RSPCA called to account
http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2009/July2009/News310709/rspca.htm
RSPCA called to account
This week we report through two important articles on the work of the
RSPCA in recent years. Despite the commitment and good work throughout
the country by the local branches (which are not funded by the national
charity) the national charity focuses on public relations and
prosecutions to the extent that are several specialist lawyers in the UK
whose main case load is defending (usually successfully) those
individuals and small businesses taken to court by the RSPCA.
There are occasional high profile cases where there has been good cause
for concern and action but we have too much evidence of delay and
procrastination when animal abuse is reported and that ?easy option?
prosecutions are targeted by RSPCA inspectors.
One of those specialist lawyers to is Jonathan Rich, a barrister and
animal welfare specialist who was interviewed recently by Robert
Killick.
Life is of paramount importance!
OVER THE past twenty years Jonathan (?Joe?) Rich has defended well over
200 people - mainly farmers, huntsmen, kennel owners and dog breeders.
In 2007, he famously and successfully defended pet shop owner Simon
Gilbert three times. Joe recently acted for Paul Shotton, Labour?s
former deputy Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, and his wife Annette during their
successful appeal. He is recognised as a leading consumer specialist by
all the main legal directories.
RK: How do you think other people see you?
jr: As with most people, it probably depends who you ask. I?d like
people to think that I try my best for clients, and with a smile - no
matter how successfully they have been demonised by the time of the
trial. You might be surprised to learn that I have a good professional
relationship with several of the RSPCA?s lawyers. One of them even asked
me for a reference recently, which I was very happy to provide - and
wholeheartedly recommend them. On one occasion, after my client had been
given a discharge, the inspector-in-charge shook me warmly by the hand,
told me that everything she?s been told about me was not true and
thanked me for sorting out all the problems in the case. After another,
one of the RSPCA inspectors gave me a badge!
RK:Do you have a role model?
JR: My father - who I think I?ve actually come to respect even more
since his death than I did before. He was a gentle soul from a Quaker
family. In 1939 he volunteered for the Royal Engineers - my grandmother
insisted he must not fight. Frontline Stevedore, a BBC documentary,
featured him and his men being dive-bombed by Stukas as they unloaded
Churchill tanks for the battle of El Alamein. My grandmother was very
proud. I?d like to think we still live in the liberal democracy he
fought for, but sometimes I?m not so sure.
RK:What?s the best advice you?ve ever given a client?
JR: ?No one wins a fight, they just lose it to different extents? - I?ve
said this several times to clients as an aid to settlement, especially
in mediations. It almost always works - you can sometimes even see the
scales falling from their eyes. Settlement is a medium in which people
can often do more for each other than a court could ever order, but the
right settlement always needs to be fought for and won.
rk: What has been the most rewarding experience of your life so far?
JR: A bit of a clichE9, but unquestionably the two Sundays on which my
two young daughters were born. You probably mean my professional life,
though. If so, then it?s the third time that Simon Gilbert was acquitted
- although Paul Shotton?s case was a real achievement. We had to deal
with a lot of threats in both cases. Also, watching the BNP leaving the
public gallery during the appeal hearing in Shotton, when they realised
the RSPCA?s case was lost, gave all of us a great sense of satisfaction,
though. The case was a terrible battle.
RK:You?re a Tory Councillor - did that make representing Paul Shotton
interesting?
jr: I?ve done a lot of things for the Tories over the years, and I?m
still a Conservative Councillor. It certainly didn?t get in the way with
Paul. He did his homework and asked for me, which was nice. The fact
that I?m a Tory was certainly a talking point, though. Paul is a man for
whom, incidentally, I have an immense amount of respect. The BNP really
put him through the mill and it was a feature of the case that might
have been even bigger than it was. Paul is a man who deserves better
than that.
RK:In the Shotton case, the RSPCA?s sensational allegation that his
Labrador, Baron was emaciated and dehydrated and had been left outside
to die obviously got the story into the papers. When did you realise
that something was wrong and that the allegations were untrue?
