RSPCA shoots 11 HEALTHY horses but claimed keep fees for months

[madlady]

I really really want to see the RSPCA go through a thorough investigation as I feel really strongly that they just can't carry on like this.

I'm happy to start a petition, write to people, whatever I can do really but what are people's thoughts on what would be the best thing to do to get some real action?

 

[Equi]

The only thing that can realistically be done is to remove the power of RSPCA to give the final word about an animal being PTS (i dont think this woudl ever happen) or to insist that every prosecution they bring to the courts must be independantly investigated.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

It wouldn't surprise me to find that the person who wrote that article saved themselves the trouble of research and gleaned what they needed from this thread!

Alec.

I would say so too. Or maybe they were contacted by the people who appear to hate both the RSPCA and the owner of the horses.

From what I've gleaned from elsewhere, the H&H article, the RSPCA statement and the AHS statement are all somewhat questionable.

Did anyone actually attend the Court hearing and listen from start to end? That surely is the one place the facts were stated and everything else is opinion?

 

[Meowy Catkin]

Did anyone actually attend the Court hearing and listen from start to end? That surely is the one place the facts were stated and everything else is opinion?

Both Catherine and Christine did. They are both on AL and Christine is on here and has responded to this thread.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

Both Catherine and Christine did. They are both on AL and Christine is on here and has responded to this thread.

I don't believe that's quite true. From people I know who were there, there was only one member of the public (the same person) for an hour or so on the morning of day 1 and a couple of hours later on (in the second week I think).

From what I've been told, the member of the public wasn't there for any of the Defence, nor the claim from Cooper Wilson that he shot them and she didn't see any cross examination by the Defence.

The names and fate of all the horses was, I believe, stated very clearly in Court. If Christine/Catherine was/were there, don't they know?

I've been led to believe the only constant members attending throughout the whole trial were the legal teams from both sides, the experts from both sides and various RSPCA Inspectors.

 

[Meowy Catkin]

OK. I wasn't there myself, so must have misunderstood how often they, or one of them attended the case.

 

[be positive]

I don't believe that's quite true. From people I know who were there, there was only one member of the public (the same person) for an hour or so on the morning of day 1 and a couple of hours later on (in the second week I think).

From what I've been told, the member of the public wasn't there for any of the Defence, nor the claim from Cooper Wilson that he shot them and she didn't see any cross examination by the Defence.

The names and fate of all the horses was, I believe, stated very clearly in Court. If Christine/Catherine was/were there, don't they know?

I've been led to believe the only constant members attending throughout the whole trial were the legal teams from both sides, the experts from both sides and various RSPCA Inspectors.

If the names and fates were clearly stated in court why was this statement given by the AHS recently, surely the horses were already identified so no reason to have to be "patient as it will take some time" even if they were only known by stable names they could have been disclosed during the meeting, the passports should have been checked at some point, the vet who did the early checks is quoted as noting one had a mechanical lameness declared in his passport so presumably he had access to it and could recognise the animal he was looking at .


I have this morning had a rewarding meeting with the Head of Public Affairs and Staff Officer, Inspectorate Department at the RSPCA head office. We had a good meeting and now have set up a communication system which I'm sure will be of benefit both to the Arab Horse Society and the RSPCA. The RSPCA are going to do their utmost to identify the horses which were only known by stable names and not registered names. Please be patient as this will take sometime, but I am confident that this will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...ep-fees-for-months/page27#mVFFJKLQHqCrBbMw.99

 

[Jill Lloyd]

Got it in one!

Surely the horses were "evidence" so each one would have to be catalogued with its name and description. The identity of the horses has to be known as is their fate.

A little bit of backside covering by the AHS and RSPCA methinks!

To use a totally inapppropriate metaphor - they really have shut the door after the horse was shot!

 

[chillipup]

I think the prosecution and destruction of the horses removed are now becoming separate matters. There is to be an official inquiry/investigation into the RSPCA regarding their role in both investigation and prosecution of animal related cases (I think this has been on the cards for some time)

However, if the horses destroyed in this case were indeed signed over to the RSPCA then they would be within their rights and have the "power," as the new legal owners, to make any decision (good or bad) on the future of the horses and apparently it was the RSPCA's own specialist Equine Officers who were brought in to decided their fate. (The RSPCA also, I believe have ordinary Inspectors who specialize in dealing with exotic animals, wild animals, flood rescues involving animals, rescues from cliffs/down wells (rope rescues) to name a few)

I am bewildered as to why the RSPCA didn't communicate with the AHS and feel it a great shame any other leading horse welfare organisations weren't given the opportunity to take on these horses - or were they? (I understand HAPPY took some and later had them destroyed) but why not any others? Were none of the big ones contacted? were they all full too?)


