RSPCA should be be stripped of prosecution powers

[panoma1]

 

The RSPCA employ independent solicitors and barristers to take cases to court so the deliberate withholding evidence is extremely unlikely.

 

 

 

Rubbish! how can they be independent solicitors and barristers if the RSPB pay them to prosecute? If the RSPB "pay the piper" they "call the tune"

The RSPB don't pay solicitors and barristers to get justice........they pay them to convict those accused!

[oowee]

 

Rubbish! how can they be independent solicitors and barristers if the RSPB pay them to prosecute? If the RSPB "pay the piper" they "call the tune"

The RSPB don't pay solicitors and barristers to get justice........they pay them to convict those accused!

Surely not

[Kalahari]

All this, justice for animals is paramount. What about justice for humans? Or don't humans count in this brave new animal farm world?

 

David.

[Adge Cutler]

 

Rubbish! how can they be independent solicitors and barristers if the RSPB pay them to prosecute? If the RSPB "pay the piper" they "call the tune"

The RSPB don't pay solicitors and barristers to get justice........they pay them to convict those accused!

Of course they do... No Legal team.. Prosecution or Defence is going to work for nothing.

 

Its the man in the wig that calls the tune...the RSPCA is just a mechanism like the CPS for getting the accused in court.

[Adge Cutler]

All this, justice for animals is paramount. What about justice for humans? Or don't humans count in this brave new animal farm world?

 

David.

Not really relevant in this context David where animal cruelty is involved. If it were we wouldn't be signing a petition at the moment to prosecute those who inflict serous injury on Police animals ??

[UKPoacher]

Apologies, Isn't that what I said?

 

'Run'..........doesn't that mean prosecute?

 

The RSPCA investigate, decide whether to prosecute, if they decide to prosecute then they do so with their own prosecution team......ergo the RSPCA act as if they are the CPS on their own investigations..........that, I submit m'lud, is unacceptable as it is clearly a conflict of interests?

 

Maybe, but ultimately the Jury or Magistrates decide guilt So they aren't exactly executioners are they?

 

That said, there is a lot of sense in having cases referred to an independent prosecutor rather than run the whole show in house. The police bring prosecutions of cruelty via the CPS so why not the RSPCA? Their high success rate is possibly down to them cherry picking the dead cert cases to take to court, whereas the police are obliged to follow different rules.

 

As a matter of interest the RSPCA income last year was around £125 million and of that less than £5 is spent on prosecutions. What I find astonishing is how much the senior executives get paid. The CEO is on over £130K per year plus pension contributions and expenses. Probably a car chucked in as well. It's all right relying on volunteers to do the fund raising and take on some of the dirty work, but the executives don't go short of remuneration.

[panoma1]

 

 

Its the man in the wig that calls the tune...the RSPCA is just a mechanism like the CPS for getting the accused in court.

 

 

Not in a Jury trial they don't!

 

Nope wrong again I'm afraid..........the CPS are not like the RSPCA, the RSPCA are not independent from the investigation....the CPS are!

 

Adge are you female? I wonder if that's why right or wrong, you always try to get the last word? lol!

[panoma1]

 

Maybe, but ultimately the Jury or Magistrates decide guilt So they aren't exactly executioners are they?

 

That said, there is a lot of sense in having cases referred to an independent prosecutor rather than run the whole show in house. The police bring prosecutions of cruelty via the CPS so why not the RSPCA? Their high success rate is possibly down to them cherry picking the dead cert cases to take to court, whereas the police are obliged to follow different rules.

 

As a matter of interest the RSPCA income last year was around £125 million and of that less than £5 is spent on prosecutions. What I find astonishing is how much the senior executives get paid. The CEO is on over £130K per year plus pension contributions and expenses. Probably a car chucked in as well. It's all right relying on volunteers to do the fund raising and take on some of the dirty work, but the executives don't go short of remuneration.

 

But its not a question of guilt or innocence, or who decides.......its about who brings a criminal prosecution.......should it be the regulated Independent Crown Prosecution Service or unregulated private interests?

[Lloyd90]

On the whole I imagine the VAST MAJORITY of RSPCA workers do a good job, in tough circumstances with the genuine intention to do good! BUT ...

 

What about cases of RSPCA over stepping their powers ? Bullying people etc ?

 

With their pretend police uniforms and some misleading members of the public acting like they have power to enter property, seize animal and bully people into compliance?!

 

There was also that case of the bloke on THL forum who had his dog "seized" whilst he was out (aka they stole his dog) and when he challenged them to get it back they put it down and sent him a bag of bones 😳

 

Heard many stories off other lads saying they had their dogs back in very bad condition. Who prosecutes for animal cruelty when it's the RSPCA staff being neglectful ?

