Petition to curb RSPCA prosecutions

[ycbm]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...HH-Jv4sbdUd6gso7g&sig2=XZJd-dbzv4C0atZnvNbi-w


This is the reference.

 

[ycbm]

I will hold my own hands up they are not claiming all their prosecution costs however in 2013 this figure was in excess of £431,000

Thats from the wooler report!

Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?

 

[popsdosh]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...HH-Jv4sbdUd6gso7g&sig2=XZJd-dbzv4C0atZnvNbi-w


This is the reference.

2.6.1 There is no power to order the payment of costs out of Central Funds of any
prosecutor who is a public authority, a person acting on behalf of a public
authority, or acting as an official appointed by a public authority as defined in
the Act. In the limited number of cases in which a prosecutor's costs may be
awarded out of Central Funds, an application is to be made by the prosecution
in each case. An order should be made save where there is good reason for not
doing so, for example, where proceedings have been instituted or continued
without good cause. This provision applies to proceedings in respect of an
indictable offence or proceedings before the High Court in respect of a
summary offence. Regulation 14(1) of the General Regulations extends it to
certain committals for sentence from a Magistrates’ Court.

I wonder if you may have misread as its easy to. The high court bit refers to summary offences all indictable offences allow the payment of costs from central funds for private prosecutors. I think that means ?

 

[popsdosh]

Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?

That would have been 2012 I believe

 

[ycbm]

2.6.1 There is no power to order the payment of costs out of Central Funds of any
prosecutor who is a public authority, a person acting on behalf of a public
authority, or acting as an official appointed by a public authority as defined in
the Act. In the limited number of cases in which a prosecutor's costs may be
awarded out of Central Funds, an application is to be made by the prosecution
in each case. An order should be made save where there is good reason for not
doing so, for example, where proceedings have been instituted or continued
without good cause. This provision applies to proceedings in respect of an
indictable offence or proceedings before the High Court in respect of a
summary offence. Regulation 14(1) of the General Regulations extends it to
certain committals for sentence from a Magistrates’ Court.

I wonder if you may have misread as its easy to. The high court bit refers to summary offences all indictable offences allow the payment of costs from central funds for private prosecutors. I think that means ?

Indictable only offences are always heard in a higher court. Magistrates courts cannot hear indictable only offences. Animal welfare cases are rarely indictable only, therefore the vast majority of cases are held in Magistrates courts and costs do not appear to be able to be claimed from the public purse for those, except for when they are passed to a higher court for sentencing.

 

[ycbm]

That would have been 2012 I believe

I doubt it, the conviction was too late in 2012 for them to have been paid out in 2012, given how fast tyres things work. But before quoting that figure, don't you think you should have known, since your anger against the RSPCA is so clearly generated by that one case?

 

[ycbm]

http://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts

This is my source for 2014 convictions. Is it possible that you asked how many people were convicted instead of how many charges people were convicted of?

 

[popsdosh]

Did that not include over £300,000 from one hunting prosecution, never to be repeated?

£46,000 was the figure for the Heythrop case from central funds

 

[ycbm]

Fine. If you think that the CPS can secure prosecutions for around 2,000 offences a year for £125 per case, you are dreaming.

If you are arguing that money will be saved because fewer people will be prosecuted, then I think that is still unlikely, though potentially possible, and that many animals will suffer badly because of it.

 

[popsdosh]

http://media.rspca.org.uk/media/facts

This is my source for 2014 convictions. Is it possible that you asked how many people were convicted instead of how many charges people were convicted of?

This little snipet I think confirms my figures. published 2015 so I assume 2014 figures .

The number of animal owners prosecuted by the RSPCA for offences such as cruelty or neglect has dropped by a quarter in just a year despite an upward trend in allegations of mistreatment reported to the charity, new figures show.
It follows the departure of the controversial former chief executive, Gavin Grant, who left just over a year ago after a turbulent tenure which saw the RSPCA accused of pursuing an overly aggressive prosecution strategy and becoming “political”.
The charity said there had been no change in prosecution policy and that the drop in convictions reflected greater success by its officers in stepping in early and persuading pet owners to take advice on caring for their animals.
Gavin Grant
But the figures show a striking decline in cases brought to court by the RSPCA . Just 1,029 people were convicted of animal welfare offences last year compared to 1,552 in 2012, Mr Grant’s first year in charge.
Figures show prosecutions jumped by 15 per cent after his arrival.
The charity faced calls for it to be stripped of its role in prosecutions amid claims it had become too “political” in the wake of the prosecution of David Cameron’s local hunt and suggestions that farmers who supported the Government’s badger cull should be named and shamed.

 

[ycbm]

This little snipet I think confirms my figures. published 2015 so I assume 2014 figures .

