ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
They hunted fox?
Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions
- Thread starter Fenris
- Start date
They hunted fox?
Wagtail
Horse servant
Equidae, I am sorry you were wrongly reported to the RSPCA. However, as an animal lover, surely you know it is important that they investigate these accusations? After all, they don't know you from Adam, and everyone accused, including those very guilty will have a story that contradicts what they are being accused of. The inspectors will be well aware of the fabrications people make and will be justifiably sceptical. They did not prosecute you after seeing for themselves what the situation was, but it is quite standard for them to make future checks just in case they are wrong. I was once reported for keeping two dogs in a kennel and run. They were in there during the day because my partner and I both worked, but as soon as we got home they spent the evening and night in the house with us and got three walks a day. The RSPCA visited and saw for themselves and just told us they were happy that the dogs were in good condition and had clean water and food, and they were completely happy with that. Then we had another spot check some weeks later, and put a note through the door to inform us. All nice and amicable. I was impressed that they came out to double check.
Last edited:
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
God, I wish you would do your research before you post this stuff popsdosh.
According to my research, legal aid is available to defend RSPCA prosecutions under THE SAME RULES as CPS prosecutions.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
With respect the costs are not the same it is a private prosecution so all the prosecuting costs including investigation are claimed by the RSPCA this is where my main argument lies. If it was a CPS case the defendant would have his defence costs covered out of public funds which is not the case in Private prosecutions . Do you really feel this is fair because sorry I dont. It has always been a tradition in english law that a defendant has a right to a defence in criminal matters. Why do the RSPCA feel they need to do the prosecuting when we already have a system in place that they could use if they wanted too.
I am not looking for anybody who is guilty to get off just that those who have a chance to clear their name are not pleading guilty because they cannot afford to defend themselves. I dont care what you believe this has been the case in several private prosecutions brought by the RSPCA and that is why they dont want it to change.
Last edited:
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Do you feel no need whatsoever to research your statements about defendant's costs being paid by state ?
You are so wrong that it's ridiculous.
I agree with you that there are issues with RSPCA prosecutions, but you ruin the argument presenting incorrect information.
Last edited:
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
U
Legal aid is available for CPS prosecutions if you are on a low enough income. For private prosecutions there is no legal aid regardless of income - those without money have no way of defending themselves. Maybe you should check your own statements before berating people for not checking theirs. It just makes your own comments look 'ridiculous' to use your own choice of words.
Legal aid is available for CPS prosecutions if you are on a low enough income. For private prosecutions there is no legal aid regardless of income - those without money have no way of defending themselves. Maybe you should check your own statements before berating people for not checking theirs. It just makes your own comments look 'ridiculous' to use your own choice of words.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
There is information on legal sites online that you are not correct. And that legal aid is available under exactly the same rules as a CPS prosecution for defendants in criminal private prosecutions. Google 'legal aid RSPCA defence' and you will find masses of solicitors offering to claim legal aid to fight RSPCA cases.
Last edited:
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
This is what Julian Barnfield said after pleading guilty in the Heythrop case which cost the RSPCA the best part of a third of a million pounds.
'
Outside court, Barnfield said he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.
"We conceded because the money wasn't there to defend ourselves. I would like to stand there and defend it but there was no way it was possible.
Is that really what you call Justice in this day and age. At least the RSPCA can say another successful prosecution though!
'
Outside court, Barnfield said he had only pleaded guilty because he could not afford to fight the £327,000 case the RSPCA had mounted.
"We conceded because the money wasn't there to defend ourselves. I would like to stand there and defend it but there was no way it was possible.
Is that really what you call Justice in this day and age. At least the RSPCA can say another successful prosecution though!
Wagtail
Horse servant
Any private prosecutions, including those brought by the RSPCA have to adhere to the CPS code of practice. One of those conditions is that there is sufficient evidence to bring about a successful prosecution. Everyone has the right to bring a private prosecution, but it must adhere to the code. It would be wrong to single out one organisation and prevent them from having that right. If you are to ban the RSPCA from doing it, then you have to ban all organisations and all individuals from doing it. That, IMO would be wrong.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
It is not!!!! Go and try to get it!!!
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Its equally as wrong that people cannot afford to defend themselves. Particularly when its an organisation with the largest legal dept outside Government.
