RSPCA should be stripped of prosecution powers say MP'

[missmatch]

How can a system which allows the prosecutor ( RSPCA ) to train the magistrates ever be considered impartial? They created a specific training programme for magistrates. Supposedly to help magistrates understand the powers they have when sentencing animal abusers.
Whilst their figures on prosecution may look fantastic, the reality is very different. Yes, they achieve a phenomenal amount of prosecutions at magistrates but on appeal, in a real unbiased court, they generally lose.
The advice for those being prosecuted is to just get to appeal. However unless people have vast pots of money or legal aid, many simply cannot afford to appeal. This is not a fair system of justice.
I despise animal cruelty in all forms but I do not believe the rspca should be allowed to prosecute. They are not there to protect and prevent, they have become shameful willy waving activists.

 

[ycbm]

I worked as a magistrate for ten years. I never been trained by anyone but the government. Can you point me to exactly what you mean, please? I don't see any issue with them providing factual material, but they would never have any input into sentencing, because that is very tightly laid down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Sentencing Guidelines are freely available online for anyone who looks them up.

They do not generally lose on appeal. Again, if you think they do, please produce your evidence. Most people never appeal in the first place, so most convictions stand. And cases I have had any input to which have been appealed were upheld.

You sound very biased missmatch, what's your story?

 

[ycbm]

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.

When a field officer visits after a complaint from a member of the public, they make a decision there and then whether there is a problem. At that point, they either take no further action or take some immediate action, which may or may not mean escalating it higher.

I have direct experience of this. I rescued an abused horse which I used to own. The RSPCA acted very promptly and did what they were able to do to prevent further animals from being abused. As a result, a riding school and very dodgy dealer were shut down and is now a livery yard. Costs of this were never even mentioned, and it was all dealt with by Field officers in two towns.

 

[Luci07]

Interesting posts but let me go a little "Daily Mail" on here. By this I mean taking the broadest popularist view without much substance.

This will be a popular vote, regardless if the arguments behind this. The RSPCA has unfortunately built up a reputation of becoming political activists (going after private hunt members who can't afford to fight at a cost of over £300k) and I agree that there is a view that prosecution seems to take over prevention. My post is not to discuss the merits of these cases but rather to give examples of public perception, plus of course, the suicide of the inspector reappears regularly.

So I cited the Daily Fail as we know their preferred reporting is fairly lazy and emotive, but these examples are what the RSPCA are facing. Call it bad PR but they never addressed it and a lot of the good they do gets lost.

We would all like to see the RSPCA go back to being the organisation we once believed it to be.

 

[missmatch]

I worked as a magistrate for ten years. I never been trained by anyone but the government. Can you point me to exactly what you mean, please? I don't see any issue with them providing factual material, but they would never have any input into sentencing, because that is very tightly laid down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Sentencing Guidelines are freely available online for anyone who looks them up.

They do not generally lose on appeal. Again, if you think they do, please produce your evidence. Most people never appeal in the first place, so most convictions stand. And cases I have had any input to which have been appealed were upheld.

You sound very biased missmatch, what's your story?

How judgemental you are ycbm! Your assumption that my bias must hinge on my "having a story"
I have no story. I have experience in many of the issues being discussed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/84597.stm
This is an old link but is still prevalent today. Unfortunately I cannot find a link with accurate figures showing the success percentage on appeal. Simply because the rspca refuse full disclosure. There are incredibly informative articles on these figures which have been compiled by people far cleverer than I. As the rspca have categorically stated the figures for rates of appeal are irrelevant, it's infuriatingly difficult to denote accuracy.
The shg have a very in depth analysis in their Supplementary Draft Animal Welfare Bill - reply to the rspca. This contains the most up to date, made available or deduced facts/ figures
What I do know for absolute certainty is that of eight appeals I have knowledge of, five won at appeal. I find that to be a very high percentage.

 

[Damnation]

I personally think that this is long overdue and from personal experience of more than one situation I think they are absolutely useless. (Need I mention Carrot and Spud?)

The funds would be better placed actually looking at preventing cruelty, not prosecuting.

