Category: Animal Charities

Do we treat animal cruelty offenders too harshly?

Defense lawyers, cruelty prosecutions

Some defence lawyers believe we do.

Some UK lawyers appear on a crusade to curtail animal cruelty prosecutions in the UK. The rights and interests of the abused animals to get protection seem to get lost in attempts to make us feel sorry for the offenders. Some lawyers advertise themselves as specialist defence lawyers against the RSPCA and arguably publish a lot of misinformation to muddy the waters.

By advertising themselves as specialist defence lawyers it obviously provides them with clients and publicity in this niche market. The situation is similar in other countries such as Australia and the USA. They declare that they are there to defend you against the dastardly RSPCA, who they ironically accuse of using ‘specialist animal welfare prosecution lawyers’, when of course they are acting in the same way.

Extreme and lurid viewpoints.

At least one firm posts quite extreme and lurid viewpoints about the charity on their websites. One goes as far as to show an RSPCA sign dripping with blood stating the charity has ‘increasingly taken over the investigation and prosecution’ of animal cruelty in the UK and accuses their inspectors of being “sheep in wolves clothing“ by dressing in police style uniforms to dupe the public.

Website sign, RSPCA, blood
Some sections of the legal profession are obviously not fans of the R.S.P.C.A – from a law firms’ website.

They also cite the RSPCA of slaughtering 1000 healthy dogs and cats annually and state that ‘there are few prosecutions that cause more anxiety and trauma than RSPCA prosecutions’. 

Their advice to owners being investigated by the RSPCA is to rush their pet to a vet to get a report on its good condition, but of course this is mostly nonsensical as most neglect results from not visiting a vet in the first place. RSPCA Inspectors are hardly likely to waste their time chasing owners of healthy and well looked after pets as there is obviously no point.

Unfair to brand people who ill treat animals as criminals.

Some defence lawyers seem to feel the use of the Animal Welfare Act is too severe and  its application often controversial believing that it would be better to warn or educate owners rather than prosecute them. But this is mostly the line the RSPCA takes and prosecution is only used for severe cases. It also has to be remembered that they are not driving around looking for owners to pick on but responding to concerns by the public. The consensus among some is that offenders cannot be treated fairly in court due to emotive public reaction and media interest. There also seems an attitude that people who ill-treat animals to the point that they break the law, should not be branded as criminals, but rather as misguided souls only guilty of a misdemeanor at most and deserving of lenient treatment.

I obviously uphold everyone’s right to have a legal defence but not at the cost of removing the right to prosecute those that have committed an illegal act. The message at the moment seems that it is better to ignore acts of animal cruelty in respect of the law because at the end of the day animals do not really matter.

The point that appears overlooked by many is that the RSPCA cannot pursue a prosecution unless a vet confirms an animal has been cruelly treated beyond what is defensible, so realistically it is the veterinary surgeon who is instigating the prosecution and for good reason.

Another comment by certain sections of the legal profession is that ‘the RSPCA use their own vets and docile police officers’ to aid them. In fact they are mostly independent veterinary surgeons.

There are thankfully other Lawyers who feel different.

Luckily there are other groups to help counter these legal attitudes within the profession. The UK Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare (ALAW) has commendable ideals in trying to make more of their colleagues interested in animal protection and use a range of law-related techniques to secure better enforcement of existing protection laws, but many accuse them of furthering RSPCA goals.

There are similar groups elsewhere such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund in the USA operated by lawyers to ‘protect the lives and advance the interests of them [animals] through the legal system’ by filing high-impact lawsuits, providing free legal help, training prosecutors and pushing for stronger enforcement of State anti-cruelty laws and more humane treatment of animals in every corner of American lives.

Many suggest that the UK government prosecuting authority, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), should only pursue such cases, knowing full well that this would be the death knell of prosecuting people for animal cruelty in the UK. The CPS of course, like all other government authorities, has more pressing concerns and financial constraints and as the Police know well, it is a battle to get any case through them. So what chance a case of animal cruelty.

 

 

Paranoia over RSPCA powers.

What is wrong with our nation of animal lovers when we refuse to properly enforce and protect our animals?

