RSPCA should be stripped of prosecution powers say MP'

[Alec Swan]

Unfortunately, MPs haven't considered the law properly. To take away the power of prosecution from the RSPCA would mean taking away the power of private prosecution from EVERYONE - and we all have it as the law stands. The RSPCA has no more 'power' than you and I do if we felt strongly enough about a law-breaking to take a stand (and could afford the legal help.) …….. .

The report clearly states that the rspca will retain their right, as the rest of us, to bring a private prosecution, which is a bit odd because that's what they've done, all along!

The point though, is that either the DPP or the CPS (one or the other, not sure which) have the power to step in and take over any prosecution so brought. The simple fact is that the responsible body for such matters has failed in it's duty by leaving the rspca to their own devices.

However it may behove all to abide by the Rules of Court Proceedings, it must be obvious to most that with the increasingly more zealous approach by the charity, they've been irresponsible, and reprehensibly so, at the very least, which explains the need for judicial action.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

the tenth charge, the only one which 'stuck' was achieved by the prosecuting counsel assuring the defence solicitor verbally, pre-trial, that the evidence of the accused man's vet would be acceptable in letter form, but on the morning of the trial changed their minds and demanded that the man appear to give his evidence. The Vet was unable to attend, he was in surgery, and so the Court wouldn't accept his written statement because prosecuting counsel demanded his attendance. The Vet, had he been able to attend would have exonerated the charged man, and he would have walked free with the rspca being responsible for his £20k costs.

If this was true it would be an immediate win on appeal, because the laws on disclosure of what you will be doing during the course of the trial are very clear. All this would have been documented, including a verbal statement that no cross examination of the vet would be required. It is done at a court hearing called a Pre Trial Review, especially for that purpose. No trial lawyer in their right mind would take a verbal 'promise' out of court and undocumented like that.

In the case I had with the starved dog, it was the defence who suddenly wanted to produce their own expert and delay the court proceedings. We refused, on the grounds that they had plenty of notice to produce her and that her report had been written without ever having seen the dog and there was therefore nothing to be cross examined about.

To the person who said earlier that legal aid is not available if you are prosecuted by the RSPCA, it is. Exactly as with any criminal prosecution.

To people who are claiming that the RSPCA can bankrupt people with costs, costs are means tested just like in any other prosecution. You can't be given costs you can't pay.


I agree with everyone who thinks there needs to be a 'Police Complaints Commission' section and procedure if the RSPCA continue to police animal welfare.

 

[ycbm]

pro RSPCA or not, the issue that I keep on seeing is as investigators AND prosecutors there is nobody monitoring how and why they do or don't prosecute.

This I have no problem with. Their conviction rate is massively higher than the CPS in the same court system under the same rules.

The barrier for prosecution by the RSPCA is clearly much higher than the '51% and/or public interest' barrier that the CPS use. This means they are prosecuting far, far fewer innocent people than the CPS are.

I don't hear anyone shouting about that on this thread, that the CPS pull more innocent people into court.

I do think there needs to be an independent complaints procedure through.

 

[pennyturner]

Their conviction rate is massively higher than the CPS in the same court system under the same rules... This means they are prosecuting far, far fewer innocent people than the CPS are.

That same statistic could also support a claim that the system shows bias in favour of the prosecutor in such cases, due to RSPCA opinion being presented as fact, inadequate defence legal representation, etc. etc. etc.

You're also comparing completely different types of offence. Neglecting a dog vs rape, for example. Not a valid comparison, even if you assume the court gets it right every time.

 

[Alec Swan]

That same statistic could also support a claim that the system shows bias in favour of the prosecutor in such cases, due to RSPCA opinion being presented as fact, inadequate defence legal representation, etc. etc. etc.

…….. .

Amongst your etceteras could be the smear campaigns against those legal counsellors who've defended the accused and though possibly not sanctioned directly by the rspca, the attacks against them on the official rspca f/b site, seem to go unmodified.

