RSPCA should be stripped of prosecution powers say MP'

[ester]

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.

.

yes of course, not guilty verdict for the most recent one I remember, involving an ex street cat and an elderly lady. He said in the many years he has been doing it he hasn't had an RSPCA case that didn't feel like badly handled unnecessary victimisation of a vulnerable person so it interesting that in a different area your experiences have been so different.

 

[ester]

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!

But the question has to be asked why? Why do they act on cases like that where they have been informed that the vet has been yet leave the likes of carrot and spud in a field as 'just old'?

 

[ycbm]

.....

 

[ycbm]

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.

Apologies, I accept your correction.

 

[minesadouble]

Apologies, I accept your correction.

Thank you ycbm - and I don't mean that facetiously in any way, very gracious.

What I don't entirely understand, which someone may be able to clear up;-

Whenever this argument comes up, i.e. Stripping the RSPCA of their 'powers to prosecute' people will always come on and say they have no additional powers than any other individual to bring a private prosecution. So......if that is the case what poets exactly are we taking away from them?

With reference to the original argument I think ALL cases should be in the public interest. I am not a fan of the RSPCA so may be biased but I do sometimes struggle to understand why they seem to turn a blind eye in some situations and then rabidly pursue in others which look very similar to me.

 

[ycbm]

I think it's fairly clear from responses here that there are wildly differing actions by Field Officers depending on where in the country you are. Imo that needs to be stopped straight away.

It's a complete scandal that there is no independent complaints function and that needs addressing immediately.

I'm open to the suggestion that the uniform should be toned down.

I think it would help a great deal of the RSPCA were actually given an EXTRA power, to seize and retain abused animals without prosecuting vulnerable people. Subject to application to a court, of course.

I would like prosecutions taken on by the CPS but I don't see budgets allowing that to happen. And I wouldn't like to see the guilty escape convictions that too often results from procedural or administrative errors on the part of an overstretched CPS. (I've been in court and had guilty people walk out 'not guilty' just because someone lost a DVD. It drove me crazy! Though my most annoying one was a drunk driver where the police surgeon had let a hospital doctor take the blood sample, making it inadmissible as evidence.)

From what I'm reading, the organization has already improved a lot, and some more changes could well see it fit for purpose.

PS I hate finding out I'm wrong but I hope I always admit it thanks for your comment.

 

[YorksG]

I think it's fairly clear from responses here that there are wildly differing actions by Field Officers depending on where in the country you are. Imo that needs to be stopped straight away.

It's a complete scandal that there is no independent complaints function and that needs addressing immediately.

I'm open to the suggestion that the uniform should be toned down.

I think it would help a great deal of the RSPCA were actually given an EXTRA power, to seize and retain abused animals without prosecuting vulnerable people. Subject to application to a court, of course.

I would like prosecutions taken on by the CPS but I don't see budgets allowing that to happen. And I wouldn't like to see the guilty escape convictions that too often results from procedural or administrative errors on the part of an overstretched CPS. (I've been in court and had guilty people walk out 'not guilty' just because someone lost a DVD. It drove me crazy! Though my most annoying one was a drunk driver where the police surgeon had let a hospital doctor take the blood sample, making it inadmissible as evidence.)

From what I'm reading, the organization has already improved a lot, and some more changes could well see it fit for purpose.

PS I hate finding out I'm wrong but I hope I always admit it thanks for your comment.

Good grief, if the evidence of the different manner the organisation works in different places doesn't convince owners that MORE powers should be given to the RSPCA, then I am astounded! The idea of them being given any right of entry to remove animals is beyond anything i would wish to see. They currenty have no right to enter your property, although they do appear to suggest otherwise, the police may enter, with a warrant obtained from a magistrate or a district judge and in the case of animal neglect/cruelty a vet should be in attendance. This is as it should be IMO, no-one has the right to enter a private home, without a warrant obtained after evidence has been tested. Society deems that everyone, including vulnerable adults, those with mental health problems and families with children will not have their property entered except with a warrant executed by the police, to decide that this should be different in cases of suspected animal abuse/neglect, when there is a perfectly proper mechanism in place, which could be used, is perverse imo

 

[ycbm]

I think you've misunderstood me. The powers of seizure should remain with the Police as now. But, imo, if on investigation the RSPCA decide the abuser is a vulnerable person, then they should be able to permanently remove the animal(s) from the abuse, with court permission, without launching a prosecution.

