , afterall, they are there for us anglers, it is heartening you are reconsidering your view, lets hope others will re-think in time.

I don't want people to get the wrong impression with me though, if Angling Trust fail to deliver, I will be one of the first to condemn them, but to date, I believe credit is due.

Windy, thank you for enlightening me further, I have posted thisstoryon a couple of other angling websites, and some have scoffed at the "Enforceable Promise" slant, you have clarified the matter and I thank you, I had a sort of an idea, courts do like to see that every effort is made to resolve issues out of court if possible, A.T. by taking this clever stance have complied.

Criminal courts can only do what they are empowered to do by way of sentence for the offence brought before them. They have no general power to start 'automatically' banning people from particular waters.

Windy not wanting to disagree with your learned opinion, but couldn't the court have used the antisocial legislation on them and asbo ed them?

After all they did cause distress, harassment and alarm to all the members of KLAA

Try reading the next paragraph following the one you have quoted.

Magistrates and Judges in the criminal courts in this country have limited powers to do things of their own motion. They adjudicate upon the charges brought by the prosecuting authority and decide the merits of those charges on the evidence called before them by that prosecuting authority together with any evidence called by the Defence if there is a case to answer.

With very limited exceptions the Bench can't suddenly start dictating what other charges and other applications (like an ASBO application) are made to them. And for very good reason. What faith would you have in the independence and impartiality of a Court that sat in judgment upon charges that it had itself asked to be brougt as if the Judge were the prosecutor ? Not a great deal I think.

So if the prosecutors didn't seek to prosecute for antisocial behaviour or ask for an ASBO the Court doesn't in general have the jurisdiction to start chucking such orders around just because it fancies doing so or thinks it might be a nice idea. Even when a Criminal Court has the jurisdictiction to do so it will think very very hard before exercising that jurisdiction.

Judges in the civil Courts have a rather wider discretion to make orders of their own volition based on the evidence called before them. But even so they equally have to be careful to avoid the appearance of prejudgment and bias. Even then they are largely bound to act upon the facts established by the evidence called, not the evidence they would have liked or preferred to have been called.

Judges calling for witnesses to appear before the Court of their own motion that no party to the action wishes to call (and indeed may well formally oppose calling) and going off chasing witnesses and defendants on their own in their spare time is the stuff of TV drama and Murder She Wrote, not real life....

so Windy do you think the law ia an ass like me ?