I'm now blocked from their f/b page, and though remaining clear, concise and courteous in the face of vitriolic comments, I pointed out their failings as I saw them. It didn't go down too well, it seems! Any attempt at discussion or dialogue with the rspca is met with the brick wall of silence.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

That same statistic could also support a claim that the system shows bias in favour of the prosecutor in such cases, due to RSPCA opinion being presented as fact, inadequate defence legal representation, etc. etc. etc.

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face if I have to. RSPCA cases are held under exactly the same rules in exactly the same courts by exactly the same people as all other cases. There is, and can never be, a bias towards finding people guilty in an RSPCA case.

Their success rate is high because they present such compelling evidence, no more, no less.

 

[popsdosh]

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face if I have to. RSPCA cases are held under exactly the same rules in exactly the same courts by exactly the same people as all other cases. There is, and can never be, a bias towards finding people guilty in an RSPCA case.

Their success rate is high because they present such compelling evidence, no more, no less.

What you forever dont seem to be able to get your head around is that in criminal cases brought by the CPS most defendants are entitled to a legal defence irrespective of means ,however this is not available in a private prosecution and the RSPCA has a reputation for going for every last penny of costs that they can so people are frightened of standing up to them and neither would you if you were putting your house on the line,it is not unheard of for them to try to get a charge on a property before the hearing to cover their costs in the event of a prosecution . Now I dont know what you call that but I think bullying is one word. Whatever your view a lot heavier costs are levied against defendants in RSPCA cases than CPS.Quite often brought about by application to a district judge to assess cost so bypassing the mere magistrates at the hearing
I clearly said earlier that they have recently cleaned their act up <now I wonder is that led from within or come about off the back of this inquiry by the EFRA committee.

 

[ycbm]

Legal aid, as I have already said, is available for ANY criminal prosecution including the RSPCA prosecutions. And costs against the offender are means tested just as they are in ANY criminal prosecution and applied for on sentencing, not referred to a District Judge.

Obviously if the cruelty is done in the course of a business, costs can ruin the business, especially when horses are seized and boarded. I don't see anything unfair about that. Mrs Jones doesn't lose her house because she abused a pet dog. If she can afford it, she is told to pay whatever proportion of the costs applied for that she can pay back (including any fine) in a reasonable amount of time (usually about a year, sometimes up to two).

It's not a case of me not getting my head around anything, it's a case of you obviously not having read my earlier post.

 

[Alec Swan]

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face if I have to. RSPCA cases are held under exactly the same rules in exactly the same courts by exactly the same people as all other cases. There is, and can never be, a bias towards finding people guilty in an RSPCA case.

Their success rate is high because they present such compelling evidence, no more, no less.

Considering your previous experience, I'm sorry to say that your statements above are naive in the extreme. Being blue in the face alters very little.

When PACE was set up it was as a set of conditions with which all prosecuting 'authorities' were compelled to comply. The problem has been, and the evidence is quite clear, that those who bring private prosecutions are not bound by the same terms, simply because they aren't listed.

The list of those who are empowered by Parliament to act alone and as Government and Court representatives, with obviously the Police, HMRC, Trading Standards and others being amongst them, are all bodies which are State funded. Whilst a Court may expect those bringing private prosecutions to abide by PACE when gathering interviews and collating evidence, they generally don't because they have no power of arrest or containment. The chances are very poor that any private individual or body will be able to abide by PACE, even if they wanted to!

A bit of research reveals the legal opinion of certainly one of those who were involved in the setting up of the act and they have posted this;

— There is a danger that witness evidence obtained may be not compliant with PACE (as it was obtained for civil proceedings) and will be deemed to be inadmissible. —

It would seem to be the case that most of those cases which have failed in Court and have been thrown out have ended as they have by interviewing guidelines AND clear rules and conditions having been breached. Considering the occurrences of clear and publicised perjury on the part of rspca staff and witnesses, would we not also wonder at their level of compliance which PACE sets out? As a charity, the rspca simply have neither the authority nor the ability to abide by the conditions set by PACE.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

It would seem to be the case that most of those cases which have failed in Court and have been thrown out have ended as they have by interviewing guidelines AND clear rules and conditions having been breached.