 

I get very concerned with organisations like this getting "too big for their boots".

[UKPoacher]

 

But its not a question of guilt or innocence, or who decides.......its about who brings a criminal prosecution.......should it be the regulated Independent Crown Prosecution Service or unregulated private interests?

Sorry. I quoted the wrong post. It should have been Stevo's post I was answering:

 

 

One organisation CAN NOT be allowed to be judge. Jury. And executioner.

 

Talk about giving them the power to justify there actions.

 

I agree with you. The RSPCA should not investigate AND prosecute.

[Kalahari]

Not really relevant in this context David where animal cruelty is involved. If it were we wouldn't be signing a petition at the moment to prosecute those who inflict serous injury on Police animals ??

There was me thinking justice should be paramount! Look it up.

 

David.

[Dr D]

I think this is a very interesting debate on due process. The ability to act as both the investigatory agency and prosecutorial decision maker on a criminal matter is something that our system was designed to guard against. Hence the clear lines between the police and cps. And yet, for some apparently unexplained reason, one registered charity has been allowed to act outside the normal boundaries that are there to help ensure the right to a fair trial. Even if the body in question was doing the most spectacular job imaginable the conflation of investigation and prosecution test is a threat to civil liberties that should be of concern to us all. Sometimes parliamentary scrutiny is well founded. I think this is one such occasion.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Dr D

[AVB]

The CPS is a relatively new organisation though isn't it? Before it's existence the police also prosecuted.

 

In a private prosecution who takes on the case for the prosecution? I assume the person bringing the case in which case isn't it the same for the RSPCA?

[iano]

While the aim of protecting animals from cruelty is nobel, just and one that should be pursued, the fact that the RSPCA now acts, at times, as a vigilante group that 'raids' shelters, attacks members of the veterinary profession who don't sing to their tune and bury their targets under a flood of legal challenges (Heythrop Hunt anyone?) is worrying.

 

You don't have the CPS raiding brothels, you don't have the police running trials; this is for a reason.

 

If any other group tried to bring such actions through a sustained series of private prosecutions, they would be branded a nuisance of the courts and would probably need leave from the courts to bring an action.

 

Let them investigate alleged instances and prepare material for trial that is compatible with the law, but let the CPS run the trial (perhaps there is a way where the RSCPA can continue to fund their briefs, but blindly so that the decision for trial is taken by the CPS and the direction of the brief also set by the CPS.

[Dr D]

The CPS is a relatively new organisation though isn't it? Before it's existence the police also prosecuted.

 

In a private prosecution who takes on the case for the prosecution? I assume the person bringing the case in which case isn't it the same for the RSPCA?

Yes, individual police forces brought the prosecutions prior to a royal commission in 1978 which highlighted the deficiencies. This included the use of different standards and tests. Hence, the need for a single independent agency that maintains the same standard, I.e. the cps. Equality before the law is a pretty basic right. Edited November 16, 2016 by Dr D

[UKPoacher]

The CPS is a relatively new organisation though isn't it? Before it's existence the police also prosecuted.

 

In a private prosecution who takes on the case for the prosecution? I assume the person bringing the case in which case isn't it the same for the RSPCA?

 

Once a private prosecution has been laid at Magistrate's Court CPS have the right to take over the case and pursue or abandon the prosecution as they see fit.

[Adge Cutler]

 

 

Not in a Jury trial they don't!

 

Nope wrong again I'm afraid..........the CPS are not like the RSPCA, the RSPCA are not independent from the investigation....the CPS are!

 

Adge are you female? I wonder if that's why right or wrong, you always try to get the last word? lol!

I think your floundering now to be honest. Twisting my post to suit your purposes. I didn't say the RSPCA are independent from the investigation. I said both the aims of the RSPCA and the CPS are the same.... to gather sufficient evidence from whatever source and consider bringing a valid case to court where there is a better than good chance of a successful prosecution.

 

We will have to just agree to disagree.. no need to get all anal about it. You have your opinion of it. I have mine ..lets just leave it at that and not get acrimonious.

 

If you just respond to my post with an acceptance of this you can have the satisfaction of having the last word.

 

Over and out.

[Gordon R]

I think your floundering now to be honest. Twisting my post to suit your purposes. I didn't say the RSPCA are independent from the investigation. I said both the aims of the RSPCA and the CPS are the same.... to gather sufficient evidence from whatever source and consider bringing a valid case to court where there is a better than good chance of a successful prosecution.

 

 

 

Seriously flawed.

