Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions

I know too little about the law as it stands to comment in a worthwhile way but I do think, as an early poster said, that it's time a lot of equestrian charities were looked into.
Locally to us is a racehorse 'rehoming and rescuing' service. It appears to have colossal costs for it's actual achievements. One does wonder..........
Also the use of charitable status for getting out of paying business rates is another area that needs looking into.
Unfortunately I don't think the Charities Commissioners have the time or wherewithal to investigate too closely, particularly when the turnover of some of these charities is very small.
Sorry, bit off topic.
 
As far as I understand it, the SSPCA do not themselves prosecute. They refer all cases to the procurator fiscal, who then decides whether to go ahead or not. Obviously we are a much smaller area, but food for thought.
 
First of all I am very sorry everyone. I had intended to keep an eye on this thread but life outside of the internet suddenly got very hectic and I couldn't.

A couple if points.

There is criminal legal aid available for animal welfare cases because they carry a maximum prison sentence of 6 months. Don't believe the media when they say 12 months. That is a mistake based on the provision within the AWA for government to increase the max sentence. It has not happened yet.

Criminal legal aid clocks in for interview at the police station and will provide at least the duty police station representative - or you can arrange your solicitor of choice providing they do legal aid work. This is why the RSPCA is so determined to interview people in their field or house - then there is no protection whatsoever.

Legal aid then switches off until you receive a summons. There is no legal aid available to make a S.20 application for return of animals. There is no legal aid available to defend yourself (and your animals) against an RSPCA application tot he court to allow them to 'dispose of' your animals prior to any criminal proceedings taking place. These are all civil applications that are made in the magistrates court.

The provision to enable a prosecutor to dispose of animals was meant to enable the sale of commercial animals, perhaps a herd of beef cattle who would be useless once they passed their 'sell by' date. It was meant to be a protection for both prosecutor and owner. The SHG predicted when giving evidence to the EFRA committee hearings that it would end up with valuable blood lines being lost and people getting to the end of a criminal case having proved their innocence only to find they had no animals left. Unfortunately that prediction has come to pass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-sue-RSPCA-over-loss-of-their-animals.html

There are many other things that should be done at the time and which are not because most people can not afford to take legal advice without the help of legal aid. Legal aid is under threat and many solicitors firms are facing going out of business and losing their contracts (a whole other issue). That is where the SHG is able to help people.

When a summons is received legal aid is means tested. Earn anything like a living wage and you simply will not qualify, even if you make a special hardship appeal.

If you have property is is normal for the RSPCA to ask the court to put a charge on the property for the value of the costs. RSPCA costs are massive and the amounts they charge are unrealistic. Without legal representation and without one of the specialist animal welfare solicitors or barristers on side the courts usually agree.

The RSPCA figure of 98% prosecution success rate is very difficult to pin down. There is a thought that it includes cautions accepted - something many people do because they are afraid of going to court or simply can not afford either the time or cost of fighting. The other problem is that if a defendant faces 20 charges and is only convicted of 1 that is classed as a successful prosecution, not 19 failed prosecutions and 1 success.

The other way the figures are boosted is when people either don't see the summons and so don't go to court, or fail to go for other reasons. Then the RSPCA asks the magistrates to enter a Guilty verdict by default and the case is never tested in court. The CPS is far more understanding of human nature and uses the provision in the manner it was intended - to penalise those who have gone on the run, not people who simply don't understand the way the system works or who have been ill or are elderly etc.

The whole point of the petition is that it will pass a message to government that there is great unhappiness with the way things are going in the hope that it will speed ant inquiry into being and that those taking part will keep the public's concern in mind during their deliberations.
 
ChesnutsRoasting said:
No, will not sign. A court of law will decide if a case is dubious or not, not the general public.
Click to expand...

This. How can we possibly have all the facts to form an opinion of this. The RSPCA do a good job in my opinion, yes there are areas they could improve but thats the same of any organisation. As long as the ultimate goal is for the protection of animals then I'd support them, and that includes bringing hunts under investigation for illegal activity.
 
