RSPCA officials to report to Charity Officials

[Hunters]

What thoroughly good news I've heard this morning, according to The Telegraph, the RSPCA are being called to explain their recent bill of over £300,000 spent prosecuting the Hethrop Hunt to the 'Charity Watchdogs'

I do hope that they are not a 'toothless' watchdog ?!

 

[L&M]

At least it is a move in the right direction, and may make them think twice about wasting so much money on future cases.......

 

[Dobiegirl]

Crikey things are not going well for the good old RSPCA, dont forget the Defra report hasnt come out yet about the 46 sheep that died at Ramsgate, could the writing be on the wall

 

[Cahill]

could they not have used all that money from the hunt case to set up a scheme to neuter dog like staffies in inner cities or something similar?i think that would have tons more benefit.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Don't worry too much. The money came from a special appeal to fund prosecutions and the board had already sanctioned the use of what was 6.5 % of its annual funding for prosecutions, so I doubt the Charity Commision will have any issue with that.

What you should be concerned about is why Judge Tim Pattinson's motives were for criticising the costs and why the fines were so low. Is he a part of the Chipping Norton set or perhaps his interests lie in country pursuits, I don't know but it does seem odd that he take the time to calculate the costs, when no other case would be criticised this way.

This was the first time a hunt rather than individuals have been taken to court and as such was a landmark case.

When David Cameron throws his weight behind his favourite hunt in Oxfordshire, one wonders about an Oxford judge.

 

[JanetGeorge]

What you should be concerned about is why Judge Tim Pattinson's motives were for criticising the costs and why the fines were so low. Is he a part of the Chipping Norton set or perhaps his interests lie in country pursuits, I don't know but it does seem odd that he take the time to calculate the costs, when no other case would be criticised this way.

No Judge with any demonstrable interests in country sports would take on a case like that! If they'd been so much as seen at a Boxing Day Meet, it would be reported!

And calculating the costs of a case is normal! Particularly when costs can be awarded either against the guilty party - or against the public purse. And if they are exceptionally high in relation to the 'seriousness' of the offence, a Judge can and will criticise it!

 

[MerrySherryRider]

No, its not normal for a judge to criticise the costs and I guess how serious you consider an organisation wilfully breaking the law, depends on your political views.

It is disgraceful that a charity is left to uphold the law rather than the CPS. We either live in a country where we follow the law or we don't. Picking and choosing is not optional.

It is also disgraceful that the hunts illegal activity causes such expense to be necessary. They should hang their heads in shame, though arrogance and humility are rarely good bedfellows.

 

[Star_Chaser]

Its good for any charity to have to answer for their spending habits. I would still like to see the RSPCA have to prove that each donation is going to where the donor intended it to go.

 

[VOM]

Cranky mood alert.

I'm so bloody sick of reading about the RSPCA, please go concentrate on proper cruelty not political prosecution. Quite frankly I don't give a monkies if a hunt, through a hounds natural and inbuilt instinct ends up breakng the law, I do however care about genuine animal cruelty and abuse.

Ahhhhhh.

 

[Alec Swan]

What I still see as the real injustice to this case, is the disgraceful approach of a charity, who whilst prepared to squander unthinkable costs, effectively bought a guilty plea, because the accused couldn't run the risk of losing their case.

This has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do a careless and wilful approach to waisting public donations. Prosecutions should not be brought by a society which relies upon fund raising through donations. Prosecutions should be brought by the appropriate Authority who will consider the vital question, "Is this really in the public interest?".

It will be interesting to see just what approach is taken and from a body, The Charities Commission, who supposedly have no political agenda.

Alec.

 

[JanetGeorge]

No, its not normal for a judge to criticise the costs and I guess how serious you consider an organisation wilfully breaking the law, depends on your political views.

It is disgraceful that a charity is left to uphold the law rather than the CPS. We either live in a country where we follow the law or we don't. Picking and choosing is not optional.

It is also disgraceful that the hunts illegal activity causes such expense to be necessary. They should hang their heads in shame, though arrogance and humility are rarely good bedfellows.

A charity is NOT left to uphold the law! IF POWA (the anti-hunt group who put together the 'evidence') had taken this 'evidence' to the police and made a complaint about alleged law-breaking, then the police would have HAD to investigate it and hand the information and evidence to CPS. The CPS then makes a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully!

The video 'evidence' was NOT handled that way (possibly at least partly because POWA knew it wasn't solid enough to result in a prosecution!) It was given to the RSPCA because they KNEW the RSPCA would want to 'use' the case for PR purposes. There was a huge amount of media coverage before the case got to court - even if the case had failed, the RSPCA would have been quids in in terms of column inches! A 'not guilty' verdict would have achieved far fewer column inches!