 

[YorksG]

I think you've misunderstood me. The powers of seizure should remain with the Police as now. But, imo, if on investigation the RSPCA decide the abuser is a vulnerable person, then they should be able to permanently remove the animal(s) from the abuse, with court permission, without launching a prosecution.

The RSPCA are not, in anyway, qualified to decide who is vulnerable and who is not. There are, set out in law, methods of determining peoples capacity to make decions, this should be followed by any organisation with any interaction with people who may be considered to be vulnerable. Best Interest Assessors and mental capacity advocates are already in place and can be requested to make those assessments and representations. It would, however, cost the RSPCA, or any other prosecutory body, to employ those methods. To allow them to seize animals with no indpendent oversite, would be a gross breach of common law and imo bring the whole system into question and disrepute.

 

[ycbm]

I'm obviously not explaining this very well. I thought it was clear that I believe animals should only be permanently removed from the keeper with the oversight of a court.

 

[YorksG]

I'm obviously not explaining this very well. I thought it was clear that I believe animals should only be permanently removed from the keeper with the oversight of a court.

In that case why would you expect the RSPCA to determine vulnerability? If they are to apply to a court for permission to seize animals, who would pay for any rebuttal evidence to be presented? All current agencies who apply to enter property, never mind remove people or objects from said property, are state employed, with recognized methods of complaints and abilities to appeal, such as first tier tribunals or Court of Protection.

 

[ycbm]

I don't know yorksg. Can you make a suggestion how the RSPCA can make sure animals don't get returned to abusive but vulnerable owners without prosecuting them if they refuse to sign them over?

 

[YorksG]

I don't know yorksg. Can you make a suggestion how the RSPCA can make sure animals don't get returned to abusive but vulnerable owners without prosecuting them if they refuse to sign them over?

I would not leave it to a charity to do this, especially one without any independent oversight or independent complaints process.

 

[ycbm]

So, given that prosecution is unlikely to be removed from the RSPCA, would you prefer them to prosecute mentally ill people, or return their animals to them to suffer abuse if they will not sign them over?

 

[Alec Swan]

Returning to the opening post, I receive regular Countryside Alliance updates, and found this article by Tim Bonner, to be useful;

We have long argued that the RSPCA’s roles as investigator, political campaigner and fundraiser are incompatible with that of an independent prosecutor. When the RSPCA had complete support across the community this anomaly could be ignored. As, however, it has developed its political campaigning role the conflict between that work and its prosecuting function has become unsustainable. Even if it is making objective prosecuting decisions there will always be questions about its motivation.

By voluntarily withdrawing from bringing cases against farmers and hunts, as it did earlier this year, the RSPCA has already accepted that it does not need to prosecute to protect animal welfare. In Scotland, where the RSPCA’s sister organisation the SSPCA does not prosecute, there is no evidence that animal welfare cases are dealt with less effectively than in England and Wales.

The RSPCA has a vital role in investigating animal cruelty and holding those agencies which have a statutory duty to prosecute welfare offences to account. The evidence put before MPs, however, made it quite clear that there is no justification for the RSPCA continuing with its historic and outdated private prosecution function.

Unsurprisingly the RSPCA is resisting what would be a significant change for an organisation which resisted the move away from private prosecutions which all other non-statutory organisations made when the Crown Prosecution Service was created in 1985. The tide, however, has turned and the future cannot be an unaccountable campaigning organisation making thousands of prosecuting decisions.

There is no question of ‘stripping powers’ from the RSPCA as some media, and even the Society itself, has suggested. The EFRA committee did not recommend that, partly because the RSPCA has no ‘powers’ to remove. Only the RSPCA can make the decision to withdraw from the private prosecutions that it has been pursuing.

We are very confident that the Crown Prosecution Service will step up and prosecute those cases that the RSPCA investigates, it has a statutory duty to do so and the total cost of current RSPCA prosecutions amounts to less than 1% of the total CPS budget. There is no excuse for the current situation to continue and we firmly believe that by withdrawing from prosecuting the RSPCA will be protecting itself, the sometimes vulnerable people it prosecutes and, of course, the welfare of animals for which we all have a duty of care.

