RSPCA should be stripped of prosecution powers say MP'

minesadouble said:
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...
Click to expand...

It was my experiance that the RSPCA did not get a free ride in magistrates court they had to make their cases well and they worked hard to make sure the cases did not fail for silly reasons .
I was a witness in cases were they won and when they lost it was always my view that defendants got a very very fair hearing .
Magistrates did not just blindly accept what the RSPCA say .
 
ycbm said:
……..

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.)

…….. .
Click to expand...

Would that not have us wondering if the CPS might not hand over to a charity bringing private prosecutions the bulk of their work load, OR could we imagine that the charity under discussion are as successful as they are because they don't operate under the same constraints? :D

Alec.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake, Alec, how much knowledge and experience of animal welfare do you think is required for the average RSPCA prosecution?

These are the ones I have been involved with:

Horse was dead in a field with scrabble marks around it and pitifully thin, while the owner had other horses in stables very close by.

Dog was very thin, got fat when fed the vet recommended (expensive) diet, got thin when the diet was stopped, owners refused to sign it over so it was seized, got fatter again when in local (not RSPCA) kennels back on the diet with no other medical attention.

Several hundred under age puppies being transported in the back of a large white van.

A Japanese Akita x GSD tied to a tree at a barbeque and bit two people in two separate incidents after the owners had been heard previously boasting about how afraid people would be of it when it arrived. This case, incidentally, was taken by the CPS because of the damage to the humans.

Youths using a kitten as a football.

I was happy not to be listed for the kitten in a microwave case that my colleagues had to deal with.

I'm sure there were more but I'm struggling to remember them right now.

Not one of those, and none of the vast majority of the 1500 RSPCA prosecutions a year need any experience of animal welfare to come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. If there is reasonable doubt, ie an opposing view from the defendant's vet who had been treating the animal, they would be found not guilty.
 
Alec Swan said:
Really? So if I refuse to pay a parking fine, I can elect to be tried by a jury can I?

Alec.
Click to expand...

No, that's a civil matter, not a criminal offence. If you refuse to pay your tv licence you can indeed elect for trial by jury. They are talking about taking it away, but at the moment trial by jury is a basic entitlement in this country, whatever the level of the offence.
 
ycbm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really?? Ordinary people are biased against the police? Surely ordinary people are more likely to believe the police as its indoctrinated in us from an early age!
 
If anyone is arrested they get an interview at the police station. This gives them access to the duty solicitor.
Rspca however will "interview under caution" anywhere but the police station. Screwing people from the start.
They have no legal right of entry. They swear blind they do.
They have no legal power to seize. They swear blind they do.
They obtain a warrant and half the time the names of the rspca workers aren't even on it, yet they have legal entry. No they don't.
They pay their own vets handsomely. To the detriment of thousands of innocent people.
They deliberately release false information to the press.
They rely on emotions to gain conviction.
How many times do you read this.....

Rspca said it was the worst neglect they'd ever seen.

Every single case that goes to court.
How many times have they stated about smell/ filth etc... Smell is not evidence. I hate certain smells doesn't mean I will prosecute you for them!
Filth is subjective. What may be one persons idea of a hellhole may just be a normal days mess to another.
Commonly known as the housework police!
Bringing in dogs from abroad is another one yet animals are killed in their vans when they collect them. But cute saved foreign animals get them more money
And guess what? The police don't even know this. I personally know three police officers who firmly believe the rspca had all the rights of a licensed official. And do the rspca ever care to point this out? Like hell they do.

There is plenty of information out there, Facebook groups, YouTube videos etc
They are the most evil, corrupt, vile con men going.

I cannot put on this group what I actually know but I am really lucky I have great vets and a lawyer friend.

They will do anything, and I mean anything, to prosecute and gain donations.