Make your mind up Alec. Are the courts applying the same standards and throwing cases out as you describe, or aren't they throwing cases that don't comply out? I'll give you a clue, it's exactly as you describe. Cases that don't comply don't get won. Even the worst legal aided lawyers know how to get their clients off on technicalities!

Nothing is perfect. One of the first shocks a new magistrate gets is learning that even the Police occasionally cannot be trusted not to lie in court. However, RSPCA cases usually have a documented history of the state of the animal and the presence or absence of veterinary care. There's rarely any question of identity, 'he said, she said', or any the other things that cause other cases to flounder. Conviction rates are high because the evidence is usually clear and compelling. And always professionally presented.

 

[popsdosh]

Legal aid, as I have already said, is available for ANY criminal prosecution including the RSPCA prosecutions. And costs against the offender are means tested just as they are in ANY criminal prosecution and applied for on sentencing, not referred to a District Judge.

Obviously if the cruelty is done in the course of a business, costs can ruin the business, especially when horses are seized and boarded. I don't see anything unfair about that. Mrs Jones doesn't lose her house because she abused a pet dog. If she can afford it, she is told to pay whatever proportion of the costs applied for that she can pay back (including any fine) in a reasonable amount of time (usually about a year, sometimes up to two).

It's not a case of me not getting my head around anything, it's a case of you obviously not having read my earlier post.

The costs are inherently higher in RSPCA cases as they invariably include the cost of investigation in their claims ,something the CPS is not allowed to in criminal cases unless under exceptional circumstances. As you are probably well aware the RSPCA conviction figures need looking at very carefully as they too are manipulated and their success rate is a lot lower than those claimed.

 

[Leo Walker]

I wouldn't qualify for legal aid and the costs involved in defending a case would cripple me financially and I would almost certainly lose my house.

https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/overview

 

[ycbm]

I wouldn't qualify for legal aid and the costs involved in defending a case would cripple me financially and I would almost certainly lose my house.

https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/overview

This is no different from any other criminal prosecution.

 

[ycbm]

The costs are inherently higher in RSPCA cases as they invariably include the cost of investigation in their claims ,something the CPS is not allowed to in criminal cases unless under exceptional circumstances. As you are probably well aware the RSPCA conviction figures need looking at very carefully as they too are manipulated and their success rate is a lot lower than those claimed.

Conviction rates are a matter of public record.

 

[ycbm]

The costs are inherently higher in RSPCA cases as they invariably include the cost of investigation in their claims

For private individuals, costs are means tested just like any other criminal prosecution. If a business is involved in a conviction for animal cruelty like Spindles Farm, I'm happy to see the business fold and be sold to pay the costs. Costs are inherently higher in RSPCA cases because there are vets fees and boarding fees to be paid. Stolen goods don't require veterinary treatment.

 

[popsdosh]

For private individuals, costs are means tested just like any other criminal prosecution. If a business is involved in a conviction for animal cruelty like Spindles Farm, I'm happy to see the business fold and be sold to pay the costs. Costs are inherently higher in RSPCA cases because there are vets fees and boarding fees to be paid. Stolen goods don't require veterinary treatment.

You still havent dealt with the costs of the investigation . The RSPCA can and do add them to their cost claim. The CPS cannot! So whoever covers there cost ie the defendant or Central funds they get them back. I suppose you could argue in a roundabout way a lot of their work is indeed publicly funded As a magistrate are you made aware if they have already taken a charge against a defendants property before a case begins as they often will between a plea hearing and the case being tried and often made to a costings judge. Saying it is means tested is a bit of a cop out as it is the total cost claim that is substantially higher with the RSPCA(very little due to keep fees) as opposed to a CPS case also I would love to see a breakdown of their cases brought to the courts based on those criteria,ie Residential house only first 100k protected,3k savings and earning under 22.5k . I think generally peoples perception is a lot of their prosecutions involve people who do not fall into these criteria so are very much subject to the full costs scenario. Why is the Ratio of defendants pleading so much higher than for general criminal cases is it the fact as you claim they are very good professional prosecutors. Or maybe it is because they are very good at achieving whatever they want by any means and their reputation makes defendants frightened to fight cases because of the financial consequences to them personally and the cheapest way out is to cop a plea. If you dont think that happens I suggest you actually talk with some defence lawyers and barristers or maybe ask yourself why has the EFRA committee made these recommendations?

