Latest on RSPCA prosecutions - and costs!!

[JanetGeorge]

An interesting article by Simon Hart - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...ice-system-to-pursue-their-political-agendas/

It seems no-one in Government actually knows how much failed RSPCA prosecutions are costing US - the taxpayers!

 

[Alec Swan]

Indeed an interesting article. I read another report, from somewhere, which stated that when the rspca failed in a prosecution, that we the tax payers, were the the ones to foot the defence bills. I thought that it was a misprint. Obviously not.

Were I to take out a private Court action against a third party, and were I to lose my case, it's always been my understanding that I would be liable for the opposition's costs. How come we are responsible for the reckless behaviour of a charity? Does anyone know?

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

It would seem that the public disgust at the behaviour of the rspca is nothing new. The quote below was from 2008- or perhaps 9, I think.


"The District Judge could only rule on the law, stupid though we know it to be, although he does have latitude in sentencing which he made full use of. Instead of a fine he issued Mr Anderson and Miss Birkbeck with a Conditional Discharge, which is judicial shorthand for a mild ticking off. And whilst the RSPCA tried to recoup the £15,000 of their members money they had spent in bringing the prosecution he ordered that just £2000 should be paid.

Of all those involved in this farce the RSPCA has the most questions to answer. Why is a charity which is supposed to focus on animal welfare wasting thousands of pounds dragging elderly people (who even the Judge acknowledged had no criminal intent) through the courts? The answer from that organisation is, unbelievably, that they "believed it was in the public interest". If anyone needed any evidence of the nonsense of that statement it was readily available in court. On one side sat the professional animal rights activists. Not a single member of the public supporting them, or the prosecution, attended the trial. On the other side were packed sons, grand-daughters, nephews and friends of the accused. Kings Lynn Magistrates can rarely have seen such a crowd and the case had to be moved to the vacant Crown Court to accommodate them. The feeling in Norfolk was quite clear."


The rspca is oblivious to the concerns of the general public, or so it seems. Mind you, when you're that wealthy, I don't suppose that it matters, what others think of you!

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

Indeed an interesting article. I read another report, from somewhere, which stated that when the rspca failed in a prosecution, that we the tax payers, were the the ones to foot the defence bills. I thought that it was a misprint. Obviously not.

Were I to take out a private Court action against a third party, and were I to lose my case, it's always been my understanding that I would be liable for the opposition's costs. How come we are responsible for the reckless behaviour of a charity? Does anyone know?

Alec.

I am seriously wondering if one could have the RSPCA declared Vegatious Litigants and thus having them barred from taking any further private prosecutions.

Thereby constraining them to issues comprehensively supported by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The latter seem very reluctant to support the majority of private adventures of the RSPCA and rightly so?

 

[Judgemental]

Spelling does not improve with age, as above

I am seriously wondering if one could have the RSPCA declared Vexatious Litigants and thus having them barred from taking any further private prosecutions.

Thereby constraining them to issues comprehensively supported by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The latter seem very reluctant to support the majority of private adventures of the RSPCA and rightly so?

 

[livetoride]

I wouldn't be surprised if the RSPCA's vindictive behaviour cost them their royal patronage one day.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I wouldn't be surprised if the RSPCA's vindictive behaviour cost them their royal patronage one day.

That's very unlikely to happen. If the RSPCA behaves badly enough, the Council would be 'removed' by the Charity Commissioners! (There was considerable debate some years ago when some of the then Trustees wanted to 'drop' the 'Royal' from their title because the Royal family were involved in 'blood' sports!