In many instances you are much better off going to a local charity with your concerns to put pressure on the RSPCA to act rather than the RSPCA themselves.

Their latest utter cock up with the Rachelle Peel case hasn't helped them at all.

 

[ycbm]

How judgemental you are ycbm! Your assumption that my bias must hinge on my "having a story"
I have no story. I have experience in many of the issues being discussed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/84597.stm
This is an old link but is still prevalent today. Unfortunately I cannot find a link with accurate figures showing the success percentage on appeal. Simply because the rspca refuse full disclosure. There are incredibly informative articles on these figures which have been compiled by people far cleverer than I. As the rspca have categorically stated the figures for rates of appeal are irrelevant, it's infuriatingly difficult to denote accuracy.
The shg have a very in depth analysis in their Supplementary Draft Animal Welfare Bill - reply to the rspca. This contains the most up to date, made available or deduced facts/ figures
What I do know for absolute certainty is that of eight appeals I have knowledge of, five won at appeal. I find that to be a very high percentage.

More untruths again.

Non disclosure by the RSPCA has nothing to do with you not being able to find figures on who won cases on appeal. The results of appeals are a matter of public record.

VERY FEW RSPCA prosecutions, as a percentage of the whole, will be appealed. It stands to reason that only people with the strongest cases will appeal, and therefore a fairly high success rate, compared with the original conviction rate, in appealing is to be expected.

You are right, that reference is old. It's 1998 for goodness sake, nearly twenty years ago! Would you like, instead, to refer to the much more recent statements about backing off politically motivated campaigns, from the current Management board of the organisation?

The RSPCA has made some bad mistakes, notably the Peel case.

That does not justify the fabrications that are being spouted about them and corruption of the legal system on this thread and other threads in the past.


PS my own experience is 2 appealed 2 upheld, one ban reduced in length from ten to two years. I was on the bench on the latter case and a ten year ban was well deserved and I was annoyed that it was overridden by an appeal court.

 

[ycbm]

How judgemental you are ycbm! Your assumption that my bias must hinge on my "having a story"
I have no story. I have experience in many of the issues being discussed.

Instead of getting all self righteous, would you address the point and substantiate your claim that there is bias in Magistrates Courts because the RSPCA train magistrates?

 

[case895]

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 .

Exactly. I have heard certain children's charities claim before that without them, varies abuse and neglect issues would be rampant, which strayed in to the realms of what the Police and Social Services are there to do.

I would also have their inspectors' uniforms changed so they less resemble the Police. This is not a coincidence, it is a deliberate attempt to trick people in to thinking they are a law enforcement body with statutory powers.

At my old house, a lad came around collecting money for St John's Ambulance to specifically fund an additional ambulance in the local area to supplement the service provided by EMAS. I pointed out to him that if they did this, the EMAS management would simply remove one of their own ambulances as a cost saving. In other words, why would I want to donate money to get the same level of service I already had. He tried to argue that they would not do it, but in the end went away convinced that I was probably right.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

I would also have their inspectors' uniforms changed so they less resemble the Police. This is not a coincidence, it is a deliberate attempt to trick people in to thinking they are a law enforcement body with statutory powers.

…….. .

I agree, and considering that they are primarily a 'caring' group, the colour green would be more suitable and perhaps reduce the influence of their apparently dictatorial approach.

There's also the question of the job titles awarded to them. Does an rspca Inspector inspect? Nope, it's no more than an attempt at giving muscle and rank to a charity worker and one with very limited powers.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

Instead of getting all self righteous, would you address the point and substantiate your claim that there is bias in Magistrates Courts because the RSPCA train magistrates?