 

[Alec Swan]

Considering legal Aid, I'm wondering if now might be the time to point out that it's only a free service to those who are unable to afford the cost of a defence. If a defendant is in receipt of Legal Aid, and they have the means, via assets, to pay for their defence, then the costs will be recouped.

Considering the Heythrop case, and the astonishing costs which the prosecuting counsel claim that they spent and which drew the attention of the judiciary to the obscene squandering of public donations and over a case which the Director of Public Prosecutions would have been highly unlikely to consider was in the public interest questioning whether the means justified the end, then it's small wonder that their activities are under scrutiny and now being curtailed.

I wonder if the rspca would have shown the same level of zeal had they decided to prosecute me for the same offence. They'd have had no chance of recovering their claimed costs, so the answer is probably not! Clearly, the Heythrop case was one where high profile people were targeted which is as wrong for a charity to be involved with as it is for our system of justice.

For anyone to suggest that the rspca have a high success rate and that it's due to the quality of the prosecuting counsel, cannot be a credible answer to the question, as popsdosh suggests. As a charity bringing private prosecutions, with an apparently lax approach to the quality of evidence offered, it's small wonder that Government has sponsored the EFRA report, and not before time.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

You still havent dealt with the costs of the investigation . The RSPCA can and do add them to their cost claim. The CPS cannot! So whoever covers there cost ie the defendant or Central funds they get them back. I suppose you could argue in a roundabout way a lot of their work is indeed publicly funded As a magistrate are you made aware if they have already taken a charge against a defendants property before a case begins as they often will between a plea hearing and the case being tried and often made to a costings judge. Saying it is means tested is a bit of a cop out as it is the total cost claim that is substantially higher with the RSPCA(very little due to keep fees) as opposed to a CPS case also I would love to see a breakdown of their cases brought to the courts based on those criteria,ie Residential house only first 100k protected,3k savings and earning under 22.5k . I think generally peoples perception is a lot of their prosecutions involve people who do not fall into these criteria so are very much subject to the full costs scenario. Why is the Ratio of defendants pleading so much higher than for general criminal cases is it the fact as you claim they are very good professional prosecutors. Or maybe it is because they are very good at achieving whatever they want by any means and their reputation makes defendants frightened to fight cases because of the financial consequences to them personally and the cheapest way out is to cop a plea. If you dont think that happens I suggest you actually talk with some defence lawyers and barristers or maybe ask yourself why has the EFRA committee made these recommendations?

I am not a serving magistrate, I would not be allowed to post like this if I was.

You are confusing costs which the RSPCA recover from the public purse with costs requested from the offender. Offenders are means tested, they are not given costs greater than they can pay. Ordinary people do not lose their properties to pay RSPCA costs. Businesses might, like the charge taken on Swindles Farm, and I have no problem with that if they are guilty of animal abuse as part of a business. I also have no problem with the RSPCA recovering costs of investigation and prosecution from the public purse. We pay for all other criminal investigations and prosecutions.

People plead guilty to animal abuse more often than burglary because it's so much easier to prove most cases of animal abuse than it is to prove most burglaries. A sick animal with no record of veterinary attention is a slam dunk conviction. Fifteen cats in a house with faeces all over the floor is a slam dunk conviction. Most RSPCA cases are like those, not like the hunting conviction that you are so bent out of shape about even though the RSPCA have declared that there will be no more.

 

[ycbm]

Considering legal Aid, I'm wondering if now might be the time to point out that it's only a free service to those who are unable to afford the cost of a defence. If a defendant is in receipt of Legal Aid, and they have the means, via assets, to pay for their defence, then the costs will be recouped.