JR:It?s not really my job to ?realise? or ?know? things, as such. Paul
was always, and rightly it turned out, insistent that the allegations
were untrue. It was my job to represent him in accordance with his
instructions. The biggest obstacle was clear evidence from an
experienced RSPCA vet who claimed he?d weighed Baron at 19kg. The
Shottons? own vet had weighed Baron at 30kg a few months before, so
Baron seemed to have lost a lot of weight. We had to allege that the
RSPCA vet was mistaken, but he gave all sorts of detail about how he?d
personally weighed Baron standing on his own scales. Nigel Weller, my
Solicitor, pressed the RSPCA for disclosure of the blood tests referred
to in the RSPCA vet?s evidence. The RSPCA?s vet claimed it was the
Shottons? vets who lost them.
We eventually got the bloods from the RSPCA just before the first trial.
They showed there was no dehydration or emaciation. On appeal, Nigel
Weller had Dr Udo Hetzel, the top veterinary pathologist at Liverpool
University, do a full post mortem. Incredibly embarrassing things for
the RSPCA came to light - Baron?s carcass weighed 29.6kg and he?d not
been fed for a day at the RSPCA vet?s surgery. Rather than drop the
case, the RSPCA threats of applications for wasted costs were made if Dr
Hetzel was called. You just can?t imagine the CPS doing that.
We did call Dr Hetzel. By the time he gave his evidence, the RSPCA?s vet
had seen the way things were going and confessed that he had not weighed
Baron at all. He claimed that he?d got the erroneous figure of 19kg from
his veterinary nurse - we had to get all this from the vet, not from the
RSPCA, though.
rk: That?s an amazing, but terrifying, story. Do you think the RSPCA
should be allowed to prosecute as they see fit or should there be some
control by the CPS as suggested by MPs like Roger Gale and Frank Field?
JR:There should. These cases are just two of many examples. The RSPCA
spends the best part of A310,000,000 a year on its private prosecutions.
This is money that is being diverted from what the people think that the
RSPCA do. I don?t think the RSPCA will ever stop prosecuting people and
hand their files to the CPS, like the Scottish SPCA has to, and does
very successfully. It?s time to urgently amend the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act and stop the RSPCA from prosecuting. That act stopped the
police from prosecuting and made them to refer all their files to the
CPS. Animal welfare charities should focus on animal welfare, not on
prosecutions.
The disgust which I have heard expressed for the RSPCA as a result of
what their prosecutions department is doing at the moment is terrifying.
It can?t be good for the long-term health of the charity, or the value
of its ?Freedom Food? brand.
rk: Disabled charities and pensioners? groups are obviously up in arms
about the RSPCA at the moment. Have members of the public really got
anything to worry about?
JR: If you do keep animals, then common decency dictates that you must
ensure they are properly looked after. If you do, then you?ll probably
be okay, unless you are in a ?high risk? group. Putting these to one
side, most problems with the RSPCA happen when people are too old, too
sick or too inexperienced to look after animals properly. Disability Now
did a huge piece last year on the impact of the RSPCA on pensioners and
the disabled. Rachel Hurst and Anna Bird, who know a lot about the
subject, contributed and said some very worrying things. RSPCA v Child C
case was a terrifying prosecution, and I agree with the remarks the
child?s barrister, Nick Tucker, made afterwards to the BBC?s File on 4.
The case that I did for Roberta Mitchell is a good example perhaps. She
was raided by the RSPCA and the police while she was spending her time
at her dying husband?s bedside. She was under terrible strain and I
could never see the CPS prosecuting her. Pat Seager?s case was a
disgrace. MPs like Frank Field and Roger Gale have done some very
powerful points to the BBC and elsewhere. Many others have voiced
similar concerns too.
RK:How many people have got to call for the RSPCA to stop prosecuting
before something is done?
JR:Something quite important happened recently - Chris Laurence, Chief
Veterinary Officer at the Dog?s Trust, joined the chorus calling for an
independent inquiry. Chris used to do the same job at the RSPCA, and I
think he knows a thing or two. The RSPCA is just too embedded in New
Labour, though. As everyone knows New Labour took A31.1m off the
Political Animal Lobby (PAL) to abolish hunting. PAL was chaired by
Richard Ryder, one of the fathers of the animal rights movement. Ryder
has been an RSPCA ruling Councillor for decades and he was also RSPCA
Chairman. Although there is no direct evidence that this money came from
the RSPCA there does not appear to be any other obvious source.