Whether 'train' was the right word, I'm not sure, but most if not all Magistrates will be heavily reliant upon the evidence offered by the rspca, being themselves in no position to offer any contradiction. Perhaps over the last few years, and certainly since the CPS acquiesced and handed the power of prosecution over to the charity concerned, they have almost certainly, slowly but surely influenced the thinking of and perhaps 'trained' the average Court in to believing that the Law should be applied, as they, a charity, suggest. With some success too, it seems.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

II

Whether 'train' was the right word, I'm not sure, but most if not all Magistrates will be heavily reliant upon the evidence offered by the rspca, being themselves in no position to offer any contradiction. Perhaps over the last few years, and certainly since the CPS acquiesced and handed the power of prosecution over to the charity concerned, they have almost certainly, slowly but surely influenced the thinking of and perhaps 'trained' the average Court in to believing that the Law should be applied, as they, a charity, suggest. With some success too, it seems.

Alec.

This is utter rubbish Alec, sorry. As a magistrate, I knew a starved dog when I saw one.

The rules of evidence in a criminal court where the prosecutor is the RSPCA are exactly the same as when the prosecutor is the CPS.

Why are people so determined to believe that the RSPCA uses chicanery to achieve the conviction of hundreds of innocent people?

The only cases I've ever seen in court thoroughly deserved their sentences. And I've been thoroughly impressed with how hard the RSPCA worked to get one couple to do the right thing by their dog, before eventually prosecuting them after they backslid with its care. This evidence was presented in court and not disputed. They also do a fabulous job tracking puppy farm importations. I've personally signed a warrant to stop and seize a lorry load of hundreds of puppies on the move from Ireland, off the ferry from Liverpool, to be be distributed around addresses and sold as 'home bred' in the north of England.

Criticise where it's fair by all means, but these blanket condemnations of the RSPCA are just downright unfair and untrue.

I have no personal connection to the RSPCA. All I'm interested in on these threads is justice for ALL parties. And I'm reading a lot of anger from people who have been upset by one of two cases; the hunt prosecution and the cock up that was the Peel case. The RSPCA prosecute hundreds of cruelty cases a year and obtain totally correct convictions in the vast majority. Let's have some balance, please!

 

[limestonelil]

I agree, and considering that they are primarily a 'caring' group, the colour green would be more suitable and perhaps reduce the influence of their apparently dictatorial approach.

There's also the question of the job titles awarded to them. Does an rspca Inspector inspect? Nope, it's no more than an attempt at giving muscle and rank to a charity worker and one with very limited powers.

Alec.

I don't like the uniforms which give a 'police look' to RSPCA and was horrified to hear on an animal rescue programme recently, the RSPCA inspector reciting, to the owner of a dog kept in a way the RSPCA did not like, her rights, the bit that goes 'you do not have to say anything but ............later in court' etc. Is that just to intimidate the owner do you know? I thought it was extremely intimidating.

 

[ycbm]

I don't like the uniforms which give a 'police look' to RSPCA and was horrified to hear on an animal rescue programme recently, the RSPCA inspector reciting, to the owner of a dog kept in a way the RSPCA did not like, her rights, the bit that goes 'you do not have to say anything but ............later in court' etc. Is that just to intimidate the owner do you know? I thought it was extremely intimidating.

It's a legal requirement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If it doesn't happen, then that evidence cannot be produced in court. Tax inspectors and other officials will also do it when a prosecution may ensue.

 

[chillipup]

Whether 'train' was the right word, I'm not sure, but most if not all Magistrates will be heavily reliant upon the evidence offered by the rspca, being themselves in no position to offer any contradiction. Perhaps over the last few years, and certainly since the CPS acquiesced and handed the power of prosecution over to the charity concerned, they have almost certainly, slowly but surely influenced the thinking of and perhaps 'trained' the average Court in to believing that the Law should be applied, as they, a charity, suggest. With some success too, it seems.

Alec.

As I've said previously, on more than one occasion, there is always a Clerk of the Court present in the Magistrates' Court. They are qualified Solicitors or Barristers who are employed by the court to assist the Magistrates in all aspects of law regarding the case being heard, whether this is a CPS case or an RSPCA case.

 

[JanetGeorge]

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.) I frankly believe the motivation is wrong - and it started to be considered when RSPCA prosecuted the Heythrop Hunt - and Master Richard Sumber and their great huntsman, Julian Barnfield. Te cost of defending wuld have been astronomic - so they copped a plea. But the media woke up big-time (see: http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/features/a-pyrrhic-victory-1551

The RSPCA is run by animal rights nutters - but the grass roots people are generally very good. The right prosecutions are good for animal welfare - and the CPS couldn't cope with issues RSPCA takes on.

