RSPCA should be stripped of prosecution powers say MP'

I would be very concerned that if the Crown Prosecution Service takes over that there will be hardly ever a prosecution.
My only other comment is that in cases of horse welfare issues it is better initially to contact WHW or the BHS as their inspectors specialise in horses where as the RSPCA tend to have more experience with small animals..
 
It would make it even harder to get a court case if it was to go via the CPS, so I think its a stupid idea!!

the CPS will be much more concerned about human abuse and murders etc! animals will be put to the bottom of the pile.
 
Kezzabell2 said:
It would make it even harder to get a court case if it was to go via the CPS, so I think its a stupid idea!!

the CPS will be much more concerned about human abuse and murders etc! animals will be put to the bottom of the pile.
Click to expand...

Considering a recent case went through successfully with the local authority taking the lead, after the RSPCA had failed because they had messed up, the Peel case that they totally screwed up, I am not sure the CPS would do a worse job or that many of the prosecutions are essential, far better in my view to remove animals that are suffering, get them signed over before they die than wait until they have a "good" case.

Prevention of cruelty should the main aim not prosecution after the event, if the animals are that far gone then the CPS would have a fairly easy task, then the RSPCA could get back to educating and helping.
 
Sadly, I suspect it is the 'do gooders' who put pressure on middle management and that leads to an escalation. Did the RSPCA produce any veterinary evidence that the dog was not being propertly cared for?

Seen similar around here. Compared with household pets, some working dogs were left in less than ideal but not cruel conditions. A Facebook witch hunt was initiated and the SSPCA pressured into taking action. No veterinary evidence could be produced to support the 'do gooders' case so I think it was dropped but not before the owners had been coerced into parting with their dogs. That is trial by media and akin to mob rule.
 
OWLIE185 said:
I would be very concerned that if the Crown Prosecution Service takes over that there will be hardly ever a prosecution.
My only other comment is that in cases of horse welfare issues it is better initially to contact WHW or the BHS as their inspectors specialise in horses where as the RSPCA tend to have more experience with small animals..
Click to expand...

If the evidence is there why would the CPS not prosecute ,the argument is the RSPCA has been prosecuting cases that have not merited it. You could argue that the CPS carrying out prosecutions may actually achieve harsher sentences than are available for private prosecutions which are all the RSPCA are bringing as they have no more power than you or me to investigate or prosecute. Their officers have no powers to enter property or remove animals but they like to think they can and will often coerce owners who are not aware of these facts. Funnily enough since this enquiry started they have indeed already started to smarten up their act and the present management should be congratulated for it.
 
Last edited:
The RSPCA profit financially from the prosecutions, and from the associated publicity. They are not independent, so shouldn't be allowed to bring the cases, regardless of what you think of their administration, competencies or political motives.
 
Tricky one, whats next, individuals not able to bring private prosecutions against criminals, problem is if animal cruelty is left to the police, sod all will happen, as and far as the RSPCA making money from prosecutions, well a bit rich for the powers that be to criticize that, where we live speed traps are all about money, not safety.
 
The state should be in charge of bringing criminal charges against not a charity with its own agenda (which it has every right to have ).
The sooner the CPS take this work over and the government mans up and covers the cost the better .
You would not expect the NSPCC to have prosecute those who are cruel to children .
 
Pedantic said:
Tricky one, whats next, individuals not able to bring private prosecutions against criminals, problem is if animal cruelty is left to the police, sod all will happen, as and far as the RSPCA making money from prosecutions, well a bit rich for the powers that be to criticize that, where we live speed traps are all about money, not safety.
Click to expand...

The welfare agencies will still deal directly with neglect and cruelty but not the prosecution which is a conflict of interests, they tend to leave animals in situations that are extremely poor so they can get more evidence to prosecute, if they stepped in earlier they would be doing what the P stands for, prevention, not prosecution.
 
Most people know i have no love for the rspca, but prosecuting owners who neglect or abuse their animals, is probably the one thing they ARE good at!! The government are never going to bother. They are only interested in cutting costs.
 
pennyturner said:
The RSPCA profit financially from the prosecutions, and from the associated publicity. They are not independent, so shouldn't be allowed to bring the cases, regardless of what you think of their administration, competencies or political motives.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the financial cost to the RSPCA for taking a prosecution to court far out weighs the likely hood of them making any profit from it. Check out their annual audited accounts.

As for being independent, I guess you must also feel the same way about the BBC, who act as the TV Licencing authority and bring their own prosecutions to court for alleged licence dodgers.
 
