Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions

[Fenris]

The SHG has detailed how the RSPCA could be prevented from prosecuting

https://shgpressreleases.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/rspca-says-business-as-usual/

Please sign and share if you agree that the RSPCA should be brought under control.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109469

Remove the prosecution rights of the RSPCA

At the moment the RSPCA abuse their position to seize and prosecute innocent and vulnerable owners of animals, leading to extortionate costs. A number of these convictions are made on the evidence of lies by the RSPCA. It is wrong for the same organisation to investigate and prosecute.

To get a fair trial of the accused it would be better for the Crown Prosecution Services to take any prosecution forward

 

[Yertis]

Done

 

[webble]

No sorry I think they do a good job in general

 

[planete]

This is not about the good job they do in general though is it? It is about them using their resources to carry on doing a good job rescuing but not wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on dubious court cases.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.

And to add, the RSPCA are not perfect & some of their actions may be questionable but to wish to curb their powers to prosecute alleged perpetrators of cruelty &neglect is a step backwards for animal rights.

 

[catroo]

Sorry but no I wont sign

I dont agree with everything they do but regarding prosecutions, the fault lies with the government. They have handed over responsibility to a charity, they could quite easily take that responsibility back.

But that means tax payers footing the bill . . .

 

[popsdosh]

Sorry but no I wont sign

I dont agree with everything they do but regarding prosecutions, the fault lies with the government. They have handed over responsibility to a charity, they could quite easily take that responsibility back.

But that means tax payers footing the bill . . .

Its nothing to do with the government delegating them powers to prosecute ,they actually lobby hard to keep them so ask yourself why?
When the RSPCA prosecute a case the costs that are claimed back from defendants are so extortionate that it is a money raising activity for them . A lot of defendants in high profile cases are to frightened to fight the case as they risk losing their homes etc which is not normal in criminal cases. The sooner the CPS takes back responsibility for prosecutions the better,it does not mean animals suffer more just there will be some checks and balances in the system to control the excesses. If you analyse a list of cases taken on by the RSPCA why is it scewed towards cases that have a political leaning than actual cases of cruelty.

 

[popsdosh]

And to add, the RSPCA are not perfect & some of their actions may be questionable but to wish to curb their powers to prosecute alleged perpetrators of cruelty &neglect is a step backwards for animal rights.

Nobody wants to stop the perpetrators of cruelty being brought to justice , If they gather the evidence the CPS would then decide on prosecution that seems to work quite well with the rest of the legal system were the police or other agencies investigate illegal activity.

 

[honetpot]

Nobody wants to stop the perpetrators of cruelty being brought to justice , If they gather the evidence the CPS would then decide on prosecution that seems to work quite well with the rest of the legal system were the police or other agencies investigate illegal activity.

Exactly

 

[Goldenstar]

I have signed because I think it's ridiculous that a charity is doing what the state should be doing .
Its bad for animal welfare which is shunted into a backwater as ' the RSPCA deals with that ' it bad for the RSPCA which is in an almighty mess and it's bad for the state which does not have to have any form of sensible policy for dealing with animal welfare .
Let the police investigate and the CPS prosecute .
It's wrong that the only route to justice in these cases is through a charity with it's own agenda .

 

[chillipup]

I will not be signing. There is already to be an investigation into the RSPCA by the Commons Select Committee, I will await their findings.

At the risk of repeating myself again, I list the following facts.

Fact 1. Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone they believe has committed an offence. Section 6 (1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

This dates back to a time when laws were first introduced in the early 1820s. Your local Council, Trading Standards, Animal Health Officers Television Licensing, all do their own investigations and take private prosecutions to court, as do many other agencies, companies, and private individuals, not just the RSPCA. No one has to lobby the government for permission to do this. Everyone including you and I could bring a prosecution. It is law.

Fact 2. The CPS has never taken RSPCA prosecutions.

