RSPCA begin another political court case

[Doormouse]

According to the rumour mill the RSPCA are now after another huntsman, taking him to court for breaking the law.

Clearly the most recent suggestions to them went straight over their heads.

 

[dunthing]

According to the rumour mill the RSPCA are now after another huntsman, taking him to court for breaking the law.

Clearly the most recent suggestions to them went straight over their heads.

It would seem that they haven't learned a thing from the previous case. The Judge had a real go at them for wasting donations on a futile case. I wish they would allow WHW to administer the welfare of horses, ponies and donkeys because the RSPCA don't have a clue and all they have achieved is to alienate more and more donors.

 

[cptrayes]

The most recent suggestions were that it wasn't in the public interest to have spent so much money prosecuting the Heythrop, not that all people hunting illegally should be allowed to simply ignore the law.

Prosecution of a criminal is NOT a political act.

 

[cptrayes]

The Judge had a real go at them for wasting donations on a futile case.

No he did not. He expressed concern about the costs. At no time was it futile, it was a successful prosecution.

 

[Shay]

Prosecution of a crime is the purview of the Crown Prosecution Service. Private prosecution is - or can be - a political act. If there is sufficient evidence and prosecution is in the public interest CPS will pursue it. If they won't then there is a reason. If the evidence is sound and CPS decline without good reason then the RSPCA might be better off taking the CPS to Judicial Review. The fact that they don't opt for that route and instead take a private prosecution speaks for itself.

 

[cptrayes]

Duplicate

 

[cptrayes]

Prosecution of a crime is the purview of the Crown Prosecution Service. Private prosecution is - or can be - a political act. If there is sufficient evidence and prosecution is in the public interest CPS will pursue it. If they won't then there is a reason. If the evidence is sound and CPS decline without good reason then the RSPCA might be better off taking the CPS to Judicial Review. The fact that they don't opt for that route and instead take a private prosecution speaks for itself.

You are completely incorrect about the CPS prosecuting animal cruelty cases.

It is a fact that many of us are unhappy with that the RSPCA prosecute the overwhelming majority of animal abuse cases in this country. Effectively, they have been appointed by the state to do so.

A prosecution which succeeds can in no way be considered a political act. By definition, someone broke the law!

 

[Goldenstar]

Where in a civil case is there justice where a large organisation with huge financial resources brings a case against a indvidual with much less .
If that indvidual can be bankrupted by losing ruining the lives of their family I understand who you might plead guilty rather than fight , I don't think that can be said to have proved the guilt of individual it proves the other side had more money to throw at it .
You could even argue that that could be a route for an organisation to get a guilty plea in a high profile case .
The money spent was not a affront against mistreated animals it was an affront against justice .

 

[cptrayes]

Where in a civil case is there justice where a large organisation with huge financial resources brings a case against a indvidual with much less .
If that indvidual can be bankrupted by losing ruining the lives of their family I understand who you might plead guilty rather than fight , I don't think that can be said to have proved the guilt of individual it proves the other side had more money to throw at it .
You could even argue that that could be a route for an organisation to get a guilty plea in a high profile case .
The money spent was not a affront against mistreated animals it was an affront against justice .

But exactly the same can be said of expensive prosecutions by the state GS.

Should laws that cost a lot to prosecute all simply be ignored even though abuse of them is widespread?

 

[Christmas Crumpet]

I think the CPS do prosecute animal cruelty cases - if interfering with a badger sett counts then they do.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

They have been found guilty in court.

The time has come to demand that the CPS upholds the law rather than directing their responsibilities to a charity. The law is for everyone to abide by and no one should exempt.

 

[Goldenstar]

But exactly the same can be said of expensive prosecutions by the state GS.

Should laws that cost a lot to prosecute all simply be ignored even though abuse of them is widespread?

No it's not the same you don't lose your home if you are found guilty in a pros caution by the state unless it's deemed you bought that home with the proceeds of that crime .

 

[cptrayes]

No it's not the same you don't lose your home if you are found guilty in a pros caution by the state unless it's deemed you bought that home with the proceeds of that crime .

It is the same GS. In England and Wales the costs in an RSPCA prosecution are dealt with exactly the same as in a CPS prosecution, by the same magistrates and judges who deal with CPS prosecutions.

Have you not read that Dave Lee Travis has had to sell his home to pay his defence costs?

Prosecution costs are subject to rules about the ability of the guilty party to pay them in a reasonable timescale, usually a year, two at the most.

 

[Goldenstar]

It is the same GS. In England and Wales the costs in an RSPCA prosecution are dealt with exactly the same as in a CPS prosecution, by the same magistrates and judges who deal with CPS prosecutions.

Have you not read that Dave Lee Travis has had to sell his home to pay his defence costs?

Prosecution costs are subject to rules about the ability of the guilty party to pay them in a reasonable timescale, usually a year, two at the most.

You are not correct in civil cases the RSPCA can seek to recover their costs from the other side .
DLT sold his home to pay his lawyers not the other sides .

 

[Moomin1]

You are not correct in civil cases the RSPCA can seek to recover their costs from the other side .
DLT sold his home to pay his lawyers not the other sides .

It's all means tested and very rarely do they get any large percentage of costs back, if any.

 

[cptrayes]

You are not correct in civil cases the RSPCA can seek to recover their costs from the other side .
DLT sold his home to pay his lawyers not the other sides .

yes i said defence costs. I am correct.

prosecution costs are means tested and have to be payable without causing the offender unreasonable hardship, within a year normally or two at the outside.

It does not matter whether the prosecution is by the CPS or the RSPCA, the prosecution costs are handled identically.

If you hit someone, deny assault and are found guilty after a trial you will, if you have enough income, be ordered to pay the cost of that trial back to the state.

 

[spacefaer]

In civil prosecutions, even if unsuccessful, the RSPCA never have costs awarded against them. As an organisation, they occupy a unique position in as much as the entire legal process, including assessing the merits of a case, and even judicial review, is carried out in house. The expression "power without responsibility" springs to mind

 

[MerrySherryRider]

In civil prosecutions, even if unsuccessful, the RSPCA never have costs awarded against them. As an organisation, they occupy a unique position in as much as the entire legal process, including assessing the merits of a case, and even judicial review, is carried out in house. The expression "power without responsibility" springs to mind

These are criminal prosecutions not civil ones. The RSPCA has an over 98% success rate in prosecutions, of which by far, the most are for appalling cruelty to dogs. The CPS uses the RSPCA as a free prosecution service partly because of budget cuts and partly because they have the specialists required for successful prosecutions. For similiar reasons private criminal prosecutions are increasing for crimes such as fraud or copyright law. The CPS does not have the expertise and resources needed to tackle the rise in these crimes.

Before criticising the RSPCA for ensuring that animals have some protection in law, ask who else will if they don't.

BTW. Private prosecutions are a well established constitutional safeguard, the right of any citizen and a right that was used by Stephen Lawrence's family.

 

[cptrayes]

In civil prosecutions, even if unsuccessful, the RSPCA never have costs awarded against them. As an organisation, they occupy a unique position in as much as the entire legal process, including assessing the merits of a case, and even judicial review, is carried out in house. The expression "power without responsibility" springs to mind

The rules for costs for the defendant are identical to any other criminal prosecution taken by the CPS. If you are accused of burgling a house or starving a dog and are found not guilty, your costs are dealt with exactly the same way.


I believe that you are also incorrect about judicial reviews in private criminal prosecutions. That too is done in exactly the same way as a CPS prosecution when the prosecutor is DEFRA, at any rate, and, I believe, the RSPCA. I think you are confusing civil and criminal prosecution?