In 2017 certain sections of the UK media reported, in their usual hysterical and overstated prose, that the RSPCA were in talks with the police and government seeking statutory powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to enforce the legislation without a police presence.This was deemed an outrageous idea by many of those who do not want animal welfare orientated people interfering in pursuits which involve suffering to animals.

Under English Law any person or organisation such as the RSPCA can bring a private prosecution against any law-breaker.

UK MP’s, Police chiefs and the Government at one point were all for trying to remove these mystical powers which didn’t exist in the first place as it is a long-established entitlement under English Law that any person or organisation can bring a private prosecution against any law-breaker under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act (POA) 1985, so to stop the RSPCA would mean stripping every one of this right.

The national police Chiefs’ Council wanted them to “step back,” and for a government agency to take over prosecutions. Luckily the government ignored all the outcry as they finally realised that anyone can pursue a private prosecution not just the RSPCA and the alternative would cost tax-payers too much.

Those perpetuating suffering keen to join the bandwagon

Many institutions and organisations involved in some way in perpetuating suffering are more than happy to join the bandwagon in stopping the RSPCA as they know it frees them to do what they want without fear of investigation.

Simon Hart, UK Member of Parliament and a former head of the Countryside Alliance, an organisation dedicated to blood sports, was quick to jump in and stir up the controversy and  commented: ‘The RSPCA is a welfare charity not a private police force and the development is “appalling”’.

Tim Bonner the chief executive of the same organisation added “The charity’s past record in this area would make it the last organisation on earth that you would want to grant powers of this nature to.”

The RSPCA is continually and unfairly vilified for the work they do because of a complete misunderstanding of their role, which makes me extremely angry and disappointed. Having been involved in law enforcement I know how difficult it is to help these poor animals with one hand tied behind your back, constantly trying to be politically correct and facing unfair criticism.

UK lags far behind in their powers to enforce animal welfare laws.

Although in the UK there is consternation at the thought of the RSPCA being given legal powers, most other comparable countries have no such hang-ups and in this respect we lag far behind. Humane Society and SPCA officers in countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand mostly have police powers and no one worries about them wearing police style uniforms.

New Zealand are way ahead of the game and the UK could learn a lot from them. The New Zealand SPCA is the only ‘approved organisation’ under their Animal Welfare Act 1999, so its 75 warranted Inspectors have exclusive powers to investigate and prosecute and have law enforcement training like the police and can issue fines and charge people.

They also run politically motivated campaigns for promoting law changes – all the things that anti-RSPCA lobbyists are keen to curtail in the UK. The main plus for ill-treated animals is that they have protectors exclusively with their interests at heart, fighting their corner, and pushing and deciding on prosecuting, uninfluenced by other interests.

Confusingly in Australia there is no national or Federal animal welfare act, but all eight states have laws which are enforced by varying state departments. Except for the Northern Territory, where the State authorities investigate and prosecute animal cruelty offenders, the SPCA inspectors have commendable powers to enter property and seize animals and evidence without police involvement, issue on the spot fines and warning notices and prosecute. In Western Australia the RSPCA, Department of parks and wildlife staff, police officers and local government officers all have powers as ‘general inspectors’ to enforce state animal law.

SPCA Inspectors are armed in many other countries.

In the USA, most Humane Society and SPCA officers have similar powers to the police and most of them are armed for protection. Government animal control agencies and sheriff officers also have powers and vets are encouraged to report cases of cruelty.

When I was a Humane Society inspector in the Bahamas, I was also a Royal Bahamian police officer which was extremely useful particularly when I needed ‘back up’, which was often!

The Federal Animal Welfare Act and other Federal Acts have little general anti-cruelty provision, but each State has its own cruelty and protection laws, often with higher penalties than the federal law and more stringent regulations. Since 2007 three-quarters of the States have much improved protection laws and there is apparently increasing support to regard cruelty as a felony and not a misdemeanor.

So what is all the panic about? Many misguided critics still want the RSPCA’s so-called ‘power of prosecution’ taken away from them, but if you are a true animal lover it’s about time that we got behind the RSPCA and for us to get in step with other countries around the world who see no problem in doing it right. Honestly, without the RSPCA no one would be interested in protecting our animals from cruelty – certainly not other animal charities who are too busy re-cycling unwanted pets.

Related articles:

Love them or hate them we need the RSPCA