 

The Police gather evidence from all sources and submit a prosecution file to CPS who decide whether there is a case to answer and if they can run with it.

 

RSPCA investigate with a view to prosecution and then decide whether to prosecute. There is no segregation of investigation and prosecution - the Philips Principle.

 

As for them presenting all of the evidence - good or bad - I had to laugh.

[UKPoacher]

 

 

Seriously flawed.

 

The Police gather evidence from all sources and submit a prosecution file to CPS who decide whether there is a case to answer and if they can run with it.

 

RSPCA investigate with a view to prosecution and then decide whether to prosecute. There is no segregation of investigation and prosecution - the Philips Principle.

 

As for them presenting all of the evidence - good or bad - I had to laugh.

 

It is quite common for CPS to direct the investigation in as much as officers can submit files to CPS lawyers for advice during the investigation. CPS can advise on whether more enquiries, statements, etc need to be taken or whether the enquiry is unlikely to meet their criteria. CPS must be consulted before any charges can be brought with the exception of certain lower level cases where the Custody Sergeants can make a decision.

 

Regards the RSPCA, they are not obliged to refer anything to the CPS.

Edited November 16, 2016 by UKPoacher

[Gordon R]

UKPoacher - agreed. I am familiar with "Advice Files".

[del.gue]

I have been involved in several cases with the rspca.

A few years ago i was oic in a dog fighting case. We (police) were to prosecute for ownership of S1 dogs. The rspca were to take the animal welfare act side of the case. (Rspca cannot prosecute for dangerous dogs act offences).

Despite a very good and detailed report from one of their serious investigation officers, they decided not to proceed on their side of things. However, i put it all through the cps and got all the charges through and eventually guilty verdicts.

There is a lot of inconsistency in their investigations. As despite advice to them i saw 2 high profile cases thrown out of court costing the public purse many thousands of pounds.

In all my dealings with them i only met one of their inspectors who i had any any time for.

My beleif is that all their cases should be put before cps first.

[Gordon R]

I have no faith in the impartiality of the RSPCA. As for the 7 million + contributors knowing how the money was spent - it isn't even laughable.

[Adge Cutler]

 

 

Seriously flawed.

 

The Police gather evidence from all sources and submit a prosecution file to CPS who decide whether there is a case to answer and if they can run with it.

 

RSPCA investigate with a view to prosecution and then decide whether to prosecute. There is no segregation of investigation and prosecution - the Philips Principle.

 

As for them presenting all of the evidence - good or bad - I had to laugh.

No I don't want the last word honestly... but isn't that what I said.. ??

 

This is the RSPCA, s code of practice

 

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

Our approach to prosecution reflects the principles of The Code for Crown Prosecutors.

 

The Code is a public document issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that sets out the general principles to be applied when making decisions about prosecutions.

 

Read the Code in full at: www.cps.gov.uk

There are two stages to the Code.

1. Evidential test

   Is there sufficient evidence ‘to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant and on each charge’?

2. Public interest test

   Where there is enough evidence, is it in the public interest to prosecute?

If a case file does not meet these tests, then the RSPCA will not prosecute.

[UKPoacher]

UKPoacher - agreed. I am familiar with "Advice Files".

 

It used to involve a long queue down the corridor waiting your turn to present your file for the allotted 15 minute consultation. Now thankfully the paperwork can be safely e-mailed and they can take their time over the decision.

 

I have been involved in several cases with the rspca.

A few years ago i was oic in a dog fighting case. We (police) were to prosecute for ownership of S1 dogs. The rspca were to take the animal welfare act side of the case. (Rspca cannot prosecute for dangerous dogs act offences).

Despite a very good and detailed report from one of their serious investigation officers, they decided not to proceed on their side of things. However, i put it all through the cps and got all the charges through and eventually guilty verdicts.

There is a lot of inconsistency in their investigations. As despite advice to them i saw 2 high profile cases thrown out of court costing the public purse many thousands of pounds.

In all my dealings with them i only met one of their inspectors who i had any any time for.

My beleif is that all their cases should be put before cps first.

 

Back in the 1990's I was involved in several dog fighting cases and also some other wildlife crime with the RSPCA's special investigation team. At that time they were very professional, brave and dedicated. It seemed to all go Pete Tong about 12 years ago and now they only seem to be interested in high profile cases or getting at country sports people.

Edited November 16, 2016 by UKPoacher

[Kalahari]

The RSPCA would prosecute far fewer cases if they knew they would have to pay defence costs if they lost! At the moment they use the threat of costs to try and lever a guilty plea, knowing that often their costs come out of the public purse. This means that they aren't even carrying out a private prosecution in the true sense.

 

David.