I've just been looking at the MailOnline story about this. It says,
Horse rider Sarah Moulds was charged with one offence under the Animal Welfare Act relating to an incident on November 6 2021.
She was cleared following a three day trial by a jury of 11 men and a woman at Lincoln Crown Court.
- Charge 1: Causing unnecessary suffering to a grey pony called Bruce by allegedly kicking and hitting it
From the rest of the reporting, in this and other news media, she appears to have contested, successfully, whether what she did was 'unnecessary' or not. As in, yes there was some short-lived suffering - clear to see, she had to admit that - but she argued that it was necessary, purposeful, brief, and under control.
And the jury bought it.
I was surprised at the verdict because whereas, as a jury member, I could accept that forms of chastisement are for some horse riders, owners and trainers - rightly or wrongly - fairly normalised, what I couldn't accept was that this horse owner was in control of her temper, and therefore I would find it difficult to trust and believe her on her evidence.
Really, really odd one.