The simple fact is that with the rspca's apparent lack of a clear complaints procedure, and with there being no apparent judicial overseeing of their actions or conduct, except following a Court decision, so the conclusion drawn by most is that as a prosecuting body, they simply aren't fit for purpose. What other conclusions can the average and common-man draw?

That there are those, who with what appears to be blind-faith, continue to support the charity concerned, leaves me confused, at best!

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

So, given that prosecution is unlikely to be removed from the RSPCA, …….. ?

I take it that you intended to say 'likely'.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

I take it that you intended to say 'likely'.

Alec.

No Alec, they would have to give it up voluntarily, it can't be 'removed', I don't think. It's a right every single person and organisation in this country has. Stephen Lawrence's parents took a private prosecution against the men they believed to be his killers.

The question still remains whoever prosecutes. How do we make sure that animals aren't returned to be abused to people we don't consider should stand trial but who won't give up their animals?

 

[case895]

No Alec, they would have to give it up voluntarily, it can't be 'removed', I don't think. It's a right every single person and organisation in this country has. Stephen Lawrence's parents took a private prosecution against the men they believed to be his killers.

The Charity Commissioners can remove their charitable status if they are not acting properly. They need something significant like this to shock them.

 

[Goldenstar]

Of they could continue to take private prosecutions they would have the same rights as all of us .
But is it likely they would ,ATM they act like quasi NGO doing a bit of the states work for it once the state indicates it no longer wishes to have a quasi NGO acting like the animal police then a new way forward would be needed .
I thinks it's likely this would be a good thing for the state for the RSPCA and for welfare .
At the moment they pick and choose what they do with cases with no oversight and that's not in the best interests of justice .

 

[missmatch]

So, given that prosecution is unlikely to be removed from the RSPCA, would you prefer them to prosecute mentally ill people, or return their animals to them to suffer abuse if they will not sign them over?

What about the rspca helping the people? Actually protecting the animal and preventing the cruelty.
Most 'cruelty' cases are borne from neglect due to poverty, ill health, mental health issues, upbringing...
I remember years ago when they helped people with vet bills, flea and worm treatments and they would then randomly pop in to check all was well. Now it's straight to prosecution.
It's not an either either question. It's the approach. If the approach can be changed back to what it was set out to be then I believe the country would be firm advocates of the rspca.

 

[popsdosh]

No Alec, they would have to give it up voluntarily, it can't be 'removed', I don't think. It's a right every single person and organisation in this country has. Stephen Lawrence's parents took a private prosecution against the men they believed to be his killers.

The question still remains whoever prosecutes. How do we make sure that animals aren't returned to be abused to people we don't consider should stand trial but who won't give up their animals?

I have no issue with a separate body being set up to adjudicate on animals being removed. However I find the whole tenor of their prosecution statistics distasteful as to me that document does not do what it should however is a very obvious publicity document to help raise funds and this is where their purpose gets mixed and crosses the line.
I must admit I find also the comment about the CPS not having the budget to take over the work slightly misinformed as we have already established that RSPCA prosecutions are either funded from cost against those convicted or are indeed paid from central funds at no direct cost to the RSPCA.

 

[Goldenstar]

I don't know yorksg. Can you make a suggestion how the RSPCA can make sure animals don't get returned to abusive but vulnerable owners without prosecuting them if they refuse to sign them over?

Yes they take the animal in question in accordance with the law .
They keep good records .
They wait to be sued for the return of the animal ( which in the case of a confused old person is very unlikely to happen ).
If that happens they defend their actions in court .

 

[popsdosh]

Yes they take the animal in question in accordance with the law .
They keep good records .
They wait to be sued for the return of the animal ( which in the case of a confused old person is very unlikely to happen ).
If that happens they defend their actions in court .

There is no way they can take an animal legally without the owners consent ,they will themselves soon find themselves in the criminal courts. The only people by law that can remove an animal is a police officer with a warrant or by order of a court.

 

[Lizzie66]

Yes they take the animal in question in accordance with the law .
They keep good records .
They wait to be sued for the return of the animal ( which in the case of a confused old person is very unlikely to happen ).
If that happens they defend their actions in court .