 

[case895]

I don't like the uniforms which give a 'police look' to RSPCA and was horrified to hear on an animal rescue programme recently, the RSPCA inspector reciting, to the owner of a dog kept in a way the RSPCA did not like, her rights, the bit that goes 'you do not have to say anything but ............later in court' etc. Is that just to intimidate the owner do you know? I thought it was extremely intimidating.

If I went around in a quasi-police uniform, complete with pips on my shoulder and a peaked cap, cautioned people under PACE, I would expect to:
a) get laughed at,
b) get punched,
c) get arrested by the real police for impersonating an officer.
However, the RSPCA gets away with it!

 

[Fenris]

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.) I frankly believe the motivation is wrong - and it started to be considered when RSPCA prosecuted the Heythrop Hunt - and Master Richard Sumber and their great huntsman, Julian Barnfield. Te cost of defending wuld have been astronomic - so they copped a plea. But the media woke up big-time (see: http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/features/a-pyrrhic-victory-1551

The RSPCA is run by animal rights nutters - but the grass roots people are generally very good. The right prosecutions are good for animal welfare - and the CPS couldn't cope with issues RSPCA takes on.

It would be quite possible to control RSPCA prosecutions without removing the right of prosecution from everyone else. The RSPCA has considerably more power than you or I. Money is power. How many private prosecutions could most of us afford? How many of us would be permitted the use of police powers and resources in the pursuit of such a prosecution?

From the SHG submission to the EFRA inquiry

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEv...imal welfare domestic pets/written/31316.html


42. Animal welfare must be seen to be enforced Professionally and equally across the country. The current situation where there are RSPCA 'hot spots' and inspectors are given awards for having taken the most prosecutions is intolerable. [13]

43. There is a great difference between overt cruelty and an occasional failure to get everything right. We propose that the police and CPS should always be the ones to prosecute deliberate cruelty underlining the seriousness of the case

44. We are aware of the difficulties associated with the AWA being a common informers Act and the fact that the RSPCA choose to prosecute as a private prosecutor.

45. It seems to us that there are several ways in which the RSPCA's prosecutions could be controlled:

a) Amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (and other acts that the RSPCA use to prosecute) so that they are no longer common informers acts. The downside to this is that it limits the rights of other organisations as well.

b) 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, when it turned out that their rule changes had been unlawful for many years.) The benefit of this course of action is that it will only affect the RSPCA, The SHG has suggested this a number of times over the years.

c) Limit the right to bring private prosecutions so that any individual or organisation instituting more than say 10 or 20 prosecutions in any year must register, pay a licence fee, and be subject to proper inspection. It would be a shame to see our historical rights limited because of the misbehaviour of the RSPCA , but at least a limit on the number of prosecutions would protect an individuals rights while instituting controls on prolific prosecutors whose wealth induced power tips the scales firmly in their favour.

d) Introduce a Charities Ombudsman as a means of creating an independent complaints system for those issues which fall outside the remit of the Charity Commission. This could be paid for by a levy or registration fee on charities. The ombudsman would have the power to refer issues to other authorities, including the Police, for action and to order compensation payments. Had there been a proper independent complaints procedure it is unlikely that the problems with the RSPCA would have reached the proportions they have.

 

[ozpoz]

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.

I have been told this by an RSPCA officer. I was appalled that they wouldn't proceed with prosecuting an abuser and was informed of this policy in no uncertain terms.

 

[Fenris]

As I've said previously, on more than one occasion, there is always a Clerk of the Court present in the Magistrates' Court. They are qualified Solicitors or Barristers who are employed by the court to assist the Magistrates in all aspects of law regarding the case being heard, whether this is a CPS case or an RSPCA case.

