hanno wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:27 pm And they are not "Seagulls", there is no bird with that name.

xandreu wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:30 pm I'm not for one minute defending this bizarre and twisted act - however, let's play devils advocate....

For a crime to have taken place - and I'm no expert in these matters - surely it would have to be shown that the seagull was in some way harmed or distressed. OK, he gave it a 'little kick' but that doesn't seem to be the central premise of the case. The central focus of the case, as far as I can see, was that he somehow used the seagull to satisfy a sexual urge by holding it between his legs as he masterbated. It doesn't say the seagull was in any way penetrated, nor was there any attempt to penetrate it. I wonder how one goes about proving that the seagull did actually suffer any distress?

The only other crime he may have committed would be one of public decency. However, it doesn't appear as if anyone witnessed his actions and reported him to police. He was caught because he was captured on CCTV. To my mind, there would an argument to be had that he took reasonable steps to assure that he was not in view, nor was likely to be in view, of any members of the public when committing the act. CCTV camera's, by their very nature, are often placed in inconspicuous places which make them difficult to spot. There may be a case if the CCTV operator was in any way distressed at viewing the images, but it could also be argued that there is a reasonably expectation that CCTV operators should be trained and prepared to witness all manner of actions and behaviour.

As I said, I'm just playing devils advocate, and would never honestly defend such sick actions, but considering the defendant also suffers mental health issues, I do wonder where this case stands from a legal standpoint.