Please remember RSPCA Inspectors do not have any powers in law unlike the powers of the Police but they do have to strictly adhere to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and have done since 1984 when it was introduced, in both their investigations and interviews. They have to use the PACE caution in the same manner as the Police when interviewing but add that the the person being interviewed is not under arrest and does not have to stay with the Inspector, may leave at any time and seek legal advice at any time. If the caution is shown not to have been given correctly the prosecution case would be thrown out of court in the first intance, if indeed it ever got there in the first place.

Any one of the animal charities/organisations (and I understand any civil body/person) can investigate and bring a prosecution to court if they so wished. This includes the BHS, WHW, HAPPA, etc. However, the RSPCA has always investigated and prosecuted ever since their formation back in 1824 and have never been just an advisory body.

I'm led to believe Student Inspectors have to complete at least six months of practical and theory in all aspects of animal welfare and law, with numerous exams having to be successfully completed before they are able to qualify as an Inspector. Therefore, having had so many years of practice and with the majority of prosecutions taken being successful, should the RSPCA now be relieved of any duty as regards equines? Haven't they got it right in most cases? Should they now just shut down their own equine facilities and stop all equine investigations leading to prosecution?
Perhaps the BHS and/or others should now step up and take on this role as regards investigation and prosecution involving equines but in reality do any of them have the experience, expertise or even the inclination?

Perhaps for the time being, they should at least all get together to discuss the issues and maybe each agree to take on their individual quota of any equines involved in RSPCA prosecutions? Then they should all agree on what to do with any excess!

One last question, does the BHS actually rescue/rehabilitate and rehome any equines? Do they have their own facilities for this?

I don't know where the answers lie, and without a full transcript of the court proceedings in the Peel case I still feel really lost about the whole thing. I just thought I'd put my pennith worth in with some of my own queries and ideas. Please be gentle with me I'm still a newbie. x

chillipup.

 

[Flame_]

If I understood correctly from AL, the two ladies who attended the hearing have bought the court papers, though I've no idea if these are a full transcript.

 

[ribbons]

Madlady, if you or anyone else wish to offer help and support to those who are not prepared to let this horrific situation drop, you can do so by going on to Arabian Lines. The thread is titled 'anyone have a date' on page 16 is a post from Edgevale asking if anyone wishes to help then contact her by pm.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

Magistrates' Court don't have the same transcripts as Crown Court.

There weren't "two ladies" who attended the trial. There was one for less than 4 hours of a 5 week trial.

The transfer of ownership contract is open to abuse. The keeper can sign over without the owner's knowledge or permission. As you say though, once the document is signed, the RSPCA has control of the animals' fate.

If none of the horses in this case needed to be shot on welfare grounds, and the owner was not guilty of any charge in respect of these horses, something isn't right and that links the RSPCA'shooting and their prosecution.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Magistrates' Court don't have the same transcripts as Crown Court.

There weren't "two ladies" who attended the trial. There was one for less than 4 hours of a 5 week trial.

The transfer of ownership contract is open to abuse. The keeper can sign over without the owner's knowledge or permission. As you say though, once the document is signed, the RSPCA has control of the animals' fate.

If none of the horses in this case needed to be shot on welfare grounds, and the owner was not guilty of any charge in respect of these horses, something isn't right and that links the RSPCA'shooting and their prosecution.

sorry,, can't keep up here, but this is the nub of the matter, is someone going to prosecute, if so who will do it? The police?

 

[Meowy Catkin]

I thought that the whole point was that the Police give their evidence to the CPS, who then decide whether to prosecute or not and that the same should be the case for the RSPCA. They should also give their evidence to the CPS.

I do wonder why the 'clerical error' of claiming livery for dead horses has been allowed to slip by without any apparent further investigation.

 

[Archangel]

If none of the horses in this case needed to be shot on welfare grounds, and the owner was not guilty of any charge in respect of these horses, something isn't right and that links the RSPCA'shooting and their prosecution.

I agree something isn't right at all. She was only prosecuted on 4 counts yet 31 horses and 7 dogs were involved. Surely then the animals not named in the counts should be returned to her or for the horses on loan to their rightful owners - but the RSPCA had already destroyed them - were the RSPCA so certain of a prosecution that they killed them anyway? Smacks of a massive bungle.

Why did they persist in calling the horses by their pet names - they should be referred to throughout the trial by their passported names.

