RSPCA Heavily Criticised as Cruelty Case Collapses
Posted By Freelance Writers Date: 31/12 Posted Under: Animal Charities, Animal WelfareA lawyer has slammed the RSPCA siting “witness rehearsal” amongst a number of other accusations about the conduct of the anti animal cruelty organisation.
Solicitor Nigel Weller at Harwich Magistrates Court on Tuesday 11 December 2007 was defending in an RSPCA case. As a result of the District Judge’s concerns about what Mr Weller uncovered, the cruelty trial collapsed.
This was a private prosecution brought by the RSPCA against a lady experiencing her first taste of the legal system as a result of the RSPCA’s activities - was charged with offences of “cruelty” to her cats on the basis that she “failed to provide them with adequate nutrition” and “adequate veterinary care”.
In this case, the RSPCA’s vet had made two similar reports – which is often an indicator that something is not quite right. The first report made no reference to the animals either suffering unnecessarily or that there had been any failure to obtain veterinary treatment or adequate food. Following this report, the veterinary surgeon was given the pro-forma by the RSPCA and a second report followed.
In this second report, the same words in the pro forma appeared and it was asserted by the expert that the defendant had caused unnecessary suffering by failing to provide the animal with appropriate veterinary treatment and with adequate food.
The defence had tried to seek out, and claimed throughout the pre-trial procedure that they were entitled to see, documents provided to the RSPCA’s vet. Documents were finally disclosed as a result of court orders made during the trial. One such document appeared to the court to be a ‘pro-forma’ witness statement handed out by the RSPCA to its expert witnesses. This document purported to give the expert witness guidance as to the format and possible content of her report – indeed parts of the witness’s second report were direct quotes from this RSPCA generic “pro forma”.
The District Judge was very concerned by this matter, and also by the fact that the defence had been forced to cross-examine to uncover it during the hearing in front of him. Wording suggested by the RSPCA to its witness was couched in an extremely negative way. This amounted, the court found, to the rehearsal of a witness and, arguably, to “witness coaching”. Rehearsal and coaching of witnesses is well known to be unlawful in this country - a fact recently emphasised by the Court of Appeal R v Momodou & Limani.
The RSPCA’s document, for example, stated as follows:
“when you are of the opinion that the animals referred by you has suffered, you should qualify your opinion by explaining in layman’s terms who the animal has suffered, e.g. ‘it is my opinion, having taken into account the facts presented to me, the animal referred to as exhibit AB/1 has been caused unnecessary suffering by the person responsible for its care by them failing to provide the animal with veterinary treatment/adequate food’, etc”
It was argued by the defence, and accepted by the court, that even the most honest witness could be subliminally affected by reading such a document. The District Judge expressed his “grave concerns” about what had happened. There was no suggestion made by the defence in this case that the RSPCA’s expert witness had been dishonest, but the court decided that, in the light of the “pro forma” it would no longer be safe to give any weight to the whole of the RSPCA’s veterinary evidence. As a result the RSPCA was forced to offer no evidence - which it did reluctantly and with its usual lack of grace. The lady left Court, with the right result and her good character intact. However, this was only after months of worry about the case.
After the case, Defence Solicitor Nigel Weller said:
“This has been yet another difficult case, in which I have had to persuade the court to allow cross-examination about the way in which the RSPCA has prepared matters for trial. I am used to the RSPCA’s steadfast refusal to disclose obviously relevant documents, which the defence are entitled to have disclosed immediately. Putting to one side the question of ‘rehearsing’ witnesses, it is clear that any document, which a professional witness refers to, or relies upon, must be disclosed to the defence.
“In this case, I made numerous requests to the RSPCA’s Solicitors, but not even the expert witness ‘pro forma’ was disclosed. Indeed, this is a document, which I have never seen before in all of the cases I have done. It appears to be a generic document, which uses language that I recognise from experts in other cases. As recently as 7 December 2007, the RSPCA’s lawyers sent me a letter stating that ‘we have informed the District Judge that the prosecution are not serving any documentation prior to the commencement of the trial as you have requested’.
“Only cross-examination of the RSPCA’s vet uncovered the documents which had been given to her for the purposes of her second report. When it was uncovered, the District Judge rightly made very critical remarks about the ‘pro forma’ and indicated that he would not be prepared to give any weight to the RSPCA’s veterinary evidence.
“I am a specialist lawyer with a good knowledge of the RSPCA and its conduct of private prosecutions in particular. The RSPCA is a charity with no special powers, but it also has no complaints procedure or transparency. The handful of specialist animal welfare lawyers all know of the RSPCA’s conflicts with authorities and the courts. There is the infamous reported case of Attorney-General v RSPCA, where senior RSPCA employees were found by the Court of Appeal to have perverted the course of justice when disciplining an employee for allowing evidence to fall into the hands of defence lawyers, which assisted their clients’ case.
“My client and I cannot do anything to ensure that this awful experience does not happen to anyone else. There is a real danger that when other lawyers, not specialising in animal welfare law, take on cases against the RSPCA and take the RSPCA, and the evidence it presents, at face value. In my view, they should not do so.”
Author DetailsK9 Magazine welcomes submissions from freelance contributors. If you would like information on submitting dog related articles for publication see our webpage - See this author's webpage
Popularity: 18% [?]