How much is spent on prosecutions? On fancy offices? On big fat salaries?
How much on the animals?
Bear in mind that all local groups eg: rspca Manchester/birmingham/ Yorkshire are separate entities and not funded by main rspca. Where's all that money going?
And the groups are becoming just as bad. They wear their badge with honour because they know damn well nothing can be done about them.
 
missmatch said:
If anyone is arrested they get an interview at the police station. This gives them access to the duty solicitor.
Rspca however will "interview under caution" anywhere but the police station. Screwing people from the start.
They have no legal right of entry. They swear blind they do.
They have no legal power to seize. They swear blind they do.
They obtain a warrant and half the time the names of the rspca workers aren't even on it, yet they have legal entry. No they don't.
They pay their own vets handsomely. To the detriment of thousands of innocent people.
They deliberately release false information to the press.
They rely on emotions to gain conviction.
How many times do you read this.....

Rspca said it was the worst neglect they'd ever seen.

Every single case that goes to court.
How many times have they stated about smell/ filth etc... Smell is not evidence. I hate certain smells doesn't mean I will prosecute you for them!
Filth is subjective. What may be one persons idea of a hellhole may just be a normal days mess to another.
Commonly known as the housework police!
Bringing in dogs from abroad is another one yet animals are killed in their vans when they collect them. But cute saved foreign animals get them more money
And guess what? The police don't even know this. I personally know three police officers who firmly believe the rspca had all the rights of a licensed official. And do the rspca ever care to point this out? Like hell they do.

There is plenty of information out there, Facebook groups, YouTube videos etc
They are the most evil, corrupt, vile con men going.

I cannot put on this group what I actually know but I am really lucky I have great vets and a lawyer friend.

They will do anything, and I mean anything, to prosecute and gain donations.

How much is spent on prosecutions? On fancy offices? On big fat salaries?
How much on the animals?
Bear in mind that all local groups eg: rspca Manchester/birmingham/ Yorkshire are separate entities and not funded by main rspca. Where's all that money going?
And the groups are becoming just as bad. They wear their badge with honour because they know damn well nothing can be done about them.
Click to expand...

Good grief...I have a distinct smell of sour grapes in my nostrils
 
ycbm said:
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.
Click to expand...

See this is the issue the RSPCA can and do cause people to lose their houses as I stated before only the first 100k of a private residence is off limits.
What hunting case have I mentioned let alone bent it out of shape!
Why we are on that subject that you raise ,the cynic in me suggests that the move to walk away from Hunting act prosecutions was more brought about by trying to save face in light of an enquiry that had been announced after being criticised by a panel of judges. Why have the prosecutions nearly halved in the last year, have we suddenly become a nation of animal lovers? There is a well known saying within the legal profession 'The RSPCA do not have a prosecution dept but a persecution dept!
As much as you may not like it how is 15 cats in a house with faeces all over the floor a slam dunk conviction. Surely the RSPCA would have to prove that the cats were suffering physically in some way rather than the subjective view of their toilet habits. By the way the conviction rate is not 98% read deeper but it makes an impressive headline doesnt it
 
popsdosh said:
See this is the issue the RSPCA can and do cause people to lose their houses as I stated before only the first 100k of a private residence is off limits.
What hunting case have I mentioned let alone bent it out of shape!
Why we are on that subject that you raise ,the cynic in me suggests that the move to walk away from Hunting act prosecutions was more brought about by trying to save face in light of an enquiry that had been announced after being criticised by a panel of judges. Why have the prosecutions nearly halved in the last year, have we suddenly become a nation of animal lovers? There is a well known saying within the legal profession 'The RSPCA do not have a prosecution dept but a persecution dept!
As much as you may not like it how is 15 cats in a house with faeces all over the floor a slam dunk conviction. Surely the RSPCA would have to prove that the cats were suffering physically in some way rather than the subjective view of their toilet habits. By the way the conviction rate is not 98% read deeper but it makes an impressive headline doesnt it
Click to expand...


