Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Thomas Sorahan not guilty of Ferret Torture

johnboy 1 April 2009 93

The ABC is reporting that Thomas Sorahan’s conviction for ferret torture has been set aside.

    Thomas Sorahan, 26, was charged with committing a serious act of animal cruelty intending to inflict serious pain.

    The owner of the ferrets who lived with Sorahan found pictures and a video of his pets on his housemate’s camera.

    The vision showed one of his pets being injected with a substance, thought to be a drug.

A decision on Adriano Larobina will be published in the next few days.

UPDATE: The Canberra Times has more on this.

FURTHER UPDATE: Tom has left this message for you all:

    #13 posted by Tom Sorah
    (Newbie)
    10:34, 1 Apr 2009

    I would welcome the opportunity to meet up for a chat with any of you peices of s***. My phone number is 0415 636 483. If you read the paper you shall read that the conviction was overturned. And i couldn’t care less what you retards write on this rubbish forum, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the circumstances and i hope it pisses you off.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
93 Responses to Thomas Sorahan not guilty of Ferret Torture
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
Ivan76 Ivan76 6:40 pm 04 Jul 09

Whatsup said :

Tom Sorah said :

I would welcome the opportunity to meet up for a chat with any of you peices of s***. My phone number is 0415 636 483. If you read the paper you shall read that the conviction was overturned. And i couldn’t care less what you retards write on this rubbish forum, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the circumstances and i hope it pisses you off.

Did anyone call ?

Anyone at all?? Particularly the tuff talkers at the top of this forum that said they were going to. Would love to hear how it all went.

Whatsup Whatsup 2:14 pm 03 Apr 09

Tom Sorah said :

I would welcome the opportunity to meet up for a chat with any of you peices of s***. My phone number is 0415 636 483. If you read the paper you shall read that the conviction was overturned. And i couldn’t care less what you retards write on this rubbish forum, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the circumstances and i hope it pisses you off.

Did anyone call ?

prhhcd prhhcd 1:53 pm 03 Apr 09

ha _ I know who you are now fox! Thanks for your support. I am really really worried about precedence as well, which is why we will keep fighting! Again, thanks for your support – we all really appreciate it. Ferrety hugs and kisses from us!

fox fox 3:08 pm 02 Apr 09

Sepi – Thomas Sorahan lived with Andrew (the owner of the ferrets) in Andrew’s home. Adriano Larobina (Arno) did not live with Andrew. The three of them all knew each other before this happened.

Tom and Andrew were definitely friends. I’m not sure about Arno and Andrew being friends. Arno was very intimidating when I first met him and I chose to stay out of his way.

sepi sepi 2:55 pm 02 Apr 09

Can anyone tell me if the animal torturers were friends of the ferret owner, or just housemates? I’ve been wondering for a while – how could you do this to a friend’s pets?

fox fox 2:38 pm 02 Apr 09

prhhcd – I know who you are! =] We’ve actually met a couple of times! Put it this way…I attended many playdates with Andrew, Trigger and Cooch and remember exactly how Trig and Harvey first met (love at first sight across the hall in Tuggeranong lol).

My heart honestly goes out to you and the other members of the Ferret Society who sat through the trial and supported Andrew through the whole, horrible ordeal. I sincerely hope that Arno’s case is not overturned as Tom’s has been, and that in time we can all find some sort of peace with what has happened.

My opinion on both Tom and Arno is my own, and I despite my anger at the situation I’m choosing to keep that opinion to myself.

What does worry me is what could potentially happen in the future. I hope that this case doesn’t set a precedence that sees other cruelty cases end up being heard with what (I believe) ended up being a degree of indifference to what two small animals went through.

prhhcd prhhcd 2:08 pm 02 Apr 09

fox – I don’t know who you are, but I am also a friend of Andrew’s and your description of the boys is so true! Thank you! I fostered Cooch for the Ferret Society of Canberra and he was the the sweetest little thing, Trigger was a brother to my boy Harvey, and they loved each other so much. These were wonderful WONDERFUL animals. I (and everyone else who has had anything to do with these boys and this case) will never forget. AS for me, back to the psychologist for treatment for post traumatic stress disorder following this case.
I am not a spiteful person generally, but I HATE these men. They are the scum of the earth, and yes, I would be interested to know what bikie gangs think.
We will fight for you Trigger and Cooch!

