ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Yes.
Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions
- Thread starter Fenris
- Start date
Yes.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
If they are not politically motivated you have to question why is their Judgement so bad in taking on and prosecuting these cases as the failure to convict will account for most of the 2% where they did not get convictions . The conviction rate is little over 50% with cases costing up to £350K they have many times been criticised by judges for the disproportionate cost and the likely hood they had of conviction. So why if they are so successful in other cases are they pursuing some of these more questionable ones! Thats the question that makes you think maybe theres politics involved. One of the highest profile ones they took on was in the prime ministers constituency just after he had said they favoured a free vote on repeal of the hunting act or was that just a remarkable coincidence?? Why had they sat on the evidence so long surely true cases of cruelty should be prosecuted straight away.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
The thing is the RSPCA legally can do very little without the help of the Police. They just like you to believe they can . .To do their work they have to resort to b******t sometimes and that came from an inspector!
Can I just ask what do you perceive the 'things they can do' to be?
They have no right of access to property, They have no right to remove animals !
Last edited:
windand rain
Well-Known Member
It is the misuse of funds that is the issue for me I will never donate to them because there are charities that use the money for the animals I too know of a very high profile cases where banned and very cruel people still have horses. Ponies starved to death, near death and overstocked. Hidden away under the pretext of loans and some pretty dubious behaviour with other animals too. The former owners desperate for news of their much loved ponies being fobbed off with nonsense of appeal after appeal that because they are on benefits are never paid for just get the animals out of there and then let them fight appeals. I also feel that the Arab case was a dreadful indictment of their inability to behave in the animals best interest and the fact that they sell with no further comeback rescued animals. Their efforts would be much better served by investigating and bringing to another body the evidence of cruelty to prosecute so they truly were only responsible for the animals and have no chance of being accused of bully boy, holier than thou attitudes. They need a shake up to bring them into line with charity work and let the prosecutions be done by the government. Perhaps the money used for prosecution would be better put towards holding farms for those convicted and under appeal so the poor animals are at least safe.
Last edited:
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
No. Just no.
They prosecuted over two thousand cases in 2014. Are you telling me that there were over forty cases motivated by politics?
Which ones?
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
I have signed simply for the reason that the RSPCA proceed with cases even when the CPS advise against it. As there is no legal aid for private prosecutions, people are effectively bullied into accepting a plea. If the high profile cases where people can afford to defend themselves, there appears to be a good proportion where the CPS were right in their judgement.
I don't necessarily agree with removing the powers completely but I do believe the CPS should be able to say that the balance of evidence is insufficient and stop them proceeding. In a criminal case it is 'innocent until proven guilty', for a private case it is up to the defendant to disprove the evidence - if CPS has already deemed the case lacking in evidence, how is this fair?
I don't necessarily agree with removing the powers completely but I do believe the CPS should be able to say that the balance of evidence is insufficient and stop them proceeding. In a criminal case it is 'innocent until proven guilty', for a private case it is up to the defendant to disprove the evidence - if CPS has already deemed the case lacking in evidence, how is this fair?
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Some just wont see,just cant be bothered with arguments ! Are you questioning their conviction rate in those cases ? Why is that so different to their usual success rate? As you seem to know all the facts and figures please tell us all the cost per conviction in the hunting act cases and just for good measure the cost per conviction in their general welfare cases.
Does that not concern you at all? Or make you question the motive behind pursuing them?
Wagtail
Horse servant
Can someone link me to an example of an unfair prosecution, please?
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Can someone please explain why prosecuting hunts for killing fox is described as 'politically motivated'. Foxes are still being killed by hunts. The question is whether it is within the law (where hounds accidentally pick up a live quarry) or not (where hounds are deliberate set on live quarry). British law has always been refined by taking test cases. I fail totally to see what 'politics' has got to do with these cases. I know people from all walks of life who support and who are against the hunting of fox by hounds.
I agree completely that there was disproportionate use of charitable funds. I agree also on the question of whether there is actually an animal welfare issue involved. But politics?
I agree completely that there was disproportionate use of charitable funds. I agree also on the question of whether there is actually an animal welfare issue involved. But politics?
Wagtail
Horse servant
Completely agree with this. It is nothing to do with politics. Many conservative voters do not support illegal hunting where hounds are deliberately set on a fox.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Thank you you probably put it a lot better than I could a lot of the convictions they have got under the hunting act have been where the defendant has pleaded guilty because they were to frightened to fight the case or couldnt for financial reasons . It is not the same as a normal criminal case in that the burden of proof is shifted and the cost implications are huge.