The quality of Clerks of the Court varies with the individual. Some are excellent and know their law. Some have to be badgered into accepting what the law says. I have sat in a court where the Clerk was sitting there with a grin on his face pointing his fingers from Prosecution to Defence as they made their points.

The Magistrates can ignore the advice given and again I have watched a Clerk of the Court look panic stricken as a Magistrate told a Defendant to get someone else to pay their fine (it went much higher . . . .)

 

[Fenris]

II

This is utter rubbish Alec, sorry. As a magistrate, I knew a starved dog when I saw one.

The rules of evidence in a criminal court where the prosecutor is the RSPCA are exactly the same as when the prosecutor is the CPS.

Why are people so determined to believe that the RSPCA uses chicanery to achieve the conviction of hundreds of innocent people?

The only cases I've ever seen in court thoroughly deserved their sentences. And I've been thoroughly impressed with how hard the RSPCA worked to get one couple to do the right thing by their dog, before eventually prosecuting them after they backslid with its care. This evidence was presented in court and not disputed. They also do a fabulous job tracking puppy farm importations. I've personally signed a warrant to stop and seize a lorry load of hundreds of puppies on the move from Ireland, off the ferry from Liverpool, to be be distributed around addresses and sold as 'home bred' in the north of England.

Criticise where it's fair by all means, but these blanket condemnations of the RSPCA are just downright unfair and untrue.

I have no personal connection to the RSPCA. All I'm interested in on these threads is justice for ALL parties. And I'm reading a lot of anger from people who have been upset by one of two cases; the hunt prosecution and the cock up that was the Peel case. The RSPCA prosecute hundreds of cruelty cases a year and obtain totally correct convictions in the vast majority. Let's have some balance, please!

A thin dog may be starved or ill. Seeing it does not determine the cause.

The theory is that the rules of evidence should apply to everyone, just as a prosecutor should apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, whoever that prosecutor may be. The reality is that the RSPCA prosecutions department was quite happy to allow the Peel case to go forwards despite the fact that the horses were dead, that costs had been claimed for the keep of those dead horses etc. The case, quite rightly, collapsed. An investigator and a prosecutor MUST obey the rules. They can NOT be seen to appear to be involved in dodgy practices or they will undermine the Rule of Law and discredit the entire legal system.

This is why there needs to be independent oversight of RSPCA prosecutions.

 

[chillipup]

The quality of Clerks of the Court varies with the individual. Some are excellent and know their law. Some have to be badgered into accepting what the law says. I have sat in a court where the Clerk was sitting there with a grin on his face pointing his fingers from Prosecution to Defence as they made their points.

The Magistrates can ignore the advice given and again I have watched a Clerk of the Court look panic stricken as a Magistrate told a Defendant to get someone else to pay their fine (it went much higher . . . .)

Magistrates' cannot ignore the law, they must abide by it, whether the law is pointed out to them by the clerk of the court, or in the cases you must have seen, by Judge Rinder.

Popcorn anyone?

 

[Fenris]

Magistrates' cannot ignore the law, they must abide by it, whether the law is pointed out to them by the clerk of the court, or in the cases you must have seen, by Judge Rinder.

Popcorn anyone?

Scoff al the popcorn you like, I doubt that many RSPCA cases got onto RinderTV.

More seriously, Magistrates can not ignore the law but unfortunately some of them need the experience of cases going upstairs before they understand that.

 

[ycbm]

More seriously, Magistrates can not ignore the law but unfortunately some of them need the experience of cases going upstairs before they understand that.

This is utterly ridiculous. There are FIVE people involved in obtaining a prosecution in a magistrates court. THREE magistrates unless the court is in front of a District Judge as the hunting one was. The clerk of the court and the CPS lawyer. Magistrates are highly trained. Sentencing is closely controlled by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Read the guidelines and you will see.

 

[ycbm]

A thin dog may be starved or ill. Seeing it does not determine the cause.

The theory is that the rules of evidence should apply to everyone, just as a prosecutor should apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, whoever that prosecutor may be. The reality is that the RSPCA prosecutions department was quite happy to allow the Peel case to go forwards despite the fact that the horses were dead, that costs had been claimed for the keep of those dead horses etc. The case, quite rightly, collapsed. An investigator and a prosecutor MUST obey the rules. They can NOT be seen to appear to be involved in dodgy practices or they will undermine the Rule of Law and discredit the entire legal system.