The number of animal owners prosecuted by the RSPCA for offences such as cruelty or neglect has dropped by a quarter in just a year despite an upward trend in allegations of mistreatment reported to the charity, new figures show.
It follows the departure of the controversial former chief executive, Gavin Grant, who left just over a year ago after a turbulent tenure which saw the RSPCA accused of pursuing an overly aggressive prosecution strategy and becoming “political”.
The charity said there had been no change in prosecution policy and that the drop in convictions reflected greater success by its officers in stepping in early and persuading pet owners to take advice on caring for their animals.
Gavin Grant
But the figures show a striking decline in cases brought to court by the RSPCA . Just 1,029 people were convicted of animal welfare offences last year compared to 1,552 in 2012, Mr Grant’s first year in charge.
Figures show prosecutions jumped by 15 per cent after his arrival.
The charity faced calls for it to be stripped of its role in prosecutions amid claims it had become too “political” in the wake of the prosecution of David Cameron’s local hunt and suggestions that farmers who supported the Government’s badger cull should be named and shamed.

You must be very happy with that news. Why, then, are you so vehemently against the RSPCA on this thread. (Can I remind you I signed the petition).

 

[chillipup]

Another Daily Fail or Telegraph story I suspect.

 

[ycbm]

Another Daily Fail or Telegraph story I suspect.

Don't you mean Daily Fail or Torygraph ?

 

[chillipup]

Oh yes, sorry my mistake

 

[popsdosh]

Fine. If you think that the CPS can secure prosecutions for around 2,000 offences a year for £125 per case, you are dreaming.

If you are arguing that money will be saved because fewer people will be prosecuted, then I think that is still unlikely, though potentially possible, and that many animals will suffer badly because of it.

Why should more animals suffer , My argument is their efforts should be more targeted do you really think that however many extra prosecutions they secure will stop people abusing animals . Clearly from the figures since 2012 thats not happening. Can you really put your hand on your heart and say everybody taken to court is an animal abuser as such . There are plenty of cases that in my mind should have gone to court however never were pursued for what ever reason. I have very personal experience of one of those. when I asked the inspector why it didnt go to court his exact words were its not valuable enough for us. I still have the horse at home totally unrideable 8yo now never has got over what he was put through.

 

[Lizzie66]

Everyone, including other charities and organisations, have the right make private prosecutions. You cannot just single out one and revoke this right because you are biased against them. I have had nothing but good dealings with them, both when I was reported for keeping my dogs in a kennel and run during the day, and when I have reported cruelty to them, or asked for their help with wild animals and birds. They have been brilliant. Now I understand that this is not always the case and that there are some bad eggs in the organisation, but the same can be said for almost any company or organisation.

I am not biased against them per se. I believe their aims to improve animal welfare are excellent. However I am concerned that over the last 15 years their focus has shifted towards animal rights. Removing their award for animal welfare from farmers involved in the badger cull being a case in point.

The RSPCA is the only charity that regularly prosecutes its own cases. The vast majority of other charities and individuals leave criminal prosecution to the CPS.

If the RSPCA wants to regain the excellent reputation it used to have then it needs to reinvent itself and to my mind stay with welfare not rights.

 

[popsdosh]

You must be very happy with that news. Why, then, are you so vehemently against the RSPCA on this thread. (Can I remind you I signed the petition).

I think you will find if you go back through my post at no point have I said the RSPCA should be disbanded for want of a better word. I am against the direction they have gone off in which has had a detrimental effect on them as an organisation. We are not a million miles apart its just sometimes you need to look carefully at their motives.
Luckily it does look like the message is getting home.

 

[ycbm]

Why should more animals suffer , My argument is their efforts should be more targeted do you really think that however many extra prosecutions they secure that it will stop people abusing animals

Yes. I believe that some people can only be prevented from abusing animals by banning orders. And I believe that every person prosecuted acts as a warning to everyone in the neighbourhood that might mistreat an animal.

. Clearly from the figures since 2012 thats not happening.

You don't have the information to make that assumption. More reported cruelty does not mean more cruelty. It means only that more people have made reports. As we know, these days people will report an unrugged pony, out of ignorance. You have to know what the reports actually were before you can know whether there has been a real increase. The reported increase came at a time when new animal welfare law was all over the news. It has to be connected.

Can you really put your hand on your heart and say everybody taken to court is an animal abuser as such .

The fox hunting cases aside. Probably, not all intentionally though.Unfortunately 'I really thought it was a forty limit' is not a defence to speeding in a thirty.

There are plenty of cases that in my mind should have gone to court however never were pursued for what ever reason. I have very personal experience of one of those. when I asked the inspector why it didnt go to court his exact words were its not valuable enough for us. I still have the horse at home totally unrideable 8yo now never has got over what he was put through.