Do people really think justice is done were defendants have to plead guilty because they are to frightened to lose everything financially when it has been shown that those that plead not guilty more often than not are acquitted but still have to shoulder huge financial cost in defending themselves.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Do you fancy standing in court knowing the only way you can keep your house and possessions is by pleading guilty to charges that probably wont result in conviction but still cripple you with the same outcome.
There is no legal aid available in these cases ,Do you call that Justice?
This is why the CPS should be left to it as at least people will be within a fair system then. I am not saying they should not be prosecuted just more fairly !
pennyturner
Well-Known Member
There is a good reason for separating investigation (police) from prosecution (CPS)... in places where this isn't done the police become increasingly corrupt and self-serving. The CPS act as a brake on such behaviour in our system. Imaging if police received money directly from the prosecutions they initiated and directed... justice would go hang.
The RSPCA have no such control mechanism.
I won't sign, as like others, I don't think this process is the right one. I do think governance and regulation of well funded organisations operating in a quasi-governmental capacity, with serious impact on our legal and political system (and I do not limit this to the RSPCA) need to be much stricter. A good start would be:
Separation of conflicts of interest
Separate funding streams for operations, prosecution, lobbying and research and a ban on cross-funding. It's a travesty that lobbying and prosecution are funded by donors who think they're saving cute puppies and sick babies.
The RSPCA have no such control mechanism.
I won't sign, as like others, I don't think this process is the right one. I do think governance and regulation of well funded organisations operating in a quasi-governmental capacity, with serious impact on our legal and political system (and I do not limit this to the RSPCA) need to be much stricter. A good start would be:
Separation of conflicts of interest
Separate funding streams for operations, prosecution, lobbying and research and a ban on cross-funding. It's a travesty that lobbying and prosecution are funded by donors who think they're saving cute puppies and sick babies.
Wagtail
Horse servant
Of course I don't. But then there is nothing that I do that could possibly land me in that situation. I asked for a link to an example of where this has happened because without knowing about it, I cannot comment on its fairness. The important question is 'Is the person GUILTY of animal cruelty, or committing an illegal act such as hunting a fox down intentionally with hounds?' If the answer is 'yes' does it really matter?
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
With respect how do you explain the Heythrop case then was it really a huge coincidence?
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Perhaps some of them did not think they were doing anything that could land them in that position.
Several of those who pleaded guilty would have been acquitted when you compare the conviction rate to those who could afford to defend themselves( often in the same court) is that a fair system of justice.
Whats your problem with the CPS taking responsibility for these prosecutions? this is all we are really bickering about! At least it would be transparent then as they are accountable for their actions and scrutinised !
Last edited:
Wagtail
Horse servant
The RSPCA is the only organisation that has the funds to successfully prosecute people breaking the law regarding animals. Yes, I think it is a shame that so much of their money is dedicated to this, but as they are the only organisation prepared to do it, then they have to make this stand IMO. You seem to be arguing that people breaking this particular law should 'get off', which they would should it fall to the CPS. Of course many on here think that traditional hunting should not have been banned, but that is a completely different argument.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Why would they get off if the CPS was prosecuting it or are you accusing them of being biassed.
No im not saying they should get off but have the same right to justice as any other criminal case. Which they dont. So as much as you hate hunting you think it is right that people are forced into pleading guilty to charges as they cannot afford not to, innocent or not ! I dont think you really understand the argument here! If they break whatever law they should be brought to justice. However justice is not served by people being forced into pleading guilty because its better than their family not having a roof over their head.Believe me this has happened and is happening!
Maybe we should campaign for legal aid in these cases and then see what the true conviction rate would be.It hasnt been very spectacular where people have defended the case.
Last edited:
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
Yes I thought I wouldn't find myself in that situation either - yet I very nearly did.
The first time the RSPCA investigated me was when a neighbour reported me for having an emaciated dog. My dog is thin - he's a saluki x greyhound and is lean as he is fit. The RSPCA officer generously allowed me to keep my dog as long as I took him to a vets and fed him more so he put some weight on. I strongly disagreed with his assessment as my dog is fed on a BARF diet and I do not believe in long dogs carrying excess weight - I paid lip service to his demands and carried on as I was. When he came to review my dog after 3 months I had moved house... What would have happened if my dog hadn't gained weight? Would he have been removed? Would I have been prosecuted - this is what the officer told me would happen if I didn't comply.