Fenris said:
First of all I am very sorry everyone. I had intended to keep an eye on this thread but life outside of the internet suddenly got very hectic and I couldn't.

A couple if points.

There is criminal legal aid available for animal welfare cases because they carry a maximum prison sentence of 6 months. Don't believe the media when they say 12 months. That is a mistake based on the provision within the AWA for government to increase the max sentence. It has not happened yet.

Criminal legal aid clocks in for interview at the police station and will provide at least the duty police station representative - or you can arrange your solicitor of choice providing they do legal aid work. This is why the RSPCA is so determined to interview people in their field or house - then there is no protection whatsoever.

Legal aid then switches off until you receive a summons. There is no legal aid available to make a S.20 application for return of animals. There is no legal aid available to defend yourself (and your animals) against an RSPCA application tot he court to allow them to 'dispose of' your animals prior to any criminal proceedings taking place. These are all civil applications that are made in the magistrates court.

The provision to enable a prosecutor to dispose of animals was meant to enable the sale of commercial animals, perhaps a herd of beef cattle who would be useless once they passed their 'sell by' date. It was meant to be a protection for both prosecutor and owner. The SHG predicted when giving evidence to the EFRA committee hearings that it would end up with valuable blood lines being lost and people getting to the end of a criminal case having proved their innocence only to find they had no animals left. Unfortunately that prediction has come to pass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-sue-RSPCA-over-loss-of-their-animals.html

There are many other things that should be done at the time and which are not because most people can not afford to take legal advice without the help of legal aid. Legal aid is under threat and many solicitors firms are facing going out of business and losing their contracts (a whole other issue). That is where the SHG is able to help people.

When a summons is received legal aid is means tested. Earn anything like a living wage and you simply will not qualify, even if you make a special hardship appeal.

If you have property is is normal for the RSPCA to ask the court to put a charge on the property for the value of the costs. RSPCA costs are massive and the amounts they charge are unrealistic. Without legal representation and without one of the specialist animal welfare solicitors or barristers on side the courts usually agree.

The RSPCA figure of 98% prosecution success rate is very difficult to pin down. There is a thought that it includes cautions accepted - something many people do because they are afraid of going to court or simply can not afford either the time or cost of fighting. The other problem is that if a defendant faces 20 charges and is only convicted of 1 that is classed as a successful prosecution, not 19 failed prosecutions and 1 success.

The other way the figures are boosted is when people either don't see the summons and so don't go to court, or fail to go for other reasons. Then the RSPCA asks the magistrates to enter a Guilty verdict by default and the case is never tested in court. The CPS is far more understanding of human nature and uses the provision in the manner it was intended - to penalise those who have gone on the run, not people who simply don't understand the way the system works or who have been ill or are elderly etc.

The whole point of the petition is that it will pass a message to government that there is great unhappiness with the way things are going in the hope that it will speed ant inquiry into being and that those taking part will keep the public's concern in mind during their deliberations.
Click to expand...

What most horse owning people do not understand with the RSPCA, is if you have a neighbour dispute, and they decided out of spite to report you to the RSPCA, if you have an elderly horse, with all the good will in the world, you cannot make an elderly horse look like a fit race horse, and there are many caring owners in this situation, the RSPCA can lie their way in to getting the animal seized, and the owner prosecuted even though the owners own vet had been involved in the full life of the animals. Even if it is decided that there are no welfare issues to answer. On a number of occasions the RSPCA rather than lose face and return the animals, they abuse their position, and still take the owner to court under section 20 of the AWA, saying they are better situated to care for the animal, or in their opinion it is better for the animal to be euthanased. This is an abuse of the court procedure, as NO CRIME has been committed, in yet not only does the owner lose their animal, they also find themselves having to foot a huge costs bill from the RSPCA, when in fact they have done no wrong.