(Therefore CPS cannot take back the responsibility if they never had it in the first place)The Police submit their investigations to CPS. Other agencies investigate and bring their own prosecutions.

Fact 3. The award of costs in any Court case is at the discretion of the Court. (Not the prosecution)

Costs are always applied for in most cases, including CPS cases, prior to the defence stating any mitigating circumstances. It would be an unprecedented decision for any court to award such costs as to make a defendant lose their home in an RSPCA prosecution.

Fact 4. If you were to analyse each and every one of the prosecution cases brought by the Rspca, in any given year, you clearly see the vast majority of cases are taken for animal cruelty offences committed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (or prior, the Protection of Animals Act 1911) and none show any political bias.


Does anyone truly believe the Police have the manpower, time, finances or even knowledge of animal law/animal welfare (without further training) to take over the role of the RSPCA and investigate over 150,000 complaints of animal cruelty annually? Especially when their budget is being cut year on year. Good grief, the poor beggars are battling on a daily basis in an attempt to stay ahead of the game, how on earth are they expected to take on even more, with even less?...

 

[Sussexbythesea]

I agree with you Chillipup. I won't be signing. Whilst they are not perfect there is currently nothing else. I suspect most of the non-supporters have their own agendas mainly about hunting and frankly I think it's disgusting that that should be used as a reason to undermine the only organisation that has the means and balls to prosecute. It's still our legal system that decides who is found guilty and what the punishment should be.

 

[JillA]

This is really a bad cause for the reasons stated above. A better one would be to open them to more scrutiny (other than the Charity Commissioners who have a limited remit) and feedback. I haven't checked recently but a couple of years ago there was absolutely no way of feeding back to them how we, the donating public, think they are performing, and flagging up when they have got it wrong.
They prosecuted a couple who left several morbidly obese horses crippled with laminits near here and the other thing is the penalties for genuine cruelty/neglect cases are woefully inadequate. A few years ban from keeping horses and a derisory fine was all, although it was well publicised and their reputations suffered.

 

[ycbm]

I will not be signing. There is already to be an investigation into the RSPCA by the Commons Select Committee, I will await their findings.

At the risk of repeating myself again, I list the following facts.

Fact 1. Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone they believe has committed an offence. Section 6 (1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

This dates back to a time when laws were first introduced in the early 1820s. Your local Council, Trading Standards, Animal Health Officers Television Licensing, all do their own investigations and take private prosecutions to court, as do many other agencies, companies, and private individuals, not just the RSPCA. No one has to lobby the government for permission to do this. Everyone including you and I could bring a prosecution. It is law.

Fact 2. The CPS has never taken RSPCA prosecutions.

(Therefore CPS cannot take back the responsibility if they never had it in the first place)The Police submit their investigations to CPS. Other agencies investigate and bring their own prosecutions.

Fact 3. The award of costs in any Court case is at the discretion of the Court. (Not the prosecution)

Costs are always applied for in most cases, including CPS cases, prior to the defence stating any mitigating circumstances. It would be an unprecedented decision for any court to award such costs as to make a defendant lose their home in an RSPCA prosecution.

Fact 4. If you were to analyse each and every one of the prosecution cases brought by the Rspca, in any given year, you clearly see the vast majority of cases are taken for animal cruelty offences committed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (or prior, the Protection of Animals Act 1911) and none show any political bias.


Does anyone truly believe the Police have the manpower, time, finances or even knowledge of animal law/animal welfare (without further training) to take over the role of the RSPCA and investigate over 150,000 complaints of animal cruelty annually? Especially when their budget is being cut year on year. Good grief, the poor beggars are battling on a daily basis in an attempt to stay ahead of the game, how on earth are they expected to take on even more, with even less?...

I agree with absolutely every word of your argument chillipup.

BUT I have signed because I want the Commons Select Committee to understand the strength of feeling about some of the recent behaviours of the RSPCA, because I do believe that it is beginning to act unfairly and I want that to stop. It is wrong that a charity became the animal police in this country, and although you are right that it can't be changed because of what it would cost, I want the Commons Select Committee to look very seriously at how it might be possible to separate investigation from prosecution, as with the vast majority of other criminal prosecution on this country.