I do not think the present Government has the political will to protect
vulnerable people from private prosecutors. The RSPCA is the darling of
the Labour Animal Welfare Society (LAWS) and they wouldn?t permit such a
change either. Dianne Hayter, the Chair of Labour?s National Executive
Committee is elected onto the NEC by Socialist societies like LAWS. The
NEC is responsible for policy formulation and I just can?t see her
permitting such a policy change. There is no shortage of people on all
sides of the spectrum calling for it to happen. It would be a very
popular move indeed - Long Bingham recently observed that private
prosecutions are unknown in Scotland.
RK:Do you think that everyone who works for the RSPCA is an extremist?
JR :Absolutely not! The RSPCA?s problems stem from rigid dogma dictated
from on high. It might be controversial for me to say this but I have
always thought that the RSPCA?s foot-soldiers are generally pretty
reasonable and decent people. Most of those that work at RSPCA
Headquarters are pretty sensible too. When inspectors make mistakes,
they are often young people thrown in at the deep end, trying to do a
difficult job well. Many of them do not believe in animal rights.
The RSPCA certainly has had some extreme policies and its share of
extremists. Its declaration in favour of animal rights was highly
controversial, but it has had to formally drop that because it?s a
political, not a charitable objective. Every organisation has its share
of oddballs. The RSPCA is perhaps a natural place to work for people who
want animals? rights.
RK: You believe passionately in ?animal welfare?, but speak and campaign
against ?animal rights?. What?s the difference?
JR: They are complete opposites. Animal welfare is a charitable
objective - and what I, and the overwhelming majority of people, believe
in. It?s about ensuring the wellbeing of animals, including those used
to satisfy human needs. From companionship to sport, from food and
clothing to medical research, animals must not experience unnecessary
suffering and must have their basic needs - food, shelter and health -
fulfilled.
Animal rights philosophy, on the other hand, rejects all animal use, no
matter how humane. It?s a political objective, which the RSPCA recently
had to formally drop for fear of losing its charitable status. Richard
Ryder?s classic dictum, ?all animals that feel pain deserve human
rights,? is a contradiction, but you can understand what he was trying
to say. He invented the concept of ?speciesism? - the animal equivalent
of racism. Animals are not property, so goes the theory, and must not be
used for food, clothing, research or as pets.
RK:If the RSPCA believes in rights for animals, what do you think of
reports that it kills so many healthy ones?
JR: The RSPCA is making it very hard for decent people to take rescue
dogs from them at the moment. It also has a ?euthanasia? policy, based
on the teachings of Richard Ryder and Peter Singer, who are leading
lights within both the animal rights movement and the RSPCA. Ryder is a
former RSPCA Chairman and remains a ruling Councillor. Peter Singer is
Vice-President. The policy means that people who do not ?euthanse?
animals that are in distress are putting themselves in danger of an
RSPCA private prosecution, unless their vet supervises very closely. It
also means that animals that stay in kennels too long get euthanased, as
they become impossible to adopt after a time. I?ve never really
understood how euthanasia was compatible with animal rights, but animal
rights activists generally advocate euthanasia for all animals - humans
included. For me, the sanctity of life is paramount.
RK: What about people with old dogs and cats?
JR: The Shotton case for me illustrates the fact that people with old
dogs and cats are in a ?high risk? group. Having an animal which is old,
or which has a long-standing illness, can be an expensive process; old
animals can get ill very quickly. In a civilised society, there should
be no need for hyper-vigilance, though. It is owners, not RSPCA
Inspectors, who are just ordinary members of the public too, who should
- subject to veterinary advice - decide whether animals live or die.
RK:You refer to RSPCA inspectors as ?ordinary members of the public?. Do
you think it is misleading for them to call themselves inspectors?