Even if the owner wishes to appeal, they can only go so far, because of the RSPCA's ABUSE of the court system, the section 20 is a civil case, in yet the RSPCA put the section 20 in the Magistrates Court, making it a criminal offence, when in fact they have themselves admitted there is no criminal case to answer. so to take the matter beyond the Crown Court, the only way to fight the RSPCA is to go for Abuse of Process against them, which means the possibility of huge costs, which is ludicrous, for innocent owners, and leads to permanent loss of once loved pets, or unnecessary destruction of the animal. THIS IS DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR OF WHAT AT THE END OF THE DAY IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CHARITY
 
The vast mjaority of RSPCA cases are not starving animals or tortured animals. They revolve around disputes over whether a vet was consulted quickly enough. Or whether the right treatment was applied by the individual. Or whether an animal was put down at the right time.

Many of the defendants are elderly or homeless or ill people. Certainly many are vulnerable. The CPS has ordered the RSPCA to drop charges in some cases and the whole case in others. But they are dependent on being informed that there are concerns about how a case has been handled or that it does not comply with the Code for Crown prosecutors.

It is not enough to depend on the courts to be the final arbiter. By the time a case reaches court much of the damage will have already been done. Elderly and much loved animals have died of old age. Puppies have grown up in kennels instead of the family home.

The RSPCA may well have gone to people's employers to inform them of the investigation and pending prosecution. Jobs have been lost.

Social services is often notified if there are children or elderly people present. Clearly precedence is given to these fights allowing the RSPCA a much easier 'win' in their case.

You will find much more information on RSPCA prosecutions in the SHG submission to the Wooler report

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf
 
ycbm said:
Are you confusing Google with Wiki? Google is an invaluable research tool used by most professionals. For example, if you Google 'Sentencing Guidelines animal welfare act' It will point you straight to the actual sentencing guidelines used in courts to prosecute cases of animal cruelty. And if you read those guidelines, you will see that there is no charge under that act which could not potentially carry a prison sentence. And if you Google legal aid rules, you will find that automatically means that anyone who qualifies on means can get legal aid to defend an animal cruelty charge.
Click to expand...

ycbm your arguments have persuaded me to sign the petition !

Legal aid is means tested, so therefore many people aren't entitled to it. This does not make allowance for the fact that defending your case will cost you thousands. This frequently has to be borrowed against assets so houses are sold, or as is more common people are then frightened into accepting a caution and signing over their animals.

The CPS was set up to be independent to the police to enable the gathering of evidence and prosecution to be done by separate bodies thereby allowing a one step removed approach that enabled a more fair approach. This should be the same for the RSPCA.

They are a charity that is meant to look after animal welfare, this will involve a level of intervention however there should be a greater emphasis put on education and only if this fails should an application for a S20 be made.

Equally all S20 should have a maximum 7 day term whereupon the animal should be returned to its owner unless 2 independent vets confirm that the animal is in imminent danger.

The majority of RSPCA cases involve negligent care rather than deliberate harming and prosecution for negligence should be last resort.
 
Last edited:
The google warriors internet must be down.
I dont think some actually appreciate what happens in reality! People have had to sell their houses and even worse has happened. Maybe its because they dont truly believe the RSPCA could be like it.
However they are and they use bully boy tactics to achieve their ends and they have got very good at it.
They threaten people with things that in reality they cannot do but rely on people being frightened into signing animals over etc. Having worked on the inside I am well aware of what they will do but others dont care to believe it thinking the truth is embelished if only it was!
 
As an aside, most welfare groups have a memo of understanding. They will inform each other if abuse is suspected in a household. eg child protection may inform animal welfare and vice versa. Unfortunately there is a link between the two.
 
Regandal said:
As an aside, most welfare groups have a memo of understanding. They will inform each other if abuse is suspected in a household. eg child protection may inform animal welfare and vice versa. Unfortunately there is a link between the two.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. See

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3894#.Vo-9kfmF6M8

"The UK’s main animal welfare organisation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), currently prosecutes up to 1,000 people a year, but the majority of these cases involve neglect not violence. To assume that neglecting an animal can be linked to violence towards a child appears even more spurious. Accounts often report the same few infamous criminals (Jeffrey Dahmer, Fred West, the Boston Strangler, Jamie Bulger’s killers) who have admitted to harming animals, but such sensationalist ‘evidence’ cannot hide the absence of serious base-line data. The links panic is reliant on the kind of consequential fallacy which would be noticed by most undergraduate philosophy students: all serial killers have mothers but not everyone who has a mother is a serial killer.