Monday, December 31st, 2007 at 7:12 am and is filed under Animal Charities, Animal Welfare. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
What an utter disgrace! The RSPCA expects to proscute a pet owner who is alleged to have not cared for in this case cats correctly by using the legitimate force of the law. Sadly the RSPCA by this account seems to think that it is above the law and does not need to comply with due process and fail to present evidence to the defence?
Well done to the lawyer for exposing the questionable methods of the RSPCA in this case and also to the judge for throwing this case out too. If they had abided to the letter of the law, I wonder if the pet owner would have been found guilty?
Nobody not even the RSPCA is above the law, if they do not adhere to it how can anybody have faith in them as a reputable organisation when they seem to (according to this report) do their own thing.
It is either incompetence or arrogance, but whatever it was by losing the case, they have wasted ‘donation’ money from the public that could have been better used for other animal welfare issues.
Acting like this shows that they keep the ‘establishment’ moniker of Royal but feel they can do what they want and ignore due process of law.
I know that at the end of the day, the cry will be ‘help animals at all costs’ but if they had acted correctly, they may have obtained a prosecution by using the correct procedure?
Get a grip RSPCA and abide by the rule of the law!
I have always trusted that the RSPCA would be truthful in all matters. However, someone I know has had some real bad dealings with them just lately. The RSPCA and other organizations have told a mammoth heap of lies about him to the press ect…
You may have heard of the case about the Amersham so-called, horror farm? They told the press that there were 30+ dead and rotting animals in his yard - that’s all lies. They said the animals were starving yet failed to mention that he had on site, a stacks of haylage, plus haylage in each animal pen alone with fresh drinking water. This man rescued a horse just a week before the RSPCA came to his yard - That horse is poorly, but like I said, he rescued that himself - and he has proof of that. He has vet reports for all of his animals which were vetted just day before the so-called, “rescue operation” accured. One RSPCA officer took no notice of one of the indepentent vets on the scene, instead she and the RSPCA vet coupled up and said what they wanted to say.
The RSPCA have taken the family pets too - which includes horses, shetlands, and donkeys. They said these animals were starving, yet one of these pets the family have had for 16 years. Another is a 3 month old thriving donkey. If she and her mother were being starved of food and water then that baby would not have thrived from a starving mother. Also, two days after the RSPCA took the animals away, another donkey has given birth at a sanctuary - both mother and baby are doing well. Surely, if the mother was being starved it wouldn’t be possible for her to give birth to a healthy baby.
The press have published several pictures of some of the animals. One of those pictures was of a colt - No ribs showing, nothing. - any vet worth his salt would know this colt was fit and well. He looks a little rough because he had been in a field. And incase they don’t know - it does actually rain in amersham. Another picture was of the horse he rescued but no mention of this rescue has been published in the papers.
It does not take a scientist to figure out their inconstistancies. I gained access to that yard the following day and what I found was a shockingly different picture to that of which the RSPCA reported on live TV.
I haves poken to people who were present on wednesday and what they have told me will destroy any trust I have in the RSPCA an other official organizations.
I have pictures of some of the animals they removed from the farm - but these photoes are not in the newspapers.
I cannot believe how people can be allowed to do this to people.
Horsedevotee please contact the SHG about this - your evidence could be vital. You can contact either by phone 08700 72 66 89 or by e-mail shg@the-shg.org
Thank you for that information about the horses. I remember hearing on the news when the story broke an RSPCA rep called mark martin giving some comments. In his presentation something did not ring true. There was something not being said. I have come to be highly suspect of this organisation of late. Because of their immense size they have to keep having high profile cases to keep them in the minds of the easily misled public. They need to keep their 100 million pound coffers filled yearly. They dont really care about the animals they only care about publicity. I hope the truth of the horse theft gets out and into the newspapers. This disgraceful charity needs sorting out.
Have you all forgotten how many thousands of animals the Rspca help every year. There are very few other people in the country who do anything to help neglected and abused animals. Without them there would be so many animals living horific existences. Like everyone in the world they may make a few mistakes but they also carry out a huge amount of good work.
Amanda, no I haven’t forgotten about the thousands of animals the RSPCA help every year. I regularly work with RSPCA field officers, both ‘Inspectors’ and ACO’s and have a great respect for the majority of them. However I also see the other side of the coin, the National Charity HQ and it’s (mainly) non uniformed representatives. I see and hear the misrepresentations given out, the deliberate ignoring of organisations and individuals who don’t subscribe to their brand of ‘animal welfare’ and I see constantly the results of their political lobbying.
Apart from my day job, Animal Control & Welfare, I am also the Chairman of a small specialist animal sanctuary. The RSPCA fail to make clear that a large amount of the animals they ‘rescue’ are immediately passed on to organisations like mine when we have room or make room, who are also self funding.
My ex partner of ten years was an RSPCA officer and countless times she was in floods of tears at the end of a shift because she had brought home animals she had rescued but could not find anywhere to place them.
The RSPCA, national, has very few places for animals and rely on either the self funding local branches or small organisations like mine.
It is time that the Political RSPCA reverted to its roots and regained the trust of the populace.
why were there 32 dead horses on the site and why did 3 horses have to be immediately destroyed. i do not have a lot of time for the RSPCA but surely this evidence speaks for itself. To say that Gray ‘rescues’ horses is surely a lie, he sells them for the meat trade.