There is no way they can take an animal legally without the owners consent ,they will themselves soon find themselves in the criminal courts. The only people by law that can remove an animal is a police officer with a warrant or by order of a court.

The RSPCA appear to be very good at giving the impression that they have the right to come and check on an animals welfare and people that don't think they have anything to hide will frequently let them. The RSPCA then inform you that your animal is being subject to cruelty and state that they are going to remove it or else they will have no alternative to arrest you. The animal is then seized and by the time the owner finds out they have been lied to the animal has already gone, it is then either rehomed or destroyed before the owner can get the RSPCA into court to return it.

In the eyes of the law pets are property and no account is taken of the persons emotional attachment to an animal, so even if the RSPCA are found to have acted in error the original owner is frequently left without their beloved pet.

These are I am sure isolated cases and the most horrific cases of animal cruelty are beyond any doubt, but there needs to be more done to try and support people when it more about lack of knowledge, lack of funds, lack of mobility etc

 

[Fenris]

There is no way they can take an animal legally without the owners consent ,they will themselves soon find themselves in the criminal courts. The only people by law that can remove an animal is a police officer with a warrant or by order of a court.

The only reason the police need a warrant is to gain entry. If someone has let them in, or the animal is not on private property then providing a vet is prepared to sign to say the animal is suffering or might go on to suffer if it is not removed then the police will seize and hand over to the RSPCA. The police remain responsible for everything that happens to the animal until it is signed over, returned to the owner or a court determines its future.

Once seized the RSPCA can make a S. 20 application to the Magistrates court to allow them to dispose of the animal. Because this is a civil application there is no legal aid available for the owner to defend the application.

If the application is successful there is no need for the RSPCA to go on to prosecute the criminal case unless they wish to. There have been cases where the Defendant has been found not guilty of all charges but has no animals left.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-to-sue-RSPCA-over-loss-of-their-animals.html

How would you feel if your animals disappeared, never to return? If you don't all fight to defend the rights of those who are vulnerable the very legislation you applaud can, and will be turned against you.

 

[Goldenstar]

There is no way they can take an animal legally without the owners consent ,they will themselves soon find themselves in the criminal courts. The only people by law that can remove an animal is a police officer with a warrant or by order of a court.

that's exactly want happens the RSPCA phone the police tell them what going what offence is being committed and they usually but not always attend and give you permission to remove or just tell you do it without them being there .

 

[Alec Swan]

I suppose that we have to consider the use of the word 'Rights' and then consider those which may oppose each other; the Owner's Rights and the Animal's Rights. We also need to consider which, if either, would take precedence over the other. Rightly or not, the Rights attached to Ownership are set in Law, whilst the question which surrounds the Rights of an Animal, aren't.

Generally, I suspect, the rspca having overwhelmed the person who they've visited, they don't legally remove the animal(s) concerned, but trade of the owner's ability to stay out of Court, if the subject of the investigation is handed over.

A while back now, but a chum of mine was approached by the rspca and asked if he'd take on a flock of sheep which they'd confiscated. The sheep, in truth, were pretty poor. He took the sheep on, turned them around and then the rspca sold them for slaughter and pocketed the sale price! I've given some thought to trying that ruse myself, it'd be a cheap flock of sheep, wouldn't it?!

Alec.

 

[Rollin]

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!

RSPCA vet saw the foal before it was removed and stated "it was weight bearing". I repeat the RSPCA withdrew their case the day before it should have gone to court. If a foal had a fracture how could it gallop around a field for 40 mins?

 

[popsdosh]

that's exactly want happens the RSPCA phone the police tell them what going what offence is being committed and they usually but not always attend and give you permission to remove or just tell you do it without them being there .

We all know they cant do that, the police would need to attend as the RSPCA has no way to access your property unless you let them and would be acting unlawfully otherwise. ONLY the police can remove an animal against your will and not the RSPCA acting on their behalf or a PCSO for that matter

 

[ycbm]

RSPCA vet saw the foal before it was removed and stated "it was weight bearing". I repeat the RSPCA withdrew their case the day before it should have gone to court. If a foal had a fracture how could it gallop around a field for 40 mins?

You have misread my post.