I've asked you more than once now to point me to an actual case where a private individual has lost their house to RSPCA costs awarded by a court after a prosecution.

Cats are clean individuals. It is certainly a breach of the Animal Welfare Act to have them live in an environment where they are surrounded by their own and other cats' unburied faeces.

Who cares WHY they have agreed to stop prosecuting hunts, they've stopped. Why isn't that enough for you? How deep a grudge are you going to hold about the Heythrop, and for how long?

I got the conviction rate from a generally critical Guardian article. Please supply me with the correct figure.

Prosecutions have halved in the last year? If that's true, why are you still so rabidly posting about them? Can you point me to the evidence of that please? And with it, the evidence of whether they have simply run out of money to do as many because of campaigners like you?
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
I've asked you more than once now to point me to an actual case where a private individual has lost their house to RSPCA costs awarded by a court after a prosecution.

Cats are clean individuals. It is certainly a breach of the Animal Welfare Act to have them live in an environment where they are surrounded by their own and other cats' unburied faeces.

Who cares WHY they have agreed to stop prosecuting hunts, they've stopped. Why isn't that enough for you? How deep a grudge are you going to hold about the Heythrop, and for how long?

I got the conviction rate from a generally critical Guardian article. Please supply me with the correct figure.

Prosecutions have halved in the last year? If that's true, why are you still so rabidly posting about them? Can you point me to the evidence of that please? And with it, the evidence of whether they have simply run out of money to do as many because of campaigners like you?
Click to expand...

Im sorry have i touched a nerve ! I havent once mentioned any hunting cases in this debate only in answer to your points. Drop in prosecutions has been over 50% over the last two years exactly the same period as the investigation ? Maybe its partly due to change brought about by the mangement changes Heres the RSPCAs own documentary proof of what I say

https://view.pagetiger.com/RSPCAProsecutionsAnnualReport2015/issue1/?ptit=7817975649D9EBAECD46

From What I can make out from those figures the actual success rate is around 92-93%
Whats more how can my one man campaign (lol) bring about a drop in prosecutions as we have already established that the very rarely end up out of pocket on any prosecution as their costs including investigation cost will be either met by the awarding of cost or out of central funds.
 
Moomin1 said:
Good grief...I have a distinct smell of sour grapes in my nostrils
Click to expand...

You know I just hate that comment. Thank god you not still in court.

I my job I have been in to quite a few houses where they had no animals and there has been faeces on the floor, there are a growing number of people that have difficulty coping with life. The social care system is stretched to the limit, what help that is given is often a band aid and the ones that do have animals they are often looked after better than themselves.
While we live our well ordered lives its very difficult to imagine what could happen to make people slip into a cycle of neglect of themselves and others. I have known people who have come home and there life has changed overnight, been left with no support and them and their animals has been living on next to nothing, then its easy for things to slip.
Then there are the people who have little or no skills in caring for anything, their children and their animals are both neglected, the neglect is a symptoms of a greater issue, there are already schemes where if these families are given intense support these problems can be resolved.
In the cinemas at the moment there is a film about Bob the cat. His real life owner has a disordered life, its doubtful that if he had gone to a rehoming centre he would not have left with a cat. You can imagine the form filling. Well it ended well and he's a film star, but it could have ended differently, no regular income, no regular place to stay, mental health issues etc. Sometimes a none perfect home is actually a good home.
Taking people to court helps very little, the prisons are full, I have worked in one for a short period, I can not see how even sending someone to prison solves animal abuse. They are away from the problem and with true abusers were their attitudes and values are warped their abuse is not confronted.
I can not understand why a charity should be involved with prosecutions at all apart from providing witness evidence.
 