Two things trouble me a lot - all those dead horses round the farm. How did they die when the others that we have seen were not hat racks. The other thing is the video with the dogs. My God all that excrement - when did those dogs last get let out. I only counted 2 dogs - poor things all waggy tailed and standing in their own ... Really anyone who keeps animals like that should have their head examined.

 

[ester]

She signed them over so they were never going back to her.

 

[Jill Lloyd]

I haven't seen a video - could you please tell me where that is.

And Esther - are you absolutely sure she signed over the horses? Given the amount of misinformation circling about, does anyone know 100% that it was her that signed them over?

And has anyone, anywhere got proof that horses were on loan or is this yet more speculation?

 

[Archangel]

Thanks Ester. So in fact the RSPCA got her to sign over animals that she couldn't cope with and they couldn't cope with either. What a sad sad affair.

 

[Archangel]

The video is at the bottom
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/peel-arab-horses-rescued-rspca-put-down-511288

 

[Jill Lloyd]

Thank you.

I do remember hearing someone say that the dog photos were taken after the 4 large dogs had been shut in that room according to RSPCA instruction and they weren't removed by them for over 12 hours. No wonder there's so much mess! They look like lovely dogs.

 

[ester]

RSPCA statement 'signed over'
http://www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/statement/0615_2

The fact they were signed over makes a lot more sense than a seizure given the later situation. It was discussed a fair bit back on page 1.

 

[ester]

Thank you.

I do remember hearing someone say that the dog photos were taken after the 4 large dogs had been shut in that room according to RSPCA instruction and they weren't removed by them for over 12 hours. No wonder there's so much mess! They look like lovely dogs.

ah that unknown 'someone'

 

[Jill Lloyd]

Not unknown to me ;-)

 

[ester]

That doesn't really help anyone else make a judgement on that information though does it? A random person on the internet was told by another random person...

 

[Fenris]

That doesn't really help anyone else make a judgement on that information though does it? A random person on the internet was told by another random person...

The problem is that a lot of the information in this case is not yet (as always) in the public domain, and because time limitations have not yet run out on certain actions that might be, or are, in hand, it can not yet be made public. That leaves the RSPCA in a win situation in terms of public opinion.

 

[ester]

Of course, I was just a bit riled about being asked if I knew for certain that they were signed over - for which I was able to provide the RSPCA statement to then have the same person posting afawk random speculation.

 

[Fenris]

Please sign and share

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109469

Petition
Remove the prosecution rights of the RSPCA

At the moment the RSPCA abuse their position to seize and prosecute innocent and vulnerable owners of animals, leading to extortionate costs. A number of these convictions are made on the evidence of lies by the RSPCA. It is wrong for the same organisation to investigate and prosecute.

More details
To get a fair trial of the accused it would be better for the Crown Prosecution Services to take any prosecution forward

 

[honetpot]

I have signed the above but I do not really think its worded correctly. The RSPCA has no more right than you or I, what they have got is loads of money which they use to pay lawyers to take on private prosecutions where the CPS has either decided not to get involved in or decided there is not enough evidence to convict.
It would be far better if the Charities Commission prevented them from using money to use in these prosecutions, it would also be a lot quicker than trying to change a law.

 

[Fenris]

I have signed the above but I do not really think its worded correctly. The RSPCA has no more right than you or I, what they have got is loads of money which they use to pay lawyers to take on private prosecutions where the CPS has either decided not to get involved in or decided there is not enough evidence to convict.
It would be far better if the Charities Commission prevented them from using money to use in these prosecutions, it would also be a lot quicker than trying to change a law.

Agreed that the petition is badly worded, however it is far better to go with this one than to dilute potential support by starting another when we have the EFRA investigation looming.

There are several possible routes to prevent the RSPCA from bringing private prosecutions.

Amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (and other acts that they use) so that they are no longer common informers acts.

Amend the 1932 RSPCA Act so that the RSPCA can no longer prosecute. (The Act is both the RSPCA's strength and weakness - they lost 100,000 some years ago for failing to adhere to it)

Limit the right to bring private prosecutions so that any individual or organisation instituting more than 10 or 20 prosecutions a year must register, pay a licence fee and be subject to proper inspection, an ombudsman paid for out of registration fees, with the ombudsman or regulator having the power to order financial compensation to those who have lost or suffered.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Agreed that the petition is badly worded, however it is far better to go with this one than to dilute potential support by starting another.

Oh dear, this petition is well meaning, but I wish more time had been taken to draft it out, preferably by someone with legal experience.

For instance, the opening line-

'At the moment the RSPCA abuse their position to seize and prosecute innocent and vulnerable owners of animals'

Erm, even the RSPCA are not seizing the owners, just their animals... It's well meaning but amateurish I'm afraid, which will dilute its impact.