And this is means tested and no different from any other prosecution. In ten years I never sat on a case where assets were included in the calculation of what costs the defendant could afford to pay back in one or two years. Can you point me to one where a private individual, not connected with a business, has had their house taken away from them to pay RSPCA costs?

Why aren't you campaigning about all the innocent people dragged into court by the CPS of it bothers you so much, Alec? There are far more of them.

Considering the Heythrop case, and the astonishing costs which the prosecuting counsel claim that they spent and which drew the attention of the judiciary to the obscene squandering of public donations and over a case which the Director of Public Prosecutions would have been highly unlikely to consider was in the public interest questioning whether the means justified the end, then it's small wonder that their activities are under scrutiny and now being curtailed.

The Heythrop case was a one off which the RSPCA have explicitly stated will not happen again. It's irrelevant now.

For anyone to suggest that the rspca have a high success rate and that it's due to the quality of the prosecuting counsel, cannot be a credible answer to the question,

Who did? My explanation is above. Animal cruelty cases are, in the main, black and white and very easy to prove compared to other offences. The lower conviction rate for other offences is not because people were innocent, per se. It's because it's so much harder to prove other offences beyond reasonable doubt than it is to prove the guilt of a man keeping a dog with mange that's never seen a vet.

No-one is saying that the situation is perfect. An independent complaints process is badly needed. But these blanket condemnations of the all RSPCA convictions by people whose noses were put out of joint by the Heythrop prosecution are completely ridiculous.

 

[minesadouble]

I wonder if the RSPCA figures differentiate between those cases tried in Mags and Crown. It's well known that Mags give more weight to the arguments of the police than jurors do, I wonder if Mags give more weight to the argument of any 'official' body?

Edited to add by the powers of google I note that all rspca cases are tried in Mags courts - hmm that could explain a bit...

 

[honetpot]

I think its very hard now to get legal aid, you could have a normal income and never be able to afford the costs unless you have some sort of legal insurance either through your house or some other group scheme.
My step father was taken to court twice by someone who had legal aid,( for the same incident) the costs of employing a barrister, expert witnesses etc were horrendous. He won both cases and was awarded costs, but of course never got them.
We all think the law is on our side, we hope and for most of us we will never see the inside of a court. The RSPCA has a huge legal team, it knows the rules of evidence, its officers will have some training joe public does not. I do know what I would do if they came knocking on my door. A police officer has strict rules to follow, and even they have unfortunately been known to bend them.
The CPS should be looking at cases and of course prosecute when they think there is an enough evidence should do so, it does not stop the RSPCA from taking out private prosecution. The welfare of animals should not be policed by charities, if as a society we think its important we should be paying for it, not someone who thinks they are donating to fund animal rescue. If you watch enough daytime TV you see a lot of RSPC ads and not one mention legal fees or prosecutions, just poor puppies and thin dogs
I am all for education and support, only the worst cases should end in court. Often even if the case is proven, a fine or they get a ban, relitives or friends care for their animals, so they effectively still have them, I do not see this as a successful outcome.
There seems to be pockets of abuse, the skills of keeping animals are no longer passed on as we become a more urban, and stressed society. Its time the RSPCA got out and did more out reach projects and worked with people to provide the best care, doing cheap chipping, castration, etc. Putting their name to a cheap but nutritional balanced pet food, so people on a budget can know they are feeding correctly. When have you seen anything from the RSPCA where they are not asking for money, get to the supermarket to provide advice, not rattle a tin.
My brother in law comes from a generation that drowned kittens, now his cats are all neutered , we can change attitudes but a uniform and fear will not do it.

 

[ycbm]

I wonder if the RSPCA figures differentiate between those cases tried in Mags and Crown. It's well known that Mags give more weight to the arguments of the police than jurors do, I wonder if Mags give more weight to the argument of any 'official' body?

Edited to add by the powers of google I note that all rspca cases are tried in Mags courts - hmm that could explain a bit...

Where is it 'well known' that magistrates give more credence to police witnesses than jurors do? I think the difference is much more likely to be that it is easier to put 'reasonable doubt' into the minds of an untrained jury of twelve than into the minds of a bench of three trained magistrates who are well used to the tricks of the trade of defence and prosecution lawyers.

