Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Thomas Sorahan not guilty of Ferret Torture

By johnboy 31 March 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
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
5
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site