RSPCA and legal aid.

[YorksG]

I had thought that CometitionDiva was one of the more reasonable defenders of the RSPCA, until she has suggested that those posters who raise objections about the manner of the RSPCA officials and their actions, are people who have neglected or been cruel to their animals Just as rude as some others, just in a more veiled manner

 

[widget]

These threads always go round in circles with three camps
1) Rspca don't do anything
2) Rspca prosecute all the time
3) pro Rspca

I guess everyone judges on their own experiences and its a pity the police/local authority insp don't seem willing to use their powers to enforce the animal Welfare act. In a perfect world RSPCA would give advice and help and pass over to these if things were so bad they needed to be prosecuted. I agree RSPCA try to do too much but there isn't any willingness from others to take up the slack

 

[competitiondiva]

Yorksg that is a little defensive. The poster was asking why there was so much negative comments against the RSPCA on forums, and I gave a valid agruement as to why. I did not say all those comments were from these people, I'm quite sure as with any large organisation there are a fair few people who have had bad experiences themselves.

 

[competitiondiva]

Arguement sorry, dam predictive text!!!

 

[Luci07]

I personally have no problems with the RSPCA knocking on doors in response to a complaint. I do, however, know my "rights" which could be a contributory factor. I have no idea how to approach the RSPCA to suggest how to improve their image but a very good first step would be transparency. Transparency with their accounts, their processes and actually be really open about what sort of service they CAN offer the public. Or a better joined up approach with other charities to spread the load. When accusations hit the press of the number of animals being destroyed, don't get defensive, tell the public why. I strongly disagree with money being spent on prosecuting hunts, as while I am pro hunting, I am also very very aware of how dire the situation is currently with animals in rescue. the public sees this, large amounts of money being spent on prosecutions, lots of stories about the numbers being destroyed and of course the recent suicide of the ex RSPCA employee does nothing to help. Get off the back foot RSPCA. You need to change your public perception and show a clear focus on helping animals.

 

[Goldenstar]

I had thought that CometitionDiva was one of the more reasonable defenders of the RSPCA, until she has suggested that those posters who raise objections about the manner of the RSPCA officials and their actions, are people who have neglected or been cruel to their animals Just as rude as some others, just in a more veiled manner

That's exactly what I thought too.

 

[honetpot]

Please do not criticise the relatives that complained about the poor care given to their family and the press that reported their complaints because may of their concerns have been found to be true.
I have been an NHS worker for 30 years and we are taught that complaints should be taken seriously, its part of improving the service. It been proven that in certain hospitals that people concerns have been ignored to the detriment of patient care. Just because you are a doctor or a nurse you are not a saint, you are a paid professional with professional standards and it a shame that relatives ended up feeling that the only they could get their views heard was to go to the press.
Complaints and criticism should always be taken seriously as they help improve service and services whether your a big organisation like the NHS, or a small company, what is more important is how you respond to the complaint, shooting the messenger is not going to help anyone.

 

[competitiondiva]

Honetpot, on that I completely agree with you. And would ask those who've had a bad experience have they actually made a complaint to the head quarters? If not how do you expect things to change?

 

[YorksG]

I would expect that the training would be adequate that the RSPCA would automatically follow the law, it is unreasonable to expect those who have been badly treated by them to be the ones to police them. If the vulnerable believe that the RSPCA have powers they do not, they are hardly likely to make formal complaints.

 

[indie999]

most of the complaints on line are anecdotal surely there are anecdotal stories in praise of the RSPCA. So most are personal experiences which are in the main negative I somewhat resent the implication that I am a Daily Mail reader I have never read a tabloid paper in my life
Forums are the only people orientated reading I do so the implication there is that this forums users are ignorant, stupid and ill informed. Not a pleasant thought is it

The story I use of my sisters old boy is true. RSPCA use to knock as locals had complained he was lying down a lot. Yes a bit annoyed people didnt knock on the respectable house door to let us know their concerns. But on visiting the RSPCA informed that they had come out due to a complaint but they could see the horse was elderly healthy etc hence he laid down more than a youngster. So not anecdotal at all. So we never got upset as we thought with hindsight that it was good members of the public had seen a horse lying down a lot and had been concerned enough to pick up the phone. We thought it was good they acted.
Only good experiences from my family.

 

[VSB]

I followed the links to the groups trying to defend people against the RSPCA. One website "in support", actually links to two articles in the Daily Mail. That is not terribly good evidence of support that the RSPCA are out of control or whatever is it?

While I have no doubts at all, that mistakes are made and that things could be handled better sometimes. Generally the RSPCA will not go through with a prosecution unless they feel they have (rightly or wrongly - I do not know the specifics of your case after all) a good chance of winning.