This is why there needs to be independent oversight of RSPCA prosecutions.

The rules of evidence DO apply to everyone. That's why the Peel appeal succeeded. Does anyone seriously believe those people were innocent? Unfortunately, the either fraudulent or negligent claiming of costs for dead horses so tainted the evidence that when it came to light the appeal was almost bound to succeed. It didn't make the original conviction, before that taint was known, incorrect.

There is independent oversight of prosecutions. Magistrates are not given bonus payments for convicting people. They review the evidence exactly as in any other prosecution.

The only difference between an RSPCA case and a CPS case is that the prosecutor is paid by the RSPCA and not the CPS. In all other respects, the case is handled exactly the same way.

Did you think they brought a starved dog into court Fenris ? Are you seriously suggesting that I would be stupid enough to convict someone on the basis of seeing a thin dog?

No, they presented a full history of how the RSPCA had helped the couple cope with a GSD with a sensitive gut, got it back to the right weight, and seen them fail to continue the diet that it needed and get pitifully thin again. Then they refused to sign it over, and so they were prosecuted as that was the only way to seize and keep the dog. In kennels, it thrived on the correct diet and no medical intervention. After the court case, it was rehomed.

The Peel case is a travesty and it is not representative of the hundreds of prosecutions obtained by the RSPCA every year and the great work they do helping animals.

 

[Damnation]

II

I have no personal connection to the RSPCA. All I'm interested in on these threads is justice for ALL parties. And I'm reading a lot of anger from people who have been upset by one of two cases; the hunt prosecution and the cock up that was the Peel case. The RSPCA prosecute hundreds of cruelty cases a year and obtain totally correct convictions in the vast majority. Let's have some balance, please!

They must be woefully inadequate in my area then because I know of several cases personally where they did not act when they had very good reason to do so, not just the bigger cases reported in the newspapers.

In fact to get them to investigate dogs owned by convicted dog abusers who were still under a ban I had to get very forceful before they even took me seriously. The rescue down the road from me had to get me and other local people to call the RSPCA and put pressure on them as despite the lady at the rescue taking in animals from the RSPCA, having a long standing relationship with them and being an ex vet nurse they ignored her concerns.

I always feel that they decide to swoop in when things are at crisis point (Probably having already known about the situations for some time it seems) and "save the day".

On Facebook I see so many people in groups talking about dumped horses, in fact just last night an incredibly unwell, thin, dumped horse was posted about on a group that looked like it needed some urgent care. From what I gather RSPCA were called and not interested. I believe the BHS and Redwings have stepped in to put pressure on the RSPCA to act. This seems to be a running trend that I see, you have to put pressure on them to do anything. Even on here people will say call the BHS or one of the other big horse charities before you contact the RSPCA regarding equine neglect.

From personal experience I have no faith in them (again perhaps they are just pants in my area), and it is only solidified by things I see reported about them not only in the newspapers but on here and other social media too, the nail in the coffin was the apparent misleading statements made in court during the Peel case. They do themselves no favours.

 

[ycbm]

There is a world of difference between not having the will or the means to act in particular situations and wrongly prosecuting innocent people. It's the latter where I am concerned about the allegations.

I have only good experiences of them, where a call to my own horse and to a neglected neighbour's horse were both acted on in double quick time.

And I am certain that the vast, vast majority of people prosecuted by the RSPCA are guilty of animal cruelty.

I don't see why people expect the RSPCA to be as good at dealing with horse welfare cases as specialised horse charities. They aren't ever going to be, they are jacks of all trades very busy dealing with small animal abuse.

I wish that they did not have to bring private prosecutions, but it can't be taken away from them, it's everyone's right, yours and mine too. I wish the CPS would step in, but I don't see that happening any time soon with their budgets squeezed like they are.

Have you thought of donating to the RSPCA so they can afford to employ more Field Officers on your area, or volunteering to help?