RSPCA cases are not all heard in a Magistrates Court. If the severity of the offence means that the sentencing powers of magistrates are insufficient, they will bump it up to Crown. If the defendant wants their absolute right to be tried by a jury of their peers, (no matter how small the offence) they will bump it up to Crown.


There is SO MUCH misinformation on this thread!!!

 

[minesadouble]

According to the RSPCA themselves all cases are tried in Mags;-

https://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719149189&mode=prd

So is their own information wrong? Admittedly it wouldn't surprise me if it was!

I am a lawyer, it's a long time since I was involved in criminal law, riveting work but wages are appalling, a lawyer has to be incredibly committed to pursue a career largely funded by legal aid! From Law school onward it is drummed into you that the police can and do lie and that Mags are more likely to give credibility to statement given by the Police. There is a notably higher acquittal rate at Crown than at Mags and to be honest I find it a little disturbing that you seem to be implying that magistrates feel the standard of proof in English criminal law is open to interpretation!

 

[Leo Walker]

to be honest I find it a little disturbing that you seem to be implying that magistrates feel the standard of proof in English criminal law is open to interpretation!

I find quite a lot of stuff said by an ex magistrate to be disturbing! One day when I am less furious about it (its been 4 years and I still cant tell people about it in a rational manner!) I'll tell the story of the dealings I had with the RSPCA

 

[Fenris]

Where is it 'well known' that magistrates give more credence to police witnesses than jurors do? I think the difference is much more likely to be that it is easier to put 'reasonable doubt' into the minds of an untrained jury of twelve than into the minds of a bench of three trained magistrates who are well used to the tricks of the trade of defence and prosecution lawyers.

RSPCA cases are not all heard in a Magistrates Court. If the severity of the offence means that the sentencing powers of magistrates are insufficient, they will bump it up to Crown. If the defendant wants their absolute right to be tried by a jury of their peers, (no matter how small the offence) they will bump it up to Crown.


There is SO MUCH misinformation on this thread!!!

Yes there is! AWA cases are summary only. animal Welfare case can only go to crown court if associated charges are indictment only or triable either way, meaning that the AW case goes too in the interests of consistency, justice and cost.

Elsewhere I think it was you who said no-one loses their house in an RSPCA prosecution. What actually happens is that if there is equity in the house the RSPCA apply for a charge to be put on it meaning that if it is sold or inherited then the charge (plus interest) is then payable. To give an example a woman in her seventies had a charge put on a two up two down terraced house. Not in a highly priced area. Many others have such charges put on their properties in order to pay RSPCA costs when they have insufficient income to be able to afford even a low weekly or monthly payment.

Someone (not you I think) asked about the CPS failing in their duty to quality control RSPCA cases. The CPS are not automatically notified if a private prosecution is instituted by anyone. They depend on someone informing them that there is a problem.

From a supplementary SHG submission to the EFRA inquiry:

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEv...imal welfare domestic pets/written/36121.html

" Issues relating to CPS takeover of RSPCA cases

Defence solicitors do not generally refer prosecutions to the CPS on behalf of clients.

Legal aid is awarded to defend the case, not to fund a solicitors referral. Solicitors would require a client to pay privately for this service.

Most solicitors are unaware of the CPS role in terms of quality controlling private prosecutions. The few specialist animal welfare solicitors are aware of the possibility but generally their clients are unable to afford to instruct them privately.

There is no incentive for a solicitor to make such an application.

The defendant usually has no idea that this form of oversight is available. Many defendants do not understand what is happening to them, let alone know about applying to the CPS.

The few cases that have been referred to the CPS originated from the SHG helping individuals to approach the CPS, sometimes against the wishes of their solicitor.

The local CPS themselves may be unaware that they have the power to oversee RSPCA cases. We have had to supply information to people so that they can give it to their local CPS to prove that the RSPCA is not a 'prosecuting authority'.

https://theshg.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/are-the-rspca-a-prosecuting-authority-or-not/

In general there is an uphill struggle to get the CPS involved in an RSPCA case.