Certainly some officers will have only small animal experience and not know how to look after big animals very well, but aren't all cases reviewed before prosecution is decided upon though?

I can offer no opinion as we are only hearing your side of the case. So the feeling does remain that while you might be being wronged by the RSPCA, you could also be being justly prosecuted after being caught. I am NOT saying you are doing this, as I do not know you or the case, but some people do say they are innocent, because what they did is "acceptable". When in reality they mean everyone else does it and just have not been caught yet.

I do NOT mean this to be "against you" as my own experience of the RSPCA is from a neighbour of mine some years ago who was prosecuted. It left me with mixed feelings, so you might be in the right.

Speak to a solicitor and see if they will take the case under legal aid or not. It might be the only way to find out.

Let us know how you go on?

 

[Mithras]

Well, I read this thread as a spectator and have come to this conclusion. There is pro-RSPCA (from what I assume is direct experience) and anti-RSPCA (from what I assume is direct experience). My own conclusion is that the pro-RSPCA (with a couple of exceptions) are extremely rude and totally out of order with their responses. If I was a manager of anyone who responded to the general public (forums included) with that kind of (quite frankly) piss-poor public relations, they'd be out of a job, I don't care if you have to defend what you do, there is a way to do it. I don't know if anyone who works for the RSPCA has replied on this forum with such nasty/condescending attitude to what I believe are legitimate concerns - but I hope not.

I'm not sure either, there appeared to be some purporting of such but surely for someone in a position of employment, it would be a prima facie case of gross misconduct. I found being told, as a reader of a public forum, that I was "ignorant", illuminating. It gave the impression of fanaticism. To suggest that no-one may comment on the RSPCA unless they work for the RSPCA is utter nonsense.

The RSPCA and its self-appointed prosecutor role is becoming a problem and its one government doesn't want to deal with because (a) its a charity and (b) the RSPCA's media relations are so spiky and know all the tricks in the book for attacking anyone who dares question them. eg its treatment of ex-employees who act as "whistleblowers" and Jonathon Rich, a very well regarded barrister who acted as defence counsel in a number of cases taken by the RSPCA, and was subjected to a number of complaints to the Bar Council by both the RSPCA and other related parties, yet has never had a complaint made against him in any non-RSPCA related matter. The RSPCA are constantly criticised by judges in both criminal and civil cases for bringing matters to court which are a waste of time and in their presentation of evidence.

Of course its not satisfactory to have a situation where a charity is a prosecuting agency. I don't think local authorities acting as prosecutors is desirable either. While the CPS has its faults, the RSPCA and local authority prosecutions tend to feature a too high proportion of cases which would not have been prosecuted by the CPS due to lack of public interest. Generally justice is meted out with a light hand, and it takes years of experience to do this. This country is characterised by a laissez faire criminological approach (like it or not), so to permit a situation where certain crimes are more likely to be prosecuted, even though morally dubious or when advice or support might have helped the issue, just because a charity sees it as its duty, is IMHO against the concept of natural justice.

Of course, the RSPCA does not have to bring criminal sanctions against perpetrators of animal cruelty - there are a number of civil sanctions they can avail themselves of, such as interdict. Criminal sanction should be a last resort in all but the most heinous matters.

No-one wants to see animal cruelty NOT prosecuted, but the RSPCA's approach is too much biased towards acting so as to build up evidence for successful convictions (thereby possibly prolonging cruelty) and in pursuing "easy" targets or high profile politically motivated targets.

In Scotland, the SSPCA does an excellent job, but prosecutions are done by the CPS equivalent, the Procurator Fiscal Office.

 

[indie999]

In effect the RSPCA are damned if the do and damned if they dont.

Always two sides to a story.

 

[fburton]

In Scotland, the SSPCA does an excellent job, but prosecutions are done by the CPS equivalent, the Procurator Fiscal Office.

Why can that not be done in England too? Why isn't it?

 

[camilla4]

Why can that not be done in England too? Why isn't it?

It is. The RSPCA also bring private prosecutions though whereas in Scotland there is not really an effective private prosecution procedure. They do occur but are very, very rare as there is a different set of requirements.

 

[Goldenstar]

Why can that not be done in England too? Why isn't it?

Completely different legal system I don't know a lot about the Scottish system but as I live near the border know a little it does seem to be a much better way to do it.

 

[fburton]

Thanks camilla4 & Goldenstar, but it doesn't really answer the question for me (maybe I'm just being dense). Is it because animal cruelty/neglect prosecutions are mainly brought privately by the RSPCA that the CPS doesn't so much? What would happen if the RSPCA didn't bring private prosecutions at all? Would the CPS then step in? If not, what is the difference between the CPS and PFO (or between English and Scots law) that means public prosecution happens more readily in Scotland compared to England?