The problem is further compounded by whether the kind of people sampled in this research are likely to be telling the truth. Owning up to harming animals is difficult but a criminal sample, with a hard image to maintain, will readily admit to such behaviour. The essentially individualistic approach that characterises most of the links and cycles arguments emphasises individual pathology. As before, the NSPCC have produced guidelines (5). Broader issues concerning the socio-economic context of violence towards animals are disregarded – and again families caught up in this panic tend to be poor."
 
popsdosh said:
The google warriors internet must be down.
I dont think some actually appreciate what happens in reality! People have had to sell their houses and even worse has happened. Maybe its because they dont truly believe the RSPCA could be like it.
However they are and they use bully boy tactics to achieve their ends and they have got very good at it.
They threaten people with things that in reality they cannot do but rely on people being frightened into signing animals over etc. Having worked on the inside I am well aware of what they will do but others dont care to believe it thinking the truth is embelished if only it was!
Click to expand...

Google is a search engine...surely you know that much?
 
Fenris said:
This is simply not true. See

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3894#.Vo-9kfmF6M8

"The UK’s main animal welfare organisation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), currently prosecutes up to 1,000 people a year, but the majority of these cases involve neglect not violence. To assume that neglecting an animal can be linked to violence towards a child appears even more spurious. Accounts often report the same few infamous criminals (Jeffrey Dahmer, Fred West, the Boston Strangler, Jamie Bulger’s killers) who have admitted to harming animals, but such sensationalist ‘evidence’ cannot hide the absence of serious base-line data. The links panic is reliant on the kind of consequential fallacy which would be noticed by most undergraduate philosophy students: all serial killers have mothers but not everyone who has a mother is a serial killer.

The problem is further compounded by whether the kind of people sampled in this research are likely to be telling the truth. Owning up to harming animals is difficult but a criminal sample, with a hard image to maintain, will readily admit to such behaviour. The essentially individualistic approach that characterises most of the links and cycles arguments emphasises individual pathology. As before, the NSPCC have produced guidelines (5). Broader issues concerning the socio-economic context of violence towards animals are disregarded – and again families caught up in this panic tend to be poor."
Click to expand...

Not sure how old that is but 2014 figures are over 2000 convictions.
 
Fenris said:
The vast mjaority of RSPCA cases are not starving animals or tortured animals. They revolve around disputes over whether a vet was consulted quickly enough. Or whether the right treatment was applied by the individual. Or whether an animal was put down at the right time.

Many of the defendants are elderly or homeless or ill people. Certainly many are vulnerable. The CPS has ordered the RSPCA to drop charges in some cases and the whole case in others. But they are dependent on being informed that there are concerns about how a case has been handled or that it does not comply with the Code for Crown prosecutors.

It is not enough to depend on the courts to be the final arbiter. By the time a case reaches court much of the damage will have already been done. Elderly and much loved animals have died of old age. Puppies have grown up in kennels instead of the family home.

The RSPCA may well have gone to people's employers to inform them of the investigation and pending prosecution. Jobs have been lost.

Social services is often notified if there are children or elderly people present. Clearly precedence is given to these fights allowing the RSPCA a much easier 'win' in their case.

You will find much more information on RSPCA prosecutions in the SHG submission to the Wooler report

http://the-shg.org/Notes for Independent Review of RSPCA Prosecutions.pdf
Click to expand...