Is that where you get your information from to make the outrageous allegation that the RSPCA take prosecutions in order to make a profit? I dare say you either misheard him/her or misconstrued what s/he meant, but of course I wasn't there, so I don't know.

 

[popsdosh]

Yes.







Is that where you get your information from to make the outrageous allegation that the RSPCA take prosecutions in order to make a profit? I dare say you either misheard him/her or misconstrued what s/he meant, but of course I wasn't there, so I don't know.

No that comes from doing expert witness reports for them and being asked to put certain things in and leave others out thats why we fell out. I still support their aims . I heard him very clearly by the way
but of course you only have my word for it so its bound to be wrong!

 

[ycbm]

No that comes from doing expert witness reports for them and being asked to put certain things in and leave others out thats why we fell out. I still support their aims . I heard him very clearly by the way
but of course you only have my word for it so its bound to be wrong!

Well, yes, expert witnesses are produced to support the side they are representing And subject to cross examination too, of course.


Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of prosecuting anyone? I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?

 

[popsdosh]

Well, yes, expert witnesses are produced to support the side they are representing And subject to cross examination too, of course.


/QUOTE]

Still have to tell the truth though ,but thats a different matter!

 

[ycbm]

Still have to tell the truth though ,but thats a different matter!

They have to give their interpretation of the facts. They can still be wrong, which is why they are subject to cross examination.

 

[ycbm]

???

Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of prosecuting anyone? I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?

 

[Alec Swan]

……..


Can you please explain to me how the RSPCA makes a profit out of prosecuting anyone? I'm not talking about using a high profile case to make PR to raise donations, that just good sound business sense. How does it make a profit from a prosecution?

I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question! Good business sense? Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon 'justice', rather than 'profit'?

The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt, in the extreme, and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system, are slowly reaching the same view.

Alec.

 

[chillipup]

I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question! Good business sense? Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon 'justice', rather than 'profit'?

The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt, in the extreme, and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system, are slowly reaching the same view.

Alec.

I was going to reply but quite honestly I'm can't be bothered to put my point across anymore. No body is interested in another point of view. What will be will be. It's just a shame you call people out on their remarks but ignore when the tables are turned.

 

[ycbm]

I wonder if you haven't just answered your own question! Good business sense? Do you not consider that any authority with the power to prosecute should be focused upon 'justice', rather than 'profit'?

I have seen a great deal of inflammatory hyperbole on this thread but precious little evidence to suggest that RSPCA prosecutions are not focussed on justice.

The whole idea of a charity which is wholly dependent upon fund raising having responsibility for prosecution work is corrupt, in the extreme, and it seems that Parliament and our entire judicial system, are slowly reaching the same view.

Alec.

I think the situation is regrettable but it was cost saving by governments over decades which allowed it to happen. I don't think there is the slightest justification for calling it 'corrupt in the extreme'.

I'm with chillipup now, I am tired of attempting to obtain any basis for their claims from people making hysterical statements against the RSPCA, who on the whole, in my opinion, do a great job.

 

[Alec Swan]

ycbm, when one side accuses the other, of making hysterical statements while displaying a level of blind faith which ignores the shameful conduct of the rspca and at a level which brings discredit to an otherwise worthwhile and needed body of people, then as you say, further discussion is pointless!

Alec.

 

[minesadouble]

I have seen a great deal of inflammatory hyperbole on this thread but precious little evidence to suggest that RSPCA prosecutions are not focussed on justice.


I think the situation is regrettable but it was cost saving by governments over decades which allowed it to happen. I don't think there is the slightest justification for calling it 'corrupt in the extreme'.

I'm with chillipup now, I am tired of attempting to obtain any basis for their claims from people making hysterical statements against the RSPCA, who on the whole, in my opinion, do a great job.

So claiming keep expenses and worming expenses for long since dead horses is not corruption??

 

[chillipup]

I was going to reply but quite honestly I'm can't be bothered to put my point across anymore. No body is interested in another point of view. What will be will be. It's just a shame you call people out on their remarks but ignore when the tables are turned.

I rest my case.

 

[Alec Swan]

So claiming keep expenses and worming expenses for long since dead horses is not corruption??

I suspect that the problem arises when we have a charitable body which employs 'tactics', tactics which are as far removed from any consideration of ethical conduct and also include perjury before our Courts, that we have a growing swell of the general public, and Parliament too, who demand that the rspca consider and return to their charter.

Again, we need an RSPCA, just not in its current form, nor led by a council who, it seems to many, have lost their way and the very reason for their existence. Our current rspca display a level of arrogance and disregard for humanity and justice which will bring about the downfall of an otherwise needed and some may say, vital body.

Alec.