The RSPCA was happy to run up the costs to try to ensure the case would be successful - and no doubt to ensure the hunt and its members would not DARE fight it. The RSPCA is often awarded ALL their costs from either the victim (whoops - guilty party) or from the public purse (you and me!) IF the Heythrop and the individuals charged had fought the case to the end, chances are it would have cost THEM at least £100,000 for defence costs as well as the risk that they would be expected to pay the RSPCA's costs!

 

[Alec Swan]

A charity is NOT left to uphold the law! IF POWA (the anti-hunt group who put together the 'evidence') had taken this 'evidence' to the police and made a complaint about alleged law-breaking, then the police would have HAD to investigate it and hand the information and evidence to CPS. The CPS then makes a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully!

The video 'evidence' was NOT handled that way (possibly at least partly because POWA knew it wasn't solid enough to result in a prosecution!) It was given to the RSPCA because they KNEW the RSPCA would want to 'use' the case for PR purposes. There was a huge amount of media coverage before the case got to court - even if the case had failed, the RSPCA would have been quids in in terms of column inches! A 'not guilty' verdict would have achieved far fewer column inches!

The RSPCA was happy to run up the costs to try to ensure the case would be successful - and no doubt to ensure the hunt and its members would not DARE fight it. The RSPCA is often awarded ALL their costs from either the victim (whoops - guilty party) or from the public purse (you and me!) IF the Heythrop and the individuals charged had fought the case to the end, chances are it would have cost THEM at least £100,000 for defence costs as well as the risk that they would be expected to pay the RSPCA's costs!

Which neatly, and certainly in a more detailed and clearer manner, sums up my argument, and my bitterness towards a system which has nothing to do with justice.

Well said Mrs. George.

Alec.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Which neatly, and certainly in a more detailed and clearer manner, sums up my argument, and my bitterness towards a system which has nothing to do with justice.

Well said Mrs. George.

Alec.

Thank you Alec

And - in case anyone says that it's only the RSPCA, LACS etc who bring prosecutions under the Hunting Act 2004, Ministry of Justice figures indicate that between 2005 and 2010, a total of 332 people have been prosecuted under the Hunting Act 2004, and 239 have been found guilty. Eight of the 239 convictions involve employees of registered hunts, involving five separate hunts. The vast majority of the successful prosecutions were taken by the CPS!

 

[Alec Swan]

Thinking about this question further, I'm now wondering just what the Charities Commission can do. However;

I suppose that there could be a question mark over the rspca's "Status" as a charity. Are Charitiesrolleyes becoming ever more like amateur sportsmen, in that they flout the regulations with impunity? Can the C_C actually achieve any meaningful progress?

I wonder if there are restrictions upon a charitable claim, or a claim of status. Apart from viewing the rspca and the lacs as being being at complete antitheses to their stated stances, and attempting to expose their corrupted and distorted claims, I wonder what else can be done.

Alec.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Thinking about this question further, I'm now wondering just what the Charities Commission can do.

The Charity Commission can do a great deal - IF there is a substantial 'case' of a charity not meeting its charitable objectives or breaking any of its own 'rules' - or any of the 'rules' for charities.

Some years ago the Charity Commission DID act against the RSPCA by removing its trustees and chief exec.

What it won't do is ALLOW the RSPCA to give up its charitable status (not that the RSPCA would want to!) NOR drop its Royal patronage and become the SPCA! If the Trustees decided to do either of these things, or to make a substantial donation to a political party, OR start putting animals before humans (i.e. campaigning to stop animal experimentation that benefits humans) then the Charity Commission could 'take control' of the RSPCA and put in a new management team to get it back on the straight and narrow!! It would have to be an extreme breach - and one which the Trustees refused to rectify!

 

[Herne]

What you should be concerned about is why Judge Tim Pattinson's motives were for criticising the costs and why the fines were so low.

Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory, but the fines were what you consider "low" because that is what the Hunting Act 2004 specifies.

The maximum penalty under the Law is a £5,000 fine - and therefore the fines are very likely to be less than that in most cases.

As for the judge commenting about a charity spending 60 times the amount of the maximum fine on prosecuting a non-recordable offence that the CPS wouldn't take - well, if you think that that is surprising, you are extremely naive. The judiciary take a dim view of people trying to use the courts to make political points...

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

The maximum penalty under the Law is a £5,000 fine - and therefore the fines are very likely to be less than that in most cases.

........

It's my understanding that a Court cannot impose any more in the way of costs, upon a guilty party, than the amount imposed as a fine, so if what you're saying is correct, and that £5k was the maximum permitted fine, then that makes the thought of £300k even more astounding, considering that restitution couldn't be demanded.

Am I missing something here?

Alec.

 

[Hunters]

The whole £300,000 costs for a £4k fine astounds me. The RSPCA needs to be accountable!

 

[Herne]

The whole £300,000 costs for a £4k fine astounds me.

And don't forget, this was before the case even went to Court.

The huntsman was a working man probably on around the basic agricultural wage, the other guy was a local farmer. How the hell were they supposed to be able to fight a fair trial against the vast amount of money that the RSPCA were wasting on it.