JR:Yes, I think it is quite misleading - especially when they wear
police-style uniforms. There was a very interesting article in the
Sunday Times about this issue a year or so ago. The RSPCA is, contrary
to appearances, a private organisation. Some people are terrified of the
RSPCA, and there is absolutely no need to be. No RSPCA employee, so far
as I am aware, has any special powers or is even an inspector for the
purposes of the Animal Welfare Act. Indeed, if they are, I want to know
about it! The title ?RSPCA Inspector? is just a job title, given to an
RSPCA employee working for the inspectorate department when they finish
their twelve weeks of training.
The society gives some of its more senior employees even more impressive
sounding titles: ?Chief Superintendent? and the like. However, they are
all just job titles; it?s not like the police - RSPCA inspectors are not
even constables. To think otherwise is a natural mistake to make. One
problem which is regularly encountered is a police officer who thinks
that the RSPCA is some sort of agency, or that its employees somehow
have more powers than ordinary members of the public. If a police
officer tells you, or behaves as if the RSPCA is an agency or has
special powers, then that policeman needs to be corrected.
Paul and Annette Shotton were both arrested by the police at the request
of the RSPCA. In fact, I?ve had several clients - perhaps the best known
of them was Craig Sargent - who were arrested purely because of an RSPCA
request that this occur. Paul was arrested while preparing to meet war
veterans with his local MP; Annette was arrested at work. The RSPCA were
waiting at the police station to interview them but it was not a police
case.
RK:How should people behave towards employees of the RSPCA, then?
JR: If you treat all people with respect, including RSPCA personnel,
then you won?t go far wrong. I tell people to treat them like a Police
Community Support Officer. Bear in mind, though that PCSOs have some
powers and that there is no proper complaints procedure for RSPCA
employees. The RSPCA have to earn your respect and trust, too. They are
not your friends, although they often claim to be ?trying to help?. Do
not sign anything they give you without legal advice. If you feel that
you must sign something, then for goodness sake, read it first!
RK:You speak about people with old animals being in a ?high risk? group
- are there any ?high risk? groups?
JR: Yes. In my view, kennels, catteries and farms which are not
affiliated to the RSPCA or its Freedom Food scheme are at ?high risk?.
This is not an exhaustive list. If you are breeding or dealing in
animals as a hobby or for a living then you are at risk - especially if
the RSPCA is running a political campaign in the area. If you breed pets
for sale, or run a pet shop, then you will almost certainly know what it
is like to receive an ?unannounced visit? from the RSPCA.
RK:Talking about pet shops, did your experiences with Simon Gilbert
focus your views?
JR:I have represented a number of pet shop owners in litigation
involving the RSPCA - perhaps, as you say, most notably Simon Gilbert in
three cases. Pet shops owners are generally responsible and decent
people. Simon Gilbert is one of the most decent people that I have met.
What the media did to him was disgraceful. They put the heading ?Little
Pet Shop of Horrors? and a picture of Simon and his shop on the front
page of the local newspaper. Simon had to move his family to Ireland on
police advice in order to protect them from the consequent animal rights
activities. He was acquitted of everything three times. Judge Andrew
Collender QC was rightly very concerned about the way that the
prosecution had been handled.
The Pet Shops Act 1951 sets out the desirability of, and regime for,
properly run and licensed pet shops. We established that the RSPCA had
been running a political campaign to change the law for some time. In a
letter to all licensing authorities, which was disclosed in Simon?s
case, the RSPCA explained that it was against pet shops and invited
licensors to tighten up on the very high BVA standards. Making it hard
for an otherwise profitable trade to operate lawfully generates more
cash for unlawful and unethical operators.
As with drugs, people are willing to spend lots of money on the ?right?
dog. However, if pet shop owners operate like Simon Gilbert did -
keeping pets in superb conditions and ensuring the integrity of his
suppliers - then I think that the battle against puppy farmers will be
won. Sue Haslam, the top veterinary expert on welfare, described
conditions in Simon?s shop as, ?better than in most veterinary
surgeries.? Simon sadly gave up his shop after the third prosecution.
That was a victory for no one - other than unethical puppy farmers.
RK:What should someone do when the RSPCA arrive uninvited?