You are doing yourself no favours here. At least have some serious evidence of the statements you make.
 
chillipup said:
You are doing yourself no favours here. At least have some serious evidence of the statements you make.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the SHG submission to the Wooler inquiry. Then go and read the Wooler report and you will see that much of the SHG's submission has been incorporated into the final report - even allowing for the RSPCA having demanded changes in it. If that is not sufficient for you then nothing will satisfy you.
 
ycbm said:
Are you confusing Google with Wiki? Google is an invaluable research tool used by most professionals. For example, if you Google 'Sentencing Guidelines animal welfare act' It will point you straight to the actual sentencing guidelines used in courts to prosecute cases of animal cruelty. And if you read those guidelines, you will see that there is no charge under that act which could not potentially carry a prison sentence. And if you Google legal aid rules, you will find that automatically means that anyone who qualifies on means can get legal aid to defend an animal cruelty charge.
Click to expand...

PMSL YCBM is telling a lawyer they are wrong - based on a google search. This has me rolling around laughing and people at work are giving me funny looks...

ycbm - legal aid as it stands can only be applied when there is a risk of a custodial sentence. As minesadouble said - yes you are entitled to a solicitor under legal aid when you are arrested, but that is where it ends.

The legal aid contracts have just changed this January (though still under appeal until April) and it is going to be ever more difficult to get legal aid - and even more difficult still to get a solicitor who will accept legal aid clients. They have cut the fee by 30%, this is on top of the 20% (ish) cut last year. My other half dealt with 6 offences last night - guess what he got paid? A big fat £0! 4 were telephone advice (3 during the night), 1 was released without charge so he wasn't needed - after driving 35 miles to the police station, and one decided just before interview that he didn't want a lawyer - again after a 35 mile trip. So for a payment of £0 he had about 2 hours sleep and then had to be in work at 9am. He will not even be eligible to claim travel expenses. He, like many others will not be taking on any legal aid clients from April... Who wants to work for nothing? (he does do pro bono work for a few animal charities, but that's out of love, not necessity)

And as for Google - most professionals use Google Scholar as it filters out all the misinformation, you you are wrong there again too. You are repeatedly quoting what professionals do, and how things work when you quite clearly have no basis for these claims. You appear to have no actual knowledge other than what you have gleaned from a google search and that makes your argument totally incredible.
 
EQUIDAE said:
ycbm - legal aid as it stands can only be applied when there is a risk of a custodial sentence.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming that what I have been saying all along is correct.

You appear to have no actual knowledge other than what you have gleaned from a google search and that makes your argument totally incredible.
Click to expand...

Incredible, but correct :D
 
Fenris said:
The other way the figures are boosted is when people either don't see the summons and so don't go to court, or fail to go for other reasons. Then the RSPCA asks the magistrates to enter a Guilty verdict by default and the case is never tested in court. The CPS is far more understanding of human nature and uses the provision in the manner it was intended - to penalise those who have gone on the run, not people who simply don't understand the way the system works or who have been ill or are elderly etc.
Click to expand...

Now here's my problem. The very lengthy post from which the above quote was taken contained a lot of very useful information if it is correct.

But this nugget is completely misleading. It is common in Magistrates Courts for defendants who don't turn up in court to have cases of all sorts heard in their absence at the request of the CPS and be convicted. It is also common for them to come back to court and ask for the proceedings to be reopened because they swear on oath that they were unaware of the proceedings or prevented from being there at very short notice.

So when misleading paragraphs like that one are inserted into a long post which seems very informative, how does anyone trust the rest?
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
Now here's my problem. The very lengthy post from which the above quote was taken contained a lot of very useful information if it is correct.

But this nugget is completely misleading. It is common in Magistrates Courts for defendants who don't turn up in court to have cases of all sorts heard in their absence and be convicted. It is also common for them to come back to court and ask for the proceedings to be reopened because they swear on oath that they were unaware of the proceedings or prevented from being there at very short notice.

So when misleading paragraphs like that one are inserted into a long post which seems very informative, how does anyone trust the rest?
Click to expand...


