Dog Magazine dot net - free online dog magazineby K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers

Written and Supplied by SHG
(Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA)

Annette Nally has, following 5 days in court and the expenditure of tens of thousands of pounds, joined the list of highly-respectable Defendants to RSPCA private prosecutions who should “never have been prosecuted”. Her case was tried by Judge David Chinnery – its sole result being even more serious criticism of the RSPCA’s beleaguered Prosecutions Department, which the RSPCA says is led by Barrister Sally Case.

Judge Chinnery’s remarks, in particular, focussed on the RSPCA’s non-disclosure of very important documents which showed the case was misconceived. The Learned Judge found that the case had been been “punctuated with stops and starts due to the non-disclosure of documents by the [RSPCA] that should have in my opinion been disclosed to the defence from the outset”.

The RSPCA claimed that, because it was a private prosecutor which was (incredibly) “not used to bringing prosecutions”, it did not think that it needed to disclose documents which undermined the prosecution case in the same way as the CPS would have to.

Ernest Vine of the Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA said: “We at the SHG say that that is an incredible statement. The RSPCA brings hundreds, if not thousands, of prosecutions every year (we can’t say how many, because the RSPCA, which is a private organisation, is not required to, and will not, release up-to-date accurate information).”

“Annette Nally was, like most defendants to RSPCA prosecutions, a thoroughly decent woman. As Judge Chinnery rightly pointed out, her first taste of the courts was being prosecuted for cruelty to her pet dog. Holly, a German Shepherd dog, had been in Annette’s care for a very long time.”

“It was claimed by one RSPCA Inspector, on the infamous “unannounced visit” which Annette experienced, that Holly was in “lean condition”. Indeed, it was on this basis, and on the basis of allegedly untreated ear and bowel conditions, that the RSPCA claimed Annette was cruel. The RSPCA had to accept at trial that every one of Annette’s other animals were, and had always been, in excellent condition.”

“There were therefore strong parallels with last weeks’ judicial criticism of the RSPCA, by District Judge Philip Browning in Norwich, in RSPCA v Griffin”

Yet again in this case, the RSPCA’s actions following seizure of the dog, prevented documents which dramatically assisted the defence from being seen by the court and the defence until the trial was in full session. The undisclosed documents would have shown that Holly’s ears had not required any treatment at all after the RSPCA took her. How then could an omission on Annette’s part be proved, it might be asked.

When disclosure of these boarding records was required, the RSPCA disclosed the wrong ones.

The dog whose records were released was not Holly.

When Holly’s notes came through it became clear that there had been no treatment whatsoever for her ears. However, more than this, the routine wormers and broad-spectrum antibiotics, which the RSPCA’s vets claimed had been prescribed, had never once been recorded as having been provided to the dog! So much for Annette’s failure to provide this “necessary” treatment!

It was obviously very lucky that the mistake which the RSPCA claimed to have made in relation to the notes was eventually uncovered. However, it was too late for Holly. She died six months into her stay with the RSPCA. Annette was not told about this, and only found out five months after Holly’s death. She was, like so many animal owners who have had their animals taken away, not allowed to see her dog in the RSPCA’s “place of safety”. Annette is still waiting for Holly’s body to be returned to her so that she can lay her to rest.

Some important quotes from the Judge David Chinnery’s findings include:

(1) “I heard evidence from Miss Annette Nally and from Mr Colin Vogel [defence vet] who were both impressive witnesses but for different reasons … Mr Vogel gave impartial and impressive evidence. I am satisfied that you [Miss Nally] are an experienced animal owner and have cared for them for many years.”

(2) “I note that Miss Nally is a lady of good character which is never a defence in itself but it supports your credibility and means you are less likely to tell untruths … I believe Miss Nally’s evidence and that she would not commit any offence, least of all offences of this kind.”

(3) “I find as a fact that Holly was a German Shepherd dog and at the top end of the scale for her age, being around 14 years old … She had a temperature of 103, which went back down to 102.5. I accept that the increased temperature at seizure could well be due to the stresses of her removal. The teeth were not perfect, but she was an old dog. The ears were red and inflamed, but did not require any treatment at all from the RSPCA after seizure .”

(4) “The prosecution submit that the test of cruelty is purely objective and mens rea is not necessary. The defence do not accept this and I have been referred to various cases including RSPCA v Hall, RSPCA v Isaac, RSPCA v Peterssen and RSPCA v Hussey. On the evidence, the only concern that was obvious to Miss Nally was the bowel problem but even with careful monitoring little changed.”

(5) “I am in no way persuaded that during the summonses’ period or leading up to it that Holly has suffered. People do seek veterinary advice for all sorts of reasons but I cannot find any reason why Miss Nally should have.”

(6) “The summonses were not laid until two days before the six month expiry period. This case has been punctuated with stops and starts due to the non-disclosure of documents by the Prosecution that should have in my opinion been disclosed to the defence from the outset. I make no criticism of Mr Cave personally for this failing and thank him for his efforts in ensuring these documents were [eventually] disclosed [by the RSPCA] during the trial.”

Following the case, Annette Nally broke down in tears and was unable to speak. The good news for her is that she will not have to pay the tens of thousands of pounds of costs which the RSPCA ran up in prosecuting yet another ridiculous case.

Anne Kasica, from the SHG, said: “Annette is a kind and decent woman. It was, as it so often is, a pleasure to help another victim of the RSPCA in this case. So many people still do not find their way to the specialist lawyers, such as Jonathan Cairns, who we put Annette in touch with. No reasonable prosecutor would have made the serious claims against Annette that the RSPCA instructed its team of hardened specialists to make - albeit six months after the event. They then claimed that they were inexperienced prosecutors and did not know the rules on disclosure. I believe that, if you ask the prosecutor where he is this week, you will find that he is on yet another cruelty case.”

Ernest Vine, said: “It seems that the RSPCA’s team may have regrettably again lost sight of the duty to be fair to the defendant against whom it makes these grotesque allegations of cruelty. It would be helpful if Sally Case were to remind the lawyers (instructed by her Department at very great expense to the charity) of the heavy duty that all prosecutors in a civilised country have – to be fair.”

“If the RSPCA focussed more on fairness, and less on putting out press releases and trying to procure convictions against people like Annette, this country would be a nicer, and very much safer, place in which to care for animals.”

“Although the Judge made the right decision, no one – least of all Annette and Holly - can be said to be a “winner”.

The RSPCA, in response to the SHG criticism had this to say:

“SHG, a pressure group which regularly issues press releases about prosecutions brought by the RSPCA, has on this occasion criticised the Society for ‘non-disclosure’ of documents. There has been absolutely no deliberate attempt to hide information. The RSPCA can only provide documents when the solicitor/s acting for the defence have made clear what their line of defence will be and have asked for specific documents.

The RSPCA does not refuse to release up-to-date information about the number of prosecutions we take each year - far from it. We release an Annual Report and Review each year, and release such information as part of our annual Cruelty Statistics campaign, which is widely reported in the media. We also answer all media enquiries as openly as we can.

The RSPCA did not ‘have to accept at trial that every one of Annette’s other animals were…in good condition’ - we did not bring any charges in respect of these animals and their welfare was never disputed.”

Author Details
K9 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% [?]