Interestingly my magistrate of many years colleague who sits once a week in Kent has entirely the opposite view of he RSPCA to ybcm, having time and time again seen them bring prosecutions against the most vulnerable in society and the rspca try and twist a case against them even if a vet has been involved, the animal was a recent abandonment taken in etc. They have gone in all strong handed, scared the people involved, confused and caused significant distress to the people while generating no real benefit to the animal.
 
ycbm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is incorrect. Certain offences are summary hearing only, Triable either way offences may be subject to a mode of trial hearing, if it is decided that the case is within the remit of magistrates sentencing powers it is then the defendant who elects whether he would prefer trial by jury.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/public_guide_allocation_for_web.pdf

More here for anyone who is interested.
 
The document you point to is the guidance notes for Magistrates and District Judges when deciding whether an either way offence should be kept or sent to Crown.

It finishes with the paragraph:

A defendant has the right to elect for trial by jury in the Crown Court.
Click to expand...

It is, as far as I am aware, still an absolute right of any person to be tried by a jury of his peers. I would be happy to be corrected on that odd you can point me to the correct law or document that says that right has been curtailed in the UK. The document you quote does not.
 
Last edited:
Popsdosh, prosecutions have dropped by 40% over the last three years. Ant reasonable person would say that this means that the RSPCA has leant it's lessons about inappropriate cars, so why are you still so rabid on your attacks on them?

Current success rate they claim is 92%, so they are still prosecuting far fewer innocent people than the CPS is. Can I suggest that you need a new campaign?
 
ester said:
Interestingly my magistrate of many years colleague who sits once a week in Kent has entirely the opposite view of he RSPCA to ybcm, having time and time again seen them bring prosecutions against the most vulnerable in society and the rspca try and twist a case against them even if a vet has been involved, the animal was a recent abandonment taken in etc. They have gone in all strong handed, scared the people involved, confused and caused significant distress to the people while generating no real benefit to the animal.
Click to expand...

I assume your magistrate colleague and their fellow magistrates will have brought in a not guilty verdict or given a conditional/unconditional discharge as the penalty if the evidence meant they couldn't do that.

I have not seen this myself, as you know, but I have suggested one reason for this on other threads. At present, I believe, the RSPCA cannot keep possession of an abused animal unless the owner signs it over. If they won't do this, then the only way the RSPCA can avoid leaving the animal in place for further abuse is to prosecute the owner. Of course the vulnerable are going to number highly on the list of people whose animals get into a bad state and who will refuse to accept the condition their animals are in and give them up. The RSPCA are between a rock and a hard place on this one. Either way, they can't win.
 
Last edited:
Coming late to the debate. Someone I know had employed a Barrister at a cost of £4K which she did not have in order to defend herself against the RSPCA. The RSPCA withdrew their case the day before it went to court. Friend wanted to have her day in court.

RSPCA rang her to say "Did she know her foal was lame (this on a Tuesday morning while she was at work)". "Yes she did the vet had seen it on Sunday and foal was receiving treatment." Because it was a Sunday call out the 'duty vet' visited. RSPCA knew this. They claimed the usual vet had not seen the foal and removed foal and dam from the field that day. Witnesses told the owner the mare and foal were chased around the field for 40mins, confirmed by Police Camera. They left the field gate open with other mares in the field.

On Wednesday the RSPCA contacted the owner that foal had been pts as if had a fractured fetlock!!! (Ran around for 40 mins with a broken leg???) The mare was returned with a full bag, loose in a trailer with her head out of the front window. A hand written note in the passport indicated that whilst in transit with her foal the mare had fallen in the horse box.

I wonder why the RSPCA withdrew their case? Imagine the stress and financial burden for the owner of the mare plus of course the loss of a foal who was being properly cared for.
 
I have to laugh at the suggestion that it is some sort of evidence of wrongdoing that lawyers refer to the RSPCA as having a persecution department. In Manchester Courts, it's common to hear CPS lawyers refer to themselves, jokingly, as the Crown Persecution Service.
 
Someone I know had employed a Barrister at a cost of £4K which she did not have in order to defend herself against the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

Did she know that she was entitled to represent herself and that the court would have given her every assistance on doing so?