Failing to abide by a ban, by the way, is contempt of court and not an animal welfare issue. Unless the animals were in any way being abused, then that one would be a waste of RSPCA time and money. It's a police/court matter.

 

[Damnation]

Failing to abide by a ban, by the way, is contempt of court and not an animal welfare issue. Unless the animals were in any way being abused, then that one would be a waste of RSPCA time and money. It's a police/court matter.

They got around the ban by saying their adult child was the owner. He is disabled with a mental age of a child - what a loophole...

The dogs in this case were left behind whilst they lived over an hour away somewhere else. It was summer, kennels in full view of the sun for most of the day, no exercise (they came, fed watered, left only once a day, come and go within half an hour or less) and my concern was if water was knocked over in that heat the dogs (some were 2 to a kennel) would have nothing for 24hours (if they showed up at all).

This was fine though even given the parent's track record..

 

[cbmcts]

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. The police no longer prosecute crimes only investigate them as it was decided some years back that there was a need for transparency and oversight so prosecution powers were transferred to the CPS. Now at least with the police/any government body there is a clearly defined complaint process if you are unhappy with the way they have treated you and an independent body has to answer your complaint.Also if you are prosecuted by the state aren't you entitled to free legal representation?

However with the RSPCA the only way to complain or defend yourself relies on having deep pockets to do so by suing in return - that is wrong because justice shouldn't rely on personal wealth. If the CPS take over prosecutions won't legal representation become a right?

While I agree with ycbm that the great majority RSPCA prosecutions are of guilty animal abusers but by letting them prosecute as and when they wish it is reinforcing the perception that they are an arm of the police which is incorrect. They are a charity that is privately run by a board which dabbles in political matters right to the edge of legality, with no oversight by anybody and allowing them this level of influence with no checks and balances is wrong and unfair.

Oh and if they decide to prosecute horse cases despite not specialising in horses, the very least they could do is get their financial facts and figures right. They are directly responsible for the Peel woman escaping justice and if you or I was to behave in the same manner (despite not having dedicated finance and prosecution departments) we would be very lucky not to be spending a short time in the cells for contempt of court or even being prosecuted for perjury. The only good thing about that debacle is that it exposed their procedures or lack of them to national publicity and led to this scrutiny by MPs. Incidents like these are why there should be oversight of anybody, private or public prosecuting.

 

[Alec Swan]

A thin dog may be starved or ill. Seeing it does not determine the cause.

The theory is that the rules of evidence should apply to everyone, just as a prosecutor should apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, whoever that prosecutor may be. The reality is that the RSPCA prosecutions department was quite happy to allow the Peel case to go forwards despite the fact that the horses were dead, that costs had been claimed for the keep of those dead horses etc. The case, quite rightly, collapsed. An investigator and a prosecutor MUST obey the rules. They can NOT be seen to appear to be involved in dodgy practices or they will undermine the Rule of Law and discredit the entire legal system.

This is why there needs to be independent oversight of RSPCA prosecutions.

Which neatly sums up the current state of play and explains why there's a need for either controlling regulation or that either the DPP or the CPS, who ever is responsible, face up to the responsibility which is a part or their remit and accept responsibility for all animal welfare prosecutions. That the rspca have acted in an underhand and devious fashion, on many occasions must be obvious to all but those with blinkers, ergo;

For those who are other than satiated with popcorn, they may care to go to the search bar (top right) and type in the user name — dymented —. The rspca had the man concerned charged with 10 offences, 9 of which were thrown out as they were clearly so contentious or contradictory as to be inadmissible as evidence, and 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.

The responsibility for the trial going ahead lays with the accused man's (dymented) solicitor who persuaded his client to continue without the need for the attending vet to be present.

It should also be noted that whilst one of the accused man's dogs was being held by the rspca, a heavily pregnant bitch at that, was killed by other dogs which were also in the care of the rspca. The dismembered carcass was returned to the owner.

Thank you Fenris for your sig inclusions offered by the SHG, they make for interesting reading.

Alec.