 

[Mithras]

Thanks camilla4 & Goldenstar, but it doesn't really answer the question for me (maybe I'm just being dense). Is it because animal cruelty/neglect prosecutions are mainly brought privately by the RSPCA that the CPS doesn't so much? What would happen if the RSPCA didn't bring private prosecutions at all? Would the CPS then step in? If not, what is the difference between the CPS and PFO (or between English and Scots law) that means public prosecution happens more readily in Scotland compared to England?

There is no definitive answer. You could say that the RSPCA's willingness to prosecute makes the police less willing to investigate and gather evidence for the CPS. The CPS will not prosecute if there is not a realistic prospect of a conviction, if it is not in the public interest or if there is insufficient evidence. From judicial observation, it seems that the RSPCA has less stringent prosecuting standards. It seems to be the case that the RSPCA prosecutes quite a few "questionable" cases, where the State would not, ie if there is insufficient evidence to make a conviction likely, if it a very de minimus action, or if there is no real public interest (you could say for example in cases like that of Clwwyed Davies, there was no need to prosecute on moral grounds, because advice and assistance might have given a better result).

Then there is the RSPCA's civil actions. Unlike a private person, they do not have to worry about being unable to pay the costs of legal action, and so are not constricted on this basis. Should a charity really spend quite so much money on legal action? The RSPCA has commented that being a charity, they are legally obliged to obtain the bequest.

RSPCA v. Gill [2010] EWCA 1430, CA, (a daughter left out of her surviving parent's will leaving the family farm to the RSPCA successfully had it declared invalid), is quite notorious. The RSPCA appealed, unsuccessfully, and also had costs awarded against them. But fair enough, the legacy was left to them in the first place, although some may be surprised the RSPCA is spending its money in this way. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12161833 if interested in this case.

In RSPCA v Sharp [2011] 1WLR 980, the charity challenged a will which divided up money between beneficiaries and the RSPCA. The RSPCA challenged the precise amount they were awarded by executors based on the amount of IHT deducted.

The RSPCA commented "Charities increasingly face challenges by disappointed relatives disputing wills". Others might equally comment that testators be careful when considering leaving legacies to large charities with seemingly limitless funds for challenge at their disposal. This sort of legal action causes a lot of distress to the deceased's relatives.

But to give a balanced view, the RSPCA does also mount legal challenges directly aimed at effecting good - for instance, its (so far unsuccessful) challenge to ban live exports. I have never had any contact with them in a personal setting, but I keep coming across the results of their many legal actions in court. The RSPCA therefore is interesting because many of the cases brought by it create rather firm precedents and are strong decisions, and also tend to reach the higher courts.

 

[MileAMinute]

In effect the RSPCA are damned if the do and damned if they dont.

Always two sides to a story.

Agree

 

[Goldenstar]

Thanks camilla4 & Goldenstar, but it doesn't really answer the question for me (maybe I'm just being dense). Is it because animal cruelty/neglect prosecutions are mainly brought privately by the RSPCA that the CPS doesn't so much? What would happen if the RSPCA didn't bring private prosecutions at all? Would the CPS then step in? If not, what is the difference between the CPS and PFO (or between English and Scots law) that means public prosecution happens more readily in Scotland compared to England?

I don't know to be honest how in England we ended up in the unsatisfactory situation where the state has all but withdrawn from prosecuting people breaking certain laws.
However I have been present when a police officer said to me if they( RSPCA) don't take it ( the case ) we will , in that case I was only interested in persuading an owner to PTS an elderly horse quickly with as little stress as possible so certainly those police officers had an open mind on the subject.
The RSPCA does do some great work and some fantasic people work for them as inspectors their job is not easy.
However some of the pro posters on here do them no favours I was called a hater the other day its hilarious but if these people do work for the RSPCA it is worrying it is not a good attitude .
It's the same attitude that drives the all nurses are angels thing in the NHS they ain't and pretending they are devalues the wonderful nurses that do go the extra mile.

 

[fburton]

A most helpful answer, Mithras - thank you!

 

[Goldenstar]

Back to the original question if legal aid can not be used by those being prosecuted by the RSPCA I don't know but to be honest I can't see how it could be considered fair that an individual with no legal representation would have to defend them selves agaisnt a large organisation with enormous funds .
If this is the case something will have to give at some point .

 

[indie999]

Back to the original question if legal aid can not be used by those being prosecuted by the RSPCA I don't know but to be honest I can't see how it could be considered fair that an individual with no legal representation would have to defend them selves agaisnt a large organisation with enormous funds .
If this is the case something will have to give at some point .

