Unless Mr Freeman was not aware of the Bulls existence when he decided to take a walk with his wife down this recognised path,then I cannot see why the owner was prosecuted.
Over the many years I've gone on a walk and encountered cows,bullocks or even horses, I always turn around and find alternative access around such animals.
They are much larger than us,and in groups of many animals can be very curious,running at great speed towards us.
Large groups of animals can be very unpredictable,and even though a Bull looks quiet and unassuming,they can be extremely dangerous.
If Mr Freeman was aware of the Bulls existence in the field and still continued on his walk,he only had himself to blame.
A Bull is a very large wild animal,able to outrun most of us, and has a right to graze in a field,even if that field is part of a right of way.
Do not assume a large animal will not become startled or aroused when they see a unfamiliar person in their space.
What could the farmer do,lock the Bull away permanently from causing harm to anyone,or allow it to graze naturally on his property.
I think caution should have been given,did Mr Freeman show caution,thinking the Bull will not mind if I walk quickly passed through his field.
Did he see the Bull or not. That is the question.
Should a farmer be held liable if a Bull he owns kills someone.
No he should not be prosecuted.
I always check first hand to see what is in a field,if I am not happy with the situation of a large number of cows, I will not enter the field.
This has been the case quite a few times over the many years,it may spoil my days walk,but 90% of the time an alternative route around the field can be found,maybe Mr Freeman should have done the same.