The Brad The Brad 1:54 pm 02 Apr 09

The Brad said :

So, not guilty means not guilty without any doubt at all.

I worded that badly.
Guiltly means guilty without any doubt whatsoever.
Legal not-guilty doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, but there was probably a reasonable doubt raised.

The Brad The Brad 1:51 pm 02 Apr 09

Innocent is the default. Hence, Innocent until proven guilty.

Even though the two are opposites, there is never a need to prove innocence, just 1% doubt on the guilt, and they are free.
So, not guilty means not guilty without any doubt at all.
Well, that’s what I recall from Jury Duty.

BerraBoy68 BerraBoy68 1:37 pm 02 Apr 09

Not related to the case mentioned in the OT, but a relevant question noting subsequent posts:

I’ve just finished reading a True Crime book about a number of high-profile Australian cases. At the end of one story where a killer has been found not-guilty on some technicality a journo askes the Chief Prosecuter why the guy was found to be innocent. The journo says the Prosecutor replied “he wasn’t found to be innocent, he was found to be’not-guilty”.e

I’m no lawyer but is there a distinction?

Granny Granny 12:44 pm 02 Apr 09

Preferably without discriminating against those of us with low economic circumstances due to unemployment, who may not currently be able to afford an investment in the purchase of court documents with three children to feed.

SheepGroper SheepGroper 12:38 pm 02 Apr 09

Isn’t justice not only to be done, it’s to be seen to be done? If there are so many people puzzled by the court’s decision it would be nice if they could explain why they decided to un-guilt the guy.

caf caf 11:40 am 02 Apr 09

In the Statement of Availability is this:

The District Court commenced publishing judgments via NSW Caselaw in September 2006. The decision to publish is at the discretion of each individual judge. If a judgment has not been published and you wish to find out if it will become available on NSW Caselaw, please contact the appropriate District Court registry.

It sounds like you’d be able to ask to see the stuff that was presented in open court, the procedures are here.

fox fox 11:06 am 02 Apr 09

Why wouldn’t it be published on the Caselaw site?

caf caf 9:57 am 02 Apr 09

Sadly it looks like the decision might not be published on the Caselaw site. Someone might have to stump up to buy the court transcripts if they really want to know.

I don’t think it’s correct to say that judges aren’t accountable. Their decisions are generally made in open court which anyone can attend; their decisions must be supported by reasoning which is read into the record; and their decisions are subject to review / appeal.

chewy14 chewy14 9:47 am 02 Apr 09

Evidence is for bleeding heart lefties.

Of course we know more than the judge.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 9:37 am 02 Apr 09

The law(yer) cares, especially if you may actually be reckless about any impact your comments may be having on a man who has been retconned back to being innocent.

As a basic rule: Don’t say anything you can’t afford.

Granny Granny 9:33 am 02 Apr 09

I have not supported any calls for violence of any kind.

I can’t watch movies with anything higher than an M rating. I am sickened by capital punishment and corporal punishment.

I have spent hours arguing against violence or inhumane conditions for prisoners on this very forum.

I’m not waving my placard at the back of a lynch mob. I’m waving it at the gates of city hall. I’m not shouting support for lynching. I’m shouting for the system to more closely approximate justice for victims of crime.

If you can’t see that you don’t know me at all.

Having said that, you are right that it is unwise to make these comments in an emotionally charged atmosphere and I do accept that and agree.

I just feel like you’re saying I’m something I’m not, and that isn’t comfortable for me. It doesn’t sit right. It’s just not who I am.

johnboy johnboy 9:26 am 02 Apr 09

This site does not exist outside of the rest of the laws of Australia.

And all I’m seeing here is whingeing about the referee’s decision with NO KNOWLEDGE of why the decision was made.

The facts have changed, Sorahan is no longer convicted of this crime.

Have a care and act like adults.

Muttsybignuts Muttsybignuts 9:23 am 02 Apr 09

I thought this site existed so that Canberrans could give their 2 cents. Who cares if it is wrong or right. If people don’t agree then they say so. That is the idea.
Opinions are like arse holes. Everyone has one and everyone else’s stinks.
Personally, I enjoy making comments in ignorance and then having someone else set me straight. It is a learning experience.

Please don’t moderate me!

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2020 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site