 

[ycbm]

Its nothing to do with the government delegating them powers to prosecute ,they actually lobby hard to keep them so ask yourself why?
When the RSPCA prosecute a case the costs that are claimed back from defendants are so extortionate that it is a money raising activity for them . A lot of defendants in high profile cases are to frightened to fight the case as they risk losing their homes etc which is not normal in criminal cases.

This is absolutely untrue. Costs are always made proportionate to the ability to pay and often refused altogether. The treatment of costs in RSPCA cases is the same as in all criminal cases.



(With the exception of the new 'contribution to court running costs', which are nothing to do with the RSPCA)

 

[ycbm]

If you analyse a list of cases taken on by the RSPCA why is it scewed towards cases that have a political leaning than actual cases of cruelty.

It isn't.

Not even by the slightest, teeniest, weeniest amount or the hugest gigantickest stretch of the imagination.

 

[popsdosh]

It isn't.

Not even by the slightest, teeniest, weeniest amount or the hugest gigantickest stretch of the imagination.

Thats your opinion look at the facts ! Why do you think the commons are having to look at this .
And yes on the costs because RSPCA cases are treated as private prosecutions the costs are way out of line of those within the normal court system and legal aid is not so readily available to defendants in these cases.

 

[zaminda]

I would certainly like to see a charity ombudsman, and not just for the RSPCA, there have been some dubious little charities over the years, I seem to remember one getting to the point where all its horses needed rescuing?
I don't like seeing them prosecute either, there have been some very dubious cases. From people who have had dealings with them,, they are more threatening than the police. (please note not from personal experience, but I do know someone who they came to because of a neighbour dispute!)

 

[minesadouble]

And they the courts often do decide RSPCA cases are futile - usually by which point the RSPCA have have spent vast sums of money - money donated by people who thought they were helping animals - not to be thrown at some futile political court case. I've signed and know many many others who will too.

There is something rotten at the core of the RSPCA. I think the clinching factor for me was when it was revealed that they were taking legacies from people after assuring their pets a future then putting the animal in question to sleep. Not to mention the infamous case involving the Arabs where they were shot despite the offer of help from the AHS then claimed vast keep expenses for animals that were deceased. The actions of a despicable organisation.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

Who would protect animals & charge those suspected of cruelty if not the RSPCA? The police? They are in the midst of massive cutbacks both in money & workforce. My local station is due to close soon. The police are no longer responsible for strays so how on earth are they expected to protect the thousands of neglected animals in this country? It simply wouldn't work & even more animals would suffer.

 

[popsdosh]

Who would protect animals & charge those suspected of cruelty if not the RSPCA? The police? They are in the midst of massive cutbacks both in money & workforce. My local station is due to close soon. The police are no longer responsible for strays so how on earth are they expected to protect the thousands of neglected animals in this country? It simply wouldn't work & even more animals would suffer.

By the way the RSPCA need the police to help them investigate cruelty anyhow as the RSPCA has no more powers than any other citizen in this country. IE they cannot enter your property uninvited, They still need a police officer and a search warrant. So two lots of resources are tied up! . They like to perpetuate the myth they have extra powers as it makes their job easier but in truth they dont . Also they have no powers to make you sign over animals to them .

Nobody is suggesting taking away their right to investigate but there needs to be a check in the system on prosecutions because whatever they say there is certainly a political cause to some of their more outlandish and expensive cases they very often fail but cost into hundreds of thousands that should be spent protecting animals. It was interesting after their last appearance before the commons committee I believe they said themselves they had no more plans for fresh prosecutions under the hunting act so perhaps the message has struck home at last.

I am talking as somebody who in the past has been involved in some of their dealings and one large high profile case in particular, the guys on the ground do the best they can but the whole organisation is driven by the PR dept perhaps they need to get back to putting animals first.