The rspca will still be permitted to bring private prosecutions but would receive no benefits beyond that of the common man.

Currently, should the rspca lose a case, then their costs are picked up by the State, and that's you and I. The benefits to losing a case are considerable as the revenue earned from the charitable pleading are such that they're in a win-win situation.

The rspca in the handling of many high profile cases have all so often been a disgrace. Evidence has been offered to Courts which was blatant perjury and those adjudging the cases have allowed such evidence to be considered as 'oversight'. The rspca have become unruly, clearly dishonest and considered themselves omnipotent.

With the CPS regaining control of the prosecutions, then they will be reliant upon evidence from WHW, Trading Standards (thinking livestock here) and amongst other acceptable witnesses, the rspca.

This decision is long overdue.

Alec.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
The rspca will still be permitted to bring private prosecutions but would receive no benefits beyond that of the common man.

Currently, should the rspca lose a case, then their costs are picked up by the State, and that's you and I. The benefits to losing a case are considerable as the revenue earned from the charitable pleading are such that they're in a win-win situation.

The rspca in the handling of many high profile cases have all so often been a disgrace. Evidence has been offered to Courts which was blatant perjury and those adjudging the cases have allowed such evidence to be considered as 'oversight'. The rspca have become unruly, clearly dishonest and considered themselves omnipotent.

With the CPS regaining control of the prosecutions, then they will be reliant upon evidence from WHW, Trading Standards (thinking livestock here) and amongst other expert witnesses, the rspca.

This decision is long overdue.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Spot on .
 
The CPS was brought into existance to seperate the investigting arm from the prosecution arm of the state, as it was thought that while the two were connected there were issues of conflict of interest (basically that the evidence which fitted the prosecution would be disclosed, that which didn't support the prosecution may not). The behaviour of the RSPCA in some recent cases, such as claiming expenses for horses already euthenased by them, in court, then claiming "mistake" would lead to the belief that the investigation and prosecution should indeed be seperated out. Also surely it is incumbant on the state to prosecute breaches in the criminal law, rather than a charity "policing" these issues.
 
YorksG said:
The CPS was brought into existance to seperate the investigting arm from the prosecution arm of the state, as it was thought that while the two were connected there were issues of conflict of interest (basically that the evidence which fitted the prosecution would be disclosed, that which didn't support the prosecution may not). The behaviour of the RSPCA in some recent cases, such as claiming expenses for horses already euthenased by them, in court, then claiming "mistake" would lead to the belief that the investigation and prosecution should indeed be seperated out. Also surely it is incumbant on the state to prosecute breaches in the criminal law, rather than a charity "policing" these issues.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there's a midway compromise;

The rspca be State funded and controlled. The existing council be removed in it's entirety, and replaced by those who have only one agenda; Animal Welfare, with prosecutions remaining in the hands of the CPS.

I'd very much like to get my hands on that august body and be granted some authority. There'd be sweeping changes and then the RSPCA would again abide by the terms and conditions of it's charter and be restored to a worthwhile movement. (Fat chance of that! :D ).

Alec.
 
YorksG said:
The CPS was brought into existance to seperate the investigting arm from the prosecution arm of the state, as it was thought that while the two were connected there were issues of conflict of interest (basically that the evidence which fitted the prosecution would be disclosed, that which didn't support the prosecution may not). The behaviour of the RSPCA in some recent cases, such as claiming expenses for horses already euthenased by them, in court, then claiming "mistake" would lead to the belief that the investigation and prosecution should indeed be seperated out. Also surely it is incumbant on the state to prosecute breaches in the criminal law, rather than a charity "policing" these issues.
Click to expand...

This - if the police have to satisfy the CPS that there is a case to answer why wouldn't an individual or a charity have to do the same?

The problem with the RSPCA bringing prosecutions is that there is no oversight or regulation of their actions which is against the basic principles of justice.
 
cbmcts said:
This - if the police have to satisfy the CPS that there is a case to answer why wouldn't an individual or a charity have to do the same?

The problem with the RSPCA bringing prosecutions is that there is no oversight or regulation of their actions which is against the basic principles of justice.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Good governance demands separation. Also, an individual on the receiving end of a state prosecution receives some kind of protection in the form of legal defence etc. No such luck if the RSPCA decide to get into you. Even your honest, loyal vet will run a mile, rather than risk having his/her career ruined. The only other bodies who have such presumed moral weight and legal power without balance are social services... and that too needs reform.
 
pennyturner said:
The RSPCA profit financially from the prosecutions,
Click to expand...

