# Cruelty Case Collapses



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*Press Release from Nigel Weller solicitors*
*RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES*​ 
*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*​ 
*30th December 2007*​ 
Another episode of RSPCA “witness rehearsal” was uncovered by defence Solicitor Nigel Weller at Harwich Magistrates Court on Tuesday 11 December 2007. As a result of the District Judge’s concerns about what Mr Weller uncovered, another RSPCA 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”*_​


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

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.​


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*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.*_​


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

_*“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’.*_​


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*“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.*


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*“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.*


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

_*“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.”*_​


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

*References*
*The Attorney General v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
**http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/The%20Attorney%20General%20v%20The%20Rspca.htm*
*or
**http://tinyurl.com/3d2q7a*​


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Sorry about the amount of posts, but apparently l could not make the post just one, it had to be several entries??

Rory Matier
PKL ; Home to Pro Keepers Alliance


----------



## Schip (Mar 31, 2007)

I'd lile to add a recent experience of a friend of mine in dogs whilst dealing with an RSPCA supported vet.

One of her small dogs had suffered an injury whilst out with the others on the yard from experience she was pretty sure said animal had broken its leg. She rushed to the vets with the dog and asked for it to be treated as an emergency due to the obvious pain it was in - the vet agreed the dog had indeed broken its leg but needed an X-ray to confirm what sort of break. This is where it became unreal as she'd left the house without her purse nothing unusual when in such a situation.

Vet the x-ray will cost X amount you will have to pay that before you leave the dog with us.
Client I haven't got my purse with me as I rushed out of the house with the dog sorry I'll bring you full payment when I come to collect the dog later.
Vet no madam that won't do you either pay in full now or leave with your dog!

Needless to say she had no choice but to leave and find another vet to treat the dog, which she duly did. 

2 days later the RSPCA were at her door pushing past her to get into see all the dogs - me I'd have put a 999 call in at that point but my friend is not as ermm 'stroppy' as me and allowed the inspector to check out the dogs. Turned out the VET had rung the RSPCA as he 'did' some work for them for court cases and he'd decided that she was unsuitable to own dogs as she'd allowed this one to suffer unnecessarily!!!! The RSPCA inspector was forceable escorted off her property by her rather large ex Army son when he arrived home to hear the vets claim especially as the VET was the one who REFUSED to treat the animal in need.

I always believed a vet took an oath same as medics to first do no harm yet there he was happily refusing to treat a very distressed animal AND then sent the RSPCA out with false aqusations - did he hope to be called as an expert witness and get an extra wage or what?


----------



## Crownan (Jan 6, 2007)

Dirty Tactics

What is the point in trying to convict people who arent really doing anything wrong when there are surely hundreds of cases where an animal cruelty conviction is almost 100% garunteed?


----------



## Iliria (Jan 19, 2007)

grrr! a friend of mine gets the rspca called out to her regularly because she rescues horses. ilph has vouched for her and its the same person who calls the rspca yet they still turn up.
but when we called them to puppies who were sleeping in their own crap with another 8 dogs and two ponies with hooves like ballet slippers they didnt turn up


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

Very interesting read. I am hoping this will see the a turnaround on the RSPCA's record of cases against, more often than not, innocent animal keepers who haven't actually done anything worthy of prsecution.

With regards to the RSPCA having no complaints procedure as stated by Mr Weller - are there any guidelines for complaints that could be put in place forcably by a judge or by the charities commission? I always thought that any publicly based company would have a complaints procedure or are all the RSPCA's cases not answerable to anyone who isn't happy with the way they deal with things?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

It is quite clear that they RSPCA do not have a complaints procedure, well the do – they simple ignore them. Below is a letter I wrote to the Chief Inspector of the RSPCA for my region, as yet he has not responded. 

In terms of the Charity Commission, apart from the fact it is an entirely useless and incompetent body, its only real concern is how a charity spends its money. The RSPCA operate above the Charity Commission and indeed the law, the latter only applies to other people – not the RSPCA. 



Date: 8th November, 2007



Dear Mr Williams,

Thank you for your letter dated 5th November. While I am a little disappointed that you have declined to respond in greater detail concerning RSPCA use of police facilities, I am not unduly surprised. Hopefully the Chief Constable of Hampshire will be more forthcoming. On further consideration of this issue I have also decided to raise the matter with ACPO as this is obviously a broader issue, not confined to Hampshire.

With regards to my query over complaints procedures, in my correspondence drafted 22nd October I stated:

_“I would, therefore, be grateful if you could forward me, without delay, the appropriate documentation and procedures for making such a complaint.”_

I am sorry you did not find this clear, so I will attempt to bring clarify to this matter. The RSPCA call themselves the animal police and present themselves as a law enforcement agency, therefore it would not be unreasonable to expect the RSPCA to be held accountable for their actions, as are police officers.

As you may be aware, the police take complaints against officers very seriously and have an open and transparent complaints procedure. Every police station makes readily available written information on how complains can be submitted, and what action complainants can expect to be taken. This is also available via the internet, for example Hampshire: http://www.hampshire.police.uk/Internet/contact/complaints.htm

In addition to this there is the Independent Police Complaints Commission http://www.ipcc.gov.uk who will independently, and robustly, investigate complaints. Unfortunately there appears to be no such open & transparent accountability for RSPCA. 

It is very clear that you did not investigate the complaint lodged against Ms Coleman by Mr & Mrs Bundy, but simply discarded it. The mere fact that you sought no further information from the Bundy’s, or other witness bears testament to this end. Regrettably, this has been my experience in a number of other complaints made against RSPCA employees over the years and is entirely unacceptable.

I now find myself in the position of requiring to lodge, with the RSPCA, a very serious complaint about the conduct and actions of Ms Coleman. I believe that it is entirely reasonable that before this complaint is lodged that I am given assurance, in writing, that it will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. I also believe that it is entirely reasonable that I request in writing the protocol used by the RSPCA to investigate such complaints. 

Yours sincerely,

C.J. Newman

cc David Bowles, head of External