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
Again incorrect - the RSPCA have brought forth prosecutions where they have been advised not to by the CPS. The burden of evidence is totally different for CPS prosecutions to that of private prosecutions. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know this. Be careful of what you read on the Internet - those firms offering their services against RSPCA prosecutions do not offer it through legal aid, they offer it through insurance services should the case lose.
wagtail and ybcm - do you have any legal background at all or are you just basing your statments on what you have read in the Internet? I'm basing mine on what happens in a practicing criminal defence law firm (my OH who is providing this information has also freelanced for the CPS in the recent past too)
Last edited:
Wagtail
Horse servant
It is exactly the same. It is only given to people on benefits or on a very low income.
Wagtail
Horse servant
But it is no different for people being prosecuted by the RSPCA or any other organisation or the CPS. You either qualify for legal aid or you don't.
Wagtail
Horse servant
From the CPS website: A private prosecution should be taken over and stopped if, upon review of the case papers, either the evidential sufficiency stage or the public interest stage of the Full Code Test is not met.
Are you suggesting they are lying?
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Wrong again! In normal criminal court you have a right to a defence. When was the last time you heard anybody coming out of criminal court saying I pleaded guilty I could not afford to defend myself
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
The last people I heard saying they had almost bankrupted themselves defending themselves in a criminal court were Freddie Starr and Dave Lee Travis.
There is no difference between private criminal prosecutions and CPS criminal prosecutions in that respect.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Do you believe everything anyone accused of a criminal offence says?
Wagtail
Horse servant
You get whatever you can afford. If you qualify for legal aid you do not get an expensive barrister. When people come out saying they could not afford to defend themselves, they mean they need someone really expensive to have a hope in hell of getting off with all the evidence against them.
fburton
Well-Known Member
But they could do everything the RSPCA did with equal legality (or illegality) - i.e. get hold of your phone number from whoever and demand you give them your forwarding address. That's what I meant.
And if it's wrong for some random Joe to do these things (it seems obvious to me that it would be wrong), then it would also be wrong for the RSPCA to do so. So why did they?? How common is this kind of behaviour?
Last edited:
pennyturner
Well-Known Member
That's rubbish. As a person of reasonable means (but not a millionaire), I would not get legal aid, and would NEVER take on a lawyer at my own expense, since I would have to sell the farm (literally) to do it; so yes, I would plead guilty and take the fine... choking on my pride all the way.
Wagtail
Horse servant
That is not disagreeing with what I am saying at all. You either qualify for legal aid or you don't. Legal aid would not get you the quality of defence you would need to get you off something where there is considerable evidence against you. If you don't qualify, then you have to decide whether to sell whatever you need to afford a defence. Are you seriously saying that you would never pay for a defence whatever you were accused of? What about murder? What about burglary? You'd just plead guilty? I guess if you did it, you would, yes.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Surely you would represent yourself rather than do that? Everyone is entitled to represent themselves in court (except under rare situations like rape cross examination of the victim). And you cannot lose your farm if you represent yourself, so why would you not at least try to defend yourself?
chillipup
Well-Known Member
Their barrister and their solicitor (who rides with the hunt) advised them to plead guilty, because they were.
chillipup
Well-Known Member
This^ exactly.
EQUIDAE
Well-Known Member
I've just spoke to my OH and he says that you can get Legal Aid for a private prosecution but only if it has implications of a custodial sentence. So worth the RSPCA cases I very much doubt it would get that far
pennyturner
Well-Known Member
I'm self-employed. I couldn't afford the time off to represent myself, even if I thought that would be an adequate defense. Remember the maxim - "He who defends himself has a fool for a client".
I just wanted to make the point that the law is not affordable, unless you get legal aid.
Wagtail, I believe I the state pays for a defense lawyer if I'm accused of murder... a bit different to the RSPCA not liking the look of your dog.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Their going to have their wings clipped anyhow so whats the point arguing .
YCBM all my research comes from personal experience( I had links with them long enough chilipup knows why I dont anymore and that was lies apparently) not everybody believes google unless they are so stubborn in their beliefs . All I want is people who fight a charge from the RSPCA to have the same chance of a defence as anybody else. Does it not even worry you that people have pleaded guilty because they cannot afford to fight it. If not you have no morals at all.
YCBM all my research comes from personal experience( I had links with them long enough chilipup knows why I dont anymore and that was lies apparently) not everybody believes google unless they are so stubborn in their beliefs . All I want is people who fight a charge from the RSPCA to have the same chance of a defence as anybody else. Does it not even worry you that people have pleaded guilty because they cannot afford to fight it. If not you have no morals at all.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
I know where your coming from but you cant tell them till it happens to them I hope it never does or they will find out the reality of trying to fight the RSPCA and YCBM still doesnt get it you could easily lose the farm as they always try to get a full cost order against the defendant maybe if they had that hanging over their heads they may think differently.