This article describes a couple of British poachers who were arrested. It says that the police held their dogs for seven months before releasing them.
Seven months? Is that really necessary? Why such a long holding period for the dogs, when the guys arrested weren’t even sentenced to any jail time?
As I read it the police confiscated the dogs when the men were arrested in March. The men would have been on bail until the hearing in October but the dogs would have been held pending the trial. (Presumably on the ground that they were the “tools” being used to commit the alledged crime.)
ps IANAL !
ETA Just noticed the magistrates ordered their equipment forfeited. The implication is that their “equipment” included the dogs but they were allowed to be returned as family pets.
It’s stupidly inhumane. The dogs aren’t guilty of any infraction, and they suffer when separated from their pack. Furthermore, dogs don’t live very long, and seven months is a larger chunk of their lives than it is of ours.
I’m thoroughly against poachers, but isn’t it possible to penalize them in some way other than arbitrarily inflicting distress on animals in the name of protecting other animals?
I assume the dogs were being used by the poachers, and they were evidence in the trial. The police always hold on to the evidence until the trial, for obvious reasons.
Does anybody know where the line is drawn regarding what can be considered evidence? I assume live sane human adults cannot be held as evidence in most countries. Can a comatose human be held as evidence anywhere? A child? What about human remains?
That is pretty much what a material witness is in the US. IANAL, so please feel free to fight my ignorance if I have this wrong.
Not a child, but yes, a cadaver can be held as evidence (although there’s generally not much point once the medical examiner is done with it).
There was a Wisconsin Dane county trial where 47 dogs where held for 9 months in 2006. There were originally 52 dogs. The trial hold kept the animal shelter tied up and unable to do it’s normal duties for Dane county.
Years ago in Pittsburgh there was a voodoo priest (self proclaimed) arrested for brutalizing his wife. Part of the evidence against him was a rooster used in some sorta ceremony. The rooster was kept at an animal shelter for close to a year, at a cost to taxpayers of around $15 a day.
I may be misunderstanding, but the article in question appears to indicate that judgment has been given, the punishment has been meted out, and the dogs will be held for 7 months. There’s no indication they’re being held as evidence or that a trial is pending.
Maybe the article meant to say “after having been held”?
It’s also worth noting, by the way, that what they were doing is apparently legal to do on public land, for whatever that’s worth.
Yes, I think it meant “having been held”.
There is no concept of ‘public land’ here. All land belongs to somebody, and you want to take game or vermin on it you’d better get the owner’s permission.
Quite possibly the magistrates could have ordered the dogs seized and forfeited. Obviously, they were held to forestall attempts to evade such forfeiture.