No expert but I thought Legal aid was for the chop chop for most things. That people will just get representation from a list of legal eagles ie ones allocated to do the job, not their choice. Very few people would get legal aid that owned large expensive animals or would they? Also to bring a case they do need to have evidence or dont they?

 

[VSB]

... but the RSPCA's approach is too much biased towards acting so as to build up evidence for successful convictions (thereby possibly prolonging cruelty)...

I do not have enough personal experience to know about the points you raised, but I have read this criticism before about the RSPCA and it does seem unfair as they now feel they HAVE to take the time to build up really good cases after about 10 years ago when they started loosing cases in the courts. They received much criticism for "wasting the charities' money" and also for prosecuting innocent people - They had to be called innocent, because they had insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

So now they do have to let the animals suffer for longer before they step in just to make sure they have a realistic chance of securing a conviction. In the long run, they reduce suffering for all the future animals by doing it, but it does mean the current ones will suffer for longer. But what else can they do? If they had have carried on bringing prosecutions as soon as they thought they were in with a chance of a conviction in order to reduce the suffering of the current animals, they would keep loosing more and more case and money. Leading to accusations of prosecuting "anybody and everybody", rather than the "real" cruel people.

At the back of my mind is an uneasy feeling that this will eventually polarise in to the same sort of argument over whether spanking children is right or not? What I am thinking is that just as some people say all spanking is child abuse, so some people say all cruelty to animals must be stopped.

Then you have those who say that they know best whether to smack or not and so no one has the right to tell them how to raise their family - Just as some horse owners feel no one should be telling them how to look after their horses when they have many years experience of doing so.

Think of it this way, is it right to give pain-killing drugs to a horse so it can continue, even though it is potentially doing more severe permanent damage to it's back by doing so? While it seems cruel and ruining a horse, others will point out that without the drugs, the horse could not work and so would have to be sold, possibly for meat as it could not work, or euthanised, possibly at the request of the insurance company.

I do not believe there is an answer to this debate then? But to get back to the original point, if this is a criminal prosecution, I think you can still ask to see the duty solicitor when you get to court and that should be free. Or you can contact solicitors now and ask if they will take the case on pro-bono?

Then in court you should have access to some representation and they will have to decide the specifics of the case as they will get to hear all the evidence for and against what you are being accused of by the RSPCA.

If it is a civil prosecution (that is you are being sued), then I think you are sunk as I believe there is no provision at all under the legal aid system for defending yourself against being sued? Hopefully you would be able to see the duty solicitor or find someone who would take on your case pro-bono.

I think that if you are completely innocent, then the RSPCA will have to pay all your costs when they loose, so if you are absolutely 100% certain that you were completely without blame at all in any way, shape or form, then hire the best barristers you can find and they will be paid for by the RSPCA when they loose. The risk is that if you think you are innocent and you are considered to have been "pushing the limits" a bit, you will not get costs and that is never good when you cannot pay a lawyer.

 

[camilla4]

If it is a civil prosecution (that is you are being sued), then I think you are sunk as I believe there is no provision at all under the legal aid system for defending yourself against being sued? Hopefully you would be able to see the duty solicitor or find someone who would take on your case pro-bono.
.

There s no such thing as a "civil prosecution" - prosecutions are for criminal offences. Legal aid is available for civil suits but the rules for eligibility are different from those for criminal cases.

 

[honetpot]

Don't know whether these people would be of help your friend but I found this link posted on another web site.
http://www.the-shg.org/index.htm

 

[VSB]

There s no such thing as a "civil prosecution" - prosecutions are for criminal offences. Legal aid is available for civil suits but the rules for eligibility are different from those for criminal cases.

Isn't that what I said? Bit nit-picky about my wording, although you are right in that "civil suit" might have been clearer, I've heard the term "civil prosecution" used and so used it myself, although I think I was thinking of "private prosecution" as in here.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...rosecution-of-a-case/private-prosecution.html

 

[VSB]

Sorry, it will not let me edit my post now.

I was going to change it to say that I had both "civil action" and "private prosecution" in mind at the same time and muddled them up as I have heard other do.

However my point is correct. If the RSPCA believes the law has been breached, then they can take out a private prosecution against them, which are criminal proceedings are they not?

 

[camilla4]

Sorry, it will not let me edit my post now.

I was going to change it to say that I had both "civil action" and "private prosecution" in mind at the same time and muddled them up as I have heard other do.

However my point is correct. If the RSPCA believes the law has been breached, then they can take out a private prosecution against them, which are criminal proceedings are they not?

Absolutely right - a private prosecution is a criminal proceeding.

 

[Sugarplum Furry]

OP here. An update. Following a long and informative with the SHG...who then put my friend on to a VERY helpful solicitor....my friend now has the forms to apply for legal aid. The chances of getting it are 50/50 but it's not out of the question. There is hope!