In normal proceedings yes. Note what I said about the CPS. In RSPCA proceedings it is almost impossible to get cases re-opened even when people have medical certificates. In one case the court proceeded despite the fact that a medical certificate had been lodged along with a letter from the solicitor explaining that applications for legal aid had not been dealt with by the legal aid board. Very few of these issues are ever reported in the media. They are just part of the RSPCA's arsenal used to wear the defendant down to the point that the will to fight to clear their name is so completely sapped that they give in.
 
Fenris said:
In normal proceedings yes. Note what I said about the CPS. In RSPCA proceedings it is almost impossible to get cases re-opened even when people have medical certificates. In one case the court proceeded despite the fact that a medical certificate had been lodged along with a letter from the solicitor explaining that applications for legal aid had not been dealt with by the legal aid board. Very few of these issues are ever reported in the media. They are just part of the RSPCA's arsenal used to wear the defendant down to the point that the will to fight to clear their name is so completely sapped that they give in.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that, but what you said in your post was that the CPS only prosecute in absence if someone is on the run, and that is simply not the truth. And knowing one bit of what someone says is not the truth makes it very difficult to judge how much else being posted is not the truth.

I want the RSPCA's role as the animal police investigated as much as anyone, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that the majority of people being prosecuted do not deserve to be prosecuted. I know three cases well. In the first, a horse was allowed to starve to death in a field which was close to the owner's house, and they had other horses which were extremely well cared for. The owner was fit, middle aged, had money and deserved everything he got. In the second case the RSPCA visited a thin dog and gave the owners advice to take the dog to a vet to investigate his sensitive stomach. They did, and the vet recommended Hill's feed. They visited again and the dog was fine. They followed up later and the dog was again skeletally thin, and the owners had stopped feeding it Hills. The RSPCA had it signed over to them, from when it was cared for in kennels, fed Hills, and recovered its health with no veterinary treatment, just the right food. They were fined, banned from keeping dogs, made to pay only about one quarter of the costs applied for (a few hundred instead of fifteen hundred) and thoroughly deserved everything they got. The third case was the import of hundreds of puppies from Ireland in the back of a box van. I'm not sure what the sentence was on that case, but whatever it was it probably wasn't enough.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
I don't doubt that, but what you said in your post was that the CPS only prosecute in absence if someone is on the run, and that is simply not the truth. And knowing one bit of what someone says is not the truth makes it very difficult to judge how much else being posted is not the truth.

I want the RSPCA's role as the animal police investigated as much as anyone, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that the majority of people being prosecuted do not deserve to be prosecuted. I know three cases well. In the first, a horse was allowed to starve to death in a field which was close to the owner's house, and they had other horses which were extremely well cared for. The owner was fit, middle aged, had money and deserved everything he got. In the second case the RSPCA visited a thin dog and gave the owners advice to take the dog to a vet to investigate his sensitive stomach. They did, and the vet recommended Hill's feed. They visited again and the dog was fine. They followed up later and the dog was again skeletally thin, and the owners had stopped feeding it Hills. The RSPCA had it signed over to them, from when it was cared for in kennels, fed Hills, and recovered its health with no veterinary treatment, just the right food. They were fined, banned from keeping dogs, made to pay only about one quarter of the costs applied for (a few hundred instead of fifteen hundred) and thoroughly deserved everything they got. The third case was the import of hundreds of puppies from Ireland in the back of a box van. I'm not sure what the sentence was on that case, but whatever it was it probably wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

I said that the CPS use the law in the way it was intended, giving people going on the run as an example - Thought people would understand that it meant the CPS use the law in extreme cases and accept that most normal people either don't understand the system or have problems with it.

One of the big problems with our legal system is that something that looks good when legislated to deal with a specific problem is taken by campaigning lawyers and used for purposes it was never intended to deal with. As with the applications to dispose of animals already mentioned.
 
ycbm said:
I don't doubt that, but what you said in your post was that the CPS only prosecute in absence if someone is on the run, and that is simply not the truth. And knowing one bit of what someone says is not the truth makes it very difficult to judge how much else being posted is not the truth.