She did not need to employ a barrister for such a simple case. The vast majority of defendants in Magistrates Courts are represented by a local solicitor who would have run rings around the suggestion that a foal broke its fetlock before being loaded when its mother fell over during the journey to remove it. Beyond reasonable doubt would never have been reached in the case you describe.

I hope she got a no win no fee lawyer to sue for the loss of the foal. Though if she left a limping foal out in a field for everyone to see, she might have struggled to win that case.

I'm glad to hear, after all the stories of the RSPCA failing to act, that they do actually act, and swiftly, in some cases!
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
Popsdosh, prosecutions have dropped by 40% over the last three years. Ant reasonable person would say that this means that the RSPCA has leant it's lessons about inappropriate cars, so why are you still so rabid on your attacks on them?

Current success rate they claim is 92%, so they are still prosecuting far fewer innocent people than the CPS is. Can I suggest that you need a new campaign?
Click to expand...

Convictions dropped by well over fifty percent in that time period ,think your reading the wrong figure and I know how much you like to get it right. Dont think I am 'Rabid' in my attacks on them for one moment. However I certainly feel that for whatever reason the RSPCA are very reluctant to work with the CPS and I certainly dont understand why although I have my suspicions and its to do with funding. The system appears to work very well in Scotland as an example. I dont need to campaign against the RSPCA they are making an excellent job of it themselves in the last few years,they used to be respected by the majority however that has been damaged by their behaviour , I hope for the animals sake they survive
 
ycbm said:
Popsdosh, prosecutions have dropped by 40% over the last three years. Ant reasonable person would say that this means that the RSPCA has leant it's lessons about inappropriate cars, so why are you still so rabid on your attacks on them?

Current success rate they claim is 92%, so they are still prosecuting far fewer innocent people than the CPS is. Can I suggest that you need a new campaign?
Click to expand...

Any not ant.

Cases not cars.

Its not it's.
 
the RSPCA are very reluctant to work with the CPS
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the CPS have absolutely no capacity available to work with the RSPCA.

And if I was the RSPCA, I too would be very reluctant to work with an organisation which is so desperately overstretched that it routinely loses cases because some vital piece of evidence has not made it into court.
 
Convictions dropped by well over fifty percent in that time period ,think your reading the wrong figure and I know how much you like to get it right.
Click to expand...

Even more reason to believe that the RSPCA has learnt its lessons and that you are fighting yesterday's battle with all your might.
 
You cannot compare the CPS to the RSPCA .
The CPS remit is that prosecutions have to be in the public interest .
The RSPCA takes prosecutions in its interest which is as it ought to be .
But that is of course is why it's not acceptable that they do the vast majority of the prosecutions in animal welfare cases.
 
I find the fact that the RSPCA will remove lame animals that are under veterinary care, very, very scary.

How many of us have had lameness issues with our horses? All of us? If it's not detrimental to the horse's recovery, I will still turnout lame animals, sometimes being out can actually help eg with an abscess or preventing stiffness. I don't think that anyone should feel that they have to keep lame animals in, just incase they are taken away if it's not the best course of action in their specific situation. What if the animal doesn't box rest well, or you have no stables?
 
ycbm said:
The document you point to is the guidance notes for Magistrates and District Judges when deciding whether an either way offence should be kept or sent to Crown.

It finishes with the paragraph:



It is, as far as I am aware, still an absolute right of any person to be tried by a jury of his peers. I would be happy to be corrected on that odd you can point me to the correct law or document that says that right has been curtailed in the UK. The document you quote does not.
Click to expand...

That right is only applicable in triable either way offences. It would just not be economically viable to let an individual invoke Crown proceedings and all of the additional expense they incur for say a £30 parking penalty.

"Summary offences
These are less serious cases such as motoring off ences, disorderly behaviour, TV licence payment evasion and minor assaults. They can only be dealt with in the magistrates’ court."

From the Sentencing guidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top