 

[minesadouble]

There isn't an easy answer, however I'm not sure prosecutions are the answer. I know of at least 3 people who have been banned from keeping horses who are continuing to keep them - so is there really much point in such instances?
If I know 3 such people how many are there actually out there for whom prosecution has meant nothing?

 

[ycbm]

Thats your opinion look at the facts ! Why do you think the commons are having to look at this .
And yes on the costs because RSPCA cases are treated as private prosecutions the costs are way out of line of those within the normal court system and legal aid is not so readily available to defendants in these cases.

My opinion happens to be the truth. Sometimes, the two coincide

Give me your facts if you think prosecutions are are skewed towards political bias. Tell me which of the THOUSANDS of cases they took in the last two years were politically motivated. 98% of their prosecutions result in convictions by the same magistrates and juries who convict burglars.

Where's your evidence for your outrageous allegation popsdosh?

 

[ycbm]

And they the courts often do decide RSPCA cases are futile

No, they don't. In all but two cases in one hundred the accused is convicted.

Please, people, there are problems, yes, but get this in perspective. You are judging only from the miniscule number of cases that make the media.

Those are absolutely swamped by proper prosecutions of people who starve, beat and otherwise mistreat their animals.

 

[ycbm]

There isn't an easy answer, however I'm not sure prosecutions are the answer. I know of at least 3 people who have been banned from keeping horses who are continuing to keep them - so is there really much point in such instances?
If I know 3 such people how many are there actually out there for whom prosecution has meant nothing?

What was the rest of the sentence and how much in costs and victim surcharge did they pay? The banninIg order is only part of the sentence. A man local to me was brought back to court for breaching his banning order and was given a hefty sentence for it because at that point he was in contempt of a court order.

Have you reported these the people to the Police? Breach of a court order is usually taken seriously.

 

[popsdosh]

No, they don't. In all but two cases in one hundred the accused is convicted.

Please, people, there are problems, yes, but get this in perspective. You are judging only from the miniscule number of cases that make the media.

Those are absolutely swamped by proper prosecutions of people who starve, beat and otherwise mistreat their animals.

Maybe the ones that failed were the politically motivated ones which were made high profile by the PR machine and lost the RSPCA a lot of money and respect!
I dont need to cite cases to you surely the fact they have been hauled up in front of the commons committee and took to task should tell you something.Why did they come out afterwards and say they had no more plans to prosecute hunting act cases?
I have no issue with them dealing with true animal welfare but the politically motivated prosecutions are doing them damage and restricting their ability to go after the real abuse.

 

[ycbm]

I dont need to cite cases to you surely the fact they have been hauled up in front of the commons committee and took to task should tell you something.Why did they come out afterwards and say they had no more plans to prosecute hunting act cases?

I have no issue with them dealing with true animal welfare but the politically motivated prosecutions are doing them damage and restricting their ability to go after the real abuse.

I agree with all of that, except that I can't see why hunting prosecutions are described as politically motivated. And the case that prompted the enquiry to be set up was the Arab one, not hunting, wasn't it?

And none of it justifies your previous claim that RSPCA prosecutions were skewed towards politically motivated ones and that true animal welfare cases were being ignored. There were over two thousand prosecutions in 2014, and how many of those do you class as 'politically motivated'?

 

[ycbm]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/court-refuses-to-allow-trainer-back-1058975

There isn't an easy answer, however I'm not sure prosecutions are the answer. I know of at least 3 people who have been banned from keeping horses who are continuing to keep them - so is there really much point in such instances?
If I know 3 such people how many are there actually out there for whom prosecution has meant nothing?

Prosecution hardly meant nothing to this man.

 

[fburton]

They like to perpetuate the myth they have extra powers as it makes their job easier but in truth they dont .

Do they have any more powers than the ordinary citizen? Could you or I go round doing the things that the RSPCA does (if we had the resources)?