The second time was when someone reported me for abandoning my horses. The neighbour had never seen me visit and claimed the horses had no water - there was a bathtub at the far end of the field where the water supply coming from my house was. The neighbour tied thread around the field gate to prove that noise was entering the field - the gate that was padlocked as it opened onto the road. I used the gate near my back door and never had any reason to use that gate. That gate that the abandonment notice demanding I contact them within 48 hours was nailed to. The abandonment notice I didn't ever see. The locked gate that the RSPCA cut the lock to remove my horses. Fortunately I was actually in the field poo picking when they tried to do this! They waved a piece of paper in my face stating they had a right to remove the horses as I hadn't responded to their abandonment notice. I pointed out to the police officer that was accompanying them that the gate wasn't used (apart from a couple of times a year to allow tractor access) and that my horses were checked on daily and I could see them multiple times daily from my kitchen window. The police officer said to the RSPCA officers that they couldn't remove the horses and boy were they unhappy - there was talk about going through the courts as I hadn't responded to the notice. They demanded to come back in 3 months. Again I moved...
Somehow the RSPCA got hold of my phone number (presumably from the neighbour). When I told them that I was moving house and wouldn't give a forwarding address (I had sought legal advice by this point), they demanded I give them my forwarding address to allow them to do checks.
The house moves themselves were coincidental - it was just timing that I happened to be in the process of moving when the visits occurred but imagine the hounding I would have got if I hadn't moved? Would I have had my horses removed, would they have taken me to court? If they had taken me to court there is no way I would have been able to plead not guilty. I would have had to have too the plea and lost my horses.
So when you think that it won't happen to you - actually it might...
ETA - in answer to your last question of if they are guilty should it matter? If the CPS. Has already said their is insufficient evidence then yes it should. No one should be allowed to be prosecuted on flimsy evidence and here say - our legal system is respected worldwide and the RSPCA are making a mockery of it!
Last edited:
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
I expect after legal advice you know they have no right of access to your property and they cannot remove animals unless you agree which you are not obliged to. They like to make you think they can but they cant its part of the bluff so you let them on to your property. Only police with a warrant can come onto your property without your consent and oddly enough HMRC and they dont need a warrant.
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
They'd brought a police officer with them as the padlock needed removing (the hinges were upside down to prevent lifting). Fortunately the police officer was more sensible than the RSPCA officer. I have since found out (as issued an abandonment notice myself against a charity) that the notice needs to be placed on every entrance to the field to avoid it being missed - but this is only when it cannot be delivered in the property itself. Had they sought out the other gate their route would have taken them to my house where they would have every opportunity to direct their questions at me in person.
fburton
Well-Known Member
I knew they have no right of access (unless 'invited'). What I had in mind was pressuring with threats of further action people who are suspected of wrongdoing, and issuing advice or warning notices.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
They can issue whatever they like but none have any legal teeth behind them. You do not have to talk to them even .
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Did they have a warrant? As they cannot do that without. Even a police officer has no right to enter your property unless invited without one.
By the way they cannot issue an abandonment order only the land owner or there agent can, at least under the new laws.
Last edited:
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
The first question - it never got as far as me finding out if the police officer had a warrant although I assume if they were cutting my lock they did? The second point - I didn't know that. I issued my abandonment notice against the charity as the land owner. I didn't realise that the RSPCA couldn't - they just said they had as they had no way of tracing the land owner. This is despite me being prepared by a neighbour who knew where the landowner (me) lived. Beggars belief really
Last edited:
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
The first question - it never got as far as me finding out if the police officer had a warrant although I assume if they were cutting my lock they did? The second point - I didn't know that. I issued my abandonment notice against the charity as the land owner. I didn't realise that the RSPCA couldn't - they just said they had as they had no way of tracing the land owner. This is despite me being prepared by a neighbour who knew where the landowner (me) lived. Beggars belief really
As you are well aware now they never really bothered looking.
If ever it happens again do not assume they have a warrant as you never know what they have told the police. It is not easy to obtain such a warrant and the magistrate would need evidence they had done everything else to gain access.
Like I said in a previous post I have worked with them in the past on a few occasions so know a few of their tricks they use.
Last edited:
fburton
Well-Known Member
Something any member of the public could do, right?
Wagtail
Horse servant
No, I am saying that any case regarding animals would not be of sufficient priority to afford the funds necessary to make a successful conviction.
Where have I ever said in all of my posts on here that I hate hunting? I support legal hunting. I disagree with breaking the law. There will always be some laws that people disagree with, but that does not give them the right to disobey them. We have to have law in a civilised society which everyone should have to obey, otherwise we would fall into anarchy.
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
Mobile phone number that isn't listed anywhere so no...
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
It is EXACTLY the same as a normal criminal case. The burden of proof is EXACTLY the same and the costs are proportionate to means EXACTLY the same and the bench/judge/jury are EXACTLY the same.