This isn't true. They can claim costs, and only costs. Many people who they prosecute will not have sufficient means to pay full costs. In the course of a year, prosecutions cost the RSPCA far more than they get back from claiming costs in Court.
 
Currently, should the rspca lose a case, then their costs are picked up by the State, and that's you and I.
Click to expand...

This is not true. If the RSPCA loses a case, they cannot claim costs. The costs of the DEFENCE, limited to the payment which would have been made under legal aid, are picked up by the court system. Compared with the CPS, the RSPCA lose a tiny minority of cases that they prosecute.

The benefits to losing a case are considerable as the revenue earned from the charitable pleading are such that they're in a win-win situation.
Click to expand...

I fail to see your argument that LOSING a case allowed the RSPCA to get more charitable donations. I believe it would be quite the reverse.
 
C'mon people. The RSPCA deserves some criticism, but let's cut the unchecked total untruths, please?

I see a lot of comments on threads like this criticising them for prosecuting vulnerable people. But they are between a rock and a hard place on this one. If the person won't sign over their animal(s), and they often won't, then the only way they can seize them, and KEEP them, is to secure a prosecution.
 
The RSPCA choose their prosecution cases very carefully, they want the ones they know with a degree of certainty they can win. The animal is a minor incidental, they want the publicity and the money. How many times have we seen cases of blatant animal suffering and the RSPCA do very little or nothing. It is because the evidence is not sufficiently strong enough for them to have certainty of winning.
 
shiela 2 said:
The RSPCA choose their prosecution cases very carefully, they want the ones they know with a degree of certainty they can win. The animal is a minor incidental, they want the publicity and the money. How many times have we seen cases of blatant animal suffering and the RSPCA do very little or nothing. It is because the evidence is not sufficiently strong enough for them to have certainty of winning.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the RSPCA choose which animals they will help on the basis of which owners they are likely to get a conviction against. Decisions to help animals are made on the ground by field officers. Decisions to prosecute, or not, are made centrally. And just as the CPS, they have a barrier of likelihood of conviction below which they won't proceed with a prosecution. If only the CPS had the success rate in prosecutions that the RSPCA does!

I have been involved in RSPCA cases in court, and is was clear and well documented how they attempted to help the animals and the owners before being forced to take the decision to prosecute.
 
shiela 2 said:
The RSPCA choose their prosecution cases very carefully, they want the ones they know with a degree of certainty they can win. ……...
Click to expand...

ycbm said:
I don't believe that the RSPCA choose which animals they will help on the basis of which owners they are likely to get a conviction against. …….. .
Click to expand...

That wasn't what the poster said though, and I agree with her. She said that they choose their cases carefully, and they'd be fools if they didn't.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
That wasn't what the poster said though, and I agree with her. She said that they choose their cases carefully, and they'd be fools if they didn't.

Alec.
Click to expand...


Alec you cut the bit out of that quote that indicated the poster's attitude:

'the animal is a minor incidental, they want the publicity and the money'.

My direct experience of RSPCA prosecutions is that that is simply not true.
 
pennyturner said:
Precisely. Good governance demands separation. Also, an individual on the receiving end of a state prosecution receives some kind of protection in the form of legal defence etc. No such luck if the RSPCA decide to get into you. Even your honest, loyal vet will run a mile, rather than risk having his/her career ruined. The only other bodies who have such presumed moral weight and legal power without balance are social services... and that too needs reform.
Click to expand...

But social services don't bring prosecutions, private or otherwise. They give evidence, in prosecutions brought by CPS in cases which have been investigated by the police.
 
But they do have powers to take children and vulnerable adults into care without prosecuting anyone, don't they PaS? And they represent themselves in court in these custody cases, I thought?
 
Decisions on the ground are most certainly not made by field officers on the ground. If only! The decisions with regard to which animals can be helped are made by managers of field officers with strict budgets to stick to. No I'm with MP's on this.
 
Pearlsasinger said:
But social services don't bring prosecutions, private or otherwise. They give evidence, in prosecutions brought by CPS in cases which have been investigated by the police.
Click to expand...

They remove children, bring contempt charges to people for refusing to sign over their elderly relatives to state care, and impose medical procedures on vulnerable people - all of which might be quite proper and correct, except that it's carried out in secret courts, the facts of which cannot be known of criticised. Anything the social workers put before such courts is accepted as fact by the judges without even being available for challenge by the defence team... do you not see the problem with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top