Worse is the rumour that has gone round claiming that the CPS in the North East have an agreement with the RSPCA that they will not intervene in RSPCA cases. We can not find the origin of this rumour but it is strange that those clients who are told to make applications to the CPS all seem to hear it and be put off making the application."

In another post the issue of costs in the Amersham case came up. Those costs would have been substantially lower had the RSPCA not refused to comply with the court order stating that the commercial horses should be sold. The RSPCA refused to hand over the horse stating that if they were sold at auction there would be no control over who bought them.

Should a prosecutor be awarded costs that arose out of their own defiance of the law? If you think so, what does that mean for rule of law?

Sorry to have combined answers to several posts into one. Not enough time in the day!

 

[ycbm]

AWA cases are summary only. animal Welfare case can only go to crown court if associated charges are indictment only or triable either way, meaning that the AW case goes too in the interests of consistency, justice and cost.

More misinformation

Everyone has a right to a trial by a jury of their peers WHATEVER THE OFFENCE they are being prosecuted for.

In either way offences it is the Magistrates/District Judge who decide whether they keep it or whether it goes to Crown, not the defendant.

 

[ycbm]

According to the RSPCA themselves all cases are tried in Mags;-

https://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719149189&mode=prd

So is their own information wrong? Admittedly it wouldn't surprise me if it was!

I am a lawyer, it's a long time since I was involved in criminal law, riveting work but wages are appalling, a lawyer has to be incredibly committed to pursue a career largely funded by legal aid! From Law school onward it is drummed into you that the police can and do lie and that Mags are more likely to give credibility to statement given by the Police. There is a notably higher acquittal rate at Crown than at Mags and to be honest I find it a little disturbing that you seem to be implying that magistrates feel the standard of proof in English criminal law is open to interpretation!

Of course it's open to interpretation. What else do you think 'beyond reasonable doubt' means?

As I said, it's much easier to convince a lay jury of reasonable doubt than it is magistrates who are wise to the ways of a court.

And of course some of a jury of twelve ordinary people off the street will be biased against police and more likely to disbelieve them. This is not the same as Magistrates having a disproportionate belief in evidence given by the Police. That is not my experience at all in Manchester area courts.

 

[ycbm]

To give an example a woman in her seventies had a charge put on a two up two down terraced house.

If this case actually exists can you point me to it, and to the record of whether the court actually awarded costs that would lead to a little old woman losing her house?

 

[Alec Swan]

…….., I wonder if Mags give more weight to the argument of any 'official' body?

…….. ...

With the possible exception of ycbm who, when she was a magistrate, possibly managed to combine an understanding of animal care with her Court duties, it would be rare indeed for a magistrate to have sufficient knowledge or experience to contradict any rspca statement. 'Trust us, we're the rspca' has all so often been the approach offered and there are few, acting in the capacity of judiciary, who are qualified to say otherwise.

It seems strange to me that in the case of a criminal charge, the rspca aren't just the prosecuting body but also provide their own level of expert authority. The police, on the other hand, whilst offering their evidence from a platform of expertise, do so via the offices of the CPS. I'm not certain of the difference between the DPP and the CPS and where their individual responsibilities lay, but who ever it is who's responsible for deciding upon the safety of bringing cases before a Court, it remains my opinion that it's they who should be responsible for the ultimate decision and not an unqualified and generally biased charity who seem to pay scant regard to the word Justice.

As a footnote, thank you Fenris and minesadouble for your clarity.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

If this case actually exists can you point me to it, and to the record of whether the court actually awarded costs that would lead to a little old woman losing her house?

I have found this case, I think. If its the same one, the charge against the property was not approved by the courts.

I have also found the following statistics. In a year the RSPCA issues around 80,000 warning notices; prosecutes around 1500 people and wins around 98% of its cases. (This isn't 'a bit better' than the CPS success rate, it completely swamps it.)

Of course in something that huge there will be a number of cases that the press will make much of and a few genuine miscarriages of justice. An independent complaints commission is required.