Small wonder that they decided to do a plea bargain - but hardly fair to intimidate people into being afraid to defend themselves for fear of ridiculous costs.

Justice? Pah!

 

[Countryman]

Herne is right, I think they just didn't have the money to fight the prosecution. I'm fairly sure they'd have won-all the videos that led to their conviction are on YouTube and I didn't see any proof of them intentionally hunting a wild mammal-but like Herne says, they simply couldn't afford to fight it.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Small wonder that they decided to do a plea bargain - but hardly fair to intimidate people into being afraid to defend themselves for fear of ridiculous costs.

Justice? Pah!

My argument seems to be gaining momentum.

I had a man owed me a great deal of money. When I pressed him for payment his solicitor advised me that his client had full insurance to cover any legal costs, which surprised me, but none the less, I pressed ahead. When his solicitor then offered perjured evidence, which involved his family as witnesses, there was no point in continuing, so like the Heythrop bods, I gave up.

As you say Herne, it isn't justice.

Alec.

 

[Hunters]

The RSPCA should behave like professionals, as in the doctors in our hospitals who do not pass comment or are political.

The point I'm trying to make, is that, they are there to care for injured or abandoned animals etc, not become politically motivated judge & jury?

 

[Moomin1]

could they not have used all that money from the hunt case to set up a scheme to neuter dog like staffies in inner cities or something similar?i think that would have tons more benefit.

They already do that. Hundreds and hundreds of neutering vouchers are issued for all sorts of animals. There are also community action weeks where officers spend a whole week targeting certain streets in certain areas which are known to be less fortunate, microchipping, giving neutering vouchers, defleaing and also handing out vouchers to pay for veterinary treatment.

Of course, it's down to the owner to take the voucher with the animal to the vet for neutering or treatment, and some are less than 'active' in their approach to this.

 

[Luci07]

Don't worry too much. The money came from a special appeal to fund prosecutions and the board had already sanctioned the use of what was 6.5 % of its annual funding for prosecutions, so I doubt the Charity Commision will have any issue with that.

:

anyone else feel extremely uncomfortable with that statement? Special appeal? board sanctions? this does feel rather big brotherish (as in the Orwell sense before anyone comments)

So, lets see, the central organisation do not fund the branches, they do not fund the prosecutions

So how DO they spend their money?

 

[Alec Swan]

The whole point about the Crown Prosecution Service being responsible for all prosecutions is that, as a body, they will act in an impartial and balanced manner, and their only interest will be, the furtherance of justice.

The CPS is directed by a team of legal minds and those with a thought for justice, and the rspca isn't. Allowing a body which purports to be a charity, and has a hugely disproportionate agenda, such freedom, is highly irresponsible.

Alec.

 

[Moomin1]

The whole point about the Crown Prosecution Service being responsible for all prosecutions is that, as a body, they will act in an impartial and balanced manner, and their only interest will be, the furtherance of justice.

The CPS is directed by a team of legal minds and those with a thought for justice, and the rspca isn't. Allowing a body which purports to be a charity, and has a hugely disproportionate agenda, such freedom, is highly irresponsible.

Alec.

Alec, with all due respect, you are suggesting that the fact the RSPCA 'may' be biased or politically motivated, that that will have an effect the outcome of a prosecution brought about by the RSPCA. Just to point out to you, though I am sure you are already aware of this, that it is purely down to a magistrate to make any sentence on the basis of a guilty finding. The RSPCA have no power to find anybody guilty or not guilty. They merely bring about private prosecutions based on independant vets' opinions of whether an animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it is not removed or circumstances change.

 

[Hunters]

With respect, the RSPCA ARE politically motivated. The new chairman has made no secret of that!

I for one, do not believe that members of the public will support a group that spends a huge amount of money on a political agenda.

 

[Hunters]

I have now heard that Simon Hart is to bring the whole RSPCA debate to the House of Commons with backing from Michael Heseltine

 

[MillyMoomie]

Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!
Have you forgotten innocent until proven guilty? The fact that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors not the defense....in laymans terms the accuser has to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed an offence. Lets also point out that the RSPCA don't decide if someone is guilty or not, they merely present the evidence as a private prosecutor that specialises in animal welfare with a significantly higher success rate than the cps. The defendants pleaded guilty even before a trial. Did not even argue. The evidence must have been unquestionable. They broke the law and were caught red handed. You cannot pick and choose what laws you want to uphold. But then something told me you already knew all that Alec?

 

[Alec Swan]

Alec, with all due respect, .......

Alec Swan I find it laughable that you state that the accused including the hunt itself I may add had to plead guilty because they couldn't afford to defend themselves??!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!

.......

Might I suggest that both of you actually return to those posts of mine which you've elected to misread, and give them further thought? Were you to read my words, and then consider them, as I have yours, then you may be in a position to reconsider your stance.

Alec.