JR :This is a classic question - as you might imagine, I am asked it a
lot. There is, sadly, now no definitive answer to the ?unannounced
visit?. Although the RSPCA is a private organisation, the police and
other agencies may well be present these days. If it?s a big raid, the
press may be there too. Books have been written about what to do in this
type of situation. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 gives the police and
other agencies - but not the RSPCA, which is a private charity -
additional powers of entry.
The most important thing is not to panic. Don?t be intimidated, don?t do
anything stupid and don?t be drawn into any conversation. All of these
could be misunderstood and written up later in a way that might make you
look guilty. Do not under any circumstances agree to an ?interview? at
the scene without a specialist animal welfare lawyer present. Do not
sign or agree to anything, do not allow the RSPCA to take any animals
away unless it is lawfully seized by someone with the power to do this
(e.g. a policeman).
RK:What if it?s just the RSPCA - no police, DEFRA or trading standards?
JR: A little bit of preparation helps. If you?ve got an animal, then you
will have identified a vet already, but it is worth getting the mobile
number of a specialist animal lawyer, or failing that the Self Help
Group*, just in case. The RSPCA can?t enter any property by themselves
so, when they get there, I think that the best general response is to
ask them why they are there, listen to the response and then simply ask
them to wait outside your property for a moment. If they do, then speak
to your lawyers, and your vets - follow the advice you are given by
them.
Your vet will want to speak to the RSPCA to try to find out why they are
there. Your lawyers will probably want to speak to the RSPCA on the
telephone. It is likely, unless there is a genuinely urgent reason for
the ?unannounced visit?, that the lawyers will suggest that they should
leave. Your vet will want to make sure that the reasons why the RSPCA
say that they have attended is investigated quickly. This will protect
you, should matters go further. Always remember that the RSPCA is a
private organisation and, as such, has no powers at all. Its employees
are ordinary members of the public, working for a private charity. Be
blind to the police-style uniforms and manner.
Get on the phone to as many sensible friends of yours as you can and ask
them to come over. If you have a video camera, then turn it on
immediately and keep taping until the RSPCA have left. Start an
organised event diary, taking note of names and numbers. From that point
on, take careful notes of times and dates of visit and telephone calls.
You must try to note what is said, especially if there is a danger of it
not being properly taped. Photograph and video the animals concerned.
If your vet does not attend the scene immediately, you get the animals
to your vet for a clean bill of health. The fact that you have a vet
should prevent any animal from being seized. District Judge Browning was
very unhappy indeed when the RSPCA seized Martin and Gina Griffin?s
horse while their vet was present and protesting. I doubt whether that
mistake will be made again for a bit.
RK:Is being an animal welfare lawyer as badly-paid as everyone says?
JR: The pay is appalling for the defence and it?s really tough and
demanding work. The daily rate for appearing in court on Legal Aid is
just A3175 a day, even in the Crown Court. Out of that we have to pay
all our expenses - travel, hotels, books, copying, clerks and chambers.
Only four or five specialist welfare barristers still do any defence
work now. However, if you are still in chambers and prosecuting for the
CPS, it?s not much better, though.
This is not the case for prosecutors. I understand from one of my
Solicitors that in a recent case the prosecuting barrister is on A35,500
a day. I did a case myself recently where a junior barrister was on
A33,500 a day. That was twenty times as much as I was on.
The Australian experience shows that this may not last, however. The
sort of money that the RSPCA in Australia pays its barristers and vets
was exposed in Ruth Downey?s case last month. The fees there were mind-
numbing - and the expenses paid included the charter of a private plane!
The court was, rightly, furious. MPs over there are on the case.
* http://the-shg.org/selfhelp.htm is the web site of the Self Help Group
devoted to defending those targeted by the RSPCA and providing advice.
They inform the public aware of their rights, and can provide names of
solicitors who are experts in animal law, and of vets and other expert
witnesses who are prepared to appear against the RSPCA.
Next week : one family?s fight against the RSPCA
--
Fenris
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
SHG
http://the-shg.org
RSPCA Injustice Blog
http://www.rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/
date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 23:12:10 +0100
author: Fenris
|