I want the RSPCA's role as the animal police investigated as much as anyone, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that the majority of people being prosecuted do not deserve to be prosecuted. I know three cases well. In the first, a horse was allowed to starve to death in a field which was close to the owner's house, and they had other horses which were extremely well cared for. The owner was fit, middle aged, had money and deserved everything he got. In the second case the RSPCA visited a thin dog and gave the owners advice to take the dog to a vet to investigate his sensitive stomach. They did, and the vet recommended Hill's feed. They visited again and the dog was fine. They followed up later and the dog was again skeletally thin, and the owners had stopped feeding it Hills. The RSPCA had it signed over to them, from when it was cared for in kennels, fed Hills, and recovered its health with no veterinary treatment, just the right food. They were fined, banned from keeping dogs, made to pay only about one quarter of the costs applied for (a few hundred instead of fifteen hundred) and thoroughly deserved everything they got. The third case was the import of hundreds of puppies from Ireland in the back of a box van. I'm not sure what the sentence was on that case, but whatever it was it probably wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

Can you show where anybody in this long thread has suggested the majority should not be prosecuted as I like you like to see the evidence. In that case how does your example of 3 cases out of 2,000 show that everybody prosecuted are guilty as charged now please dont come out with the only 2% are acquitted as that was discredited long ago I think we all know those figures are manipulated to impress the little old cat ladies. Are there seriously 6 RSPCA cases in the courts every day they are sitting. I cant be bothered to check but its out there somewhere!
 
Last edited:
Fenris said:
I said that the CPS use the law in the way it was intended, giving people going on the run as an example - Thought people would understand that it meant the CPS use the law in extreme cases and accept that most normal people either don't understand the system or have problems with it.

.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I understood you to say. And it's not true. It's absolutely routine for the CPS to prosecute in absence, it happens all the time.
 
Fenris said:
This is simply not true."
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it is. In my previous job, I had to attend various protection policy steering groups. It was recognised then, and that must be 7-8 years ago.
A quick look through the reports available on the NSPCC website shows numerous reports highlighting this. They put 'neglect' under the umberella of 'abuse'. I tried to link one, but it came up huge.
 
ycbm, I've just googled 'The Rolle of the CPS' and found their statement of ethos. Here it is;

Introduction. ……..

What we do
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal prosecuting authority for England and Wales, acting independently in criminal cases investigated by the police and others.

……..

Casework Quality Standards (CQS).
Our mission
Our mission is to deliver justice through the independent and effective prosecution of crime, fostering a culture of excellence by supporting and inspiring each other to be the best we can.

Our values
We will be independent and fair
We will prosecute independently, without bias and will seek to deliver justice in every case.

We will be honest and open
We will explain our decisions, set clear standards about the service the public can expect from us and be honest if we make a mistake.

We will treat everyone with respect
We will respect each other, our colleagues and the public we serve, recognising that there are people behind every case.

We will behave professionally and strive for excellence
We will work as one team, always seeking new and better ways to deliver the best possible service for the public.

We will be efficient and responsible with tax-payers' money. :D

__________

I've shortened it for the sake of brevity!

Considering the heading, Our Values; can you honestly, with your hand on your heart, you or anyone else for that matter, tell me that you actually believe that the same conditions are even considered by the rspca when they prosecute? Considering the donations aspect of the rspca and how they squander those bequests, I just love the last sentence quoted, don't you? :wink3:

Alec.
 
I haven't read all replies but one criticism is the lack of legal aid however in most criminal cases (I think sexual assault type and child endangerment are excluded) you aren't entitled to legal aid if you have more than £8,000 including the value of your house. So people won't lose their house due to rspca because they would lose it in any criminal case because they wouldn't get legal aid in any case. Look online to see the income limits for legal aid in criminal cases.
 
Unfortunately, once the RSPCA decide to prosecute, the innocent owner may not discuss the case, even when it is apparent that an inspector, ignorant of the law, has both broken the law and lied in testament more than once. Witnesses will testify to this. The defendant who does not have the benefit of being a 'charity' has to borrow money to make a defence and is told they may not recover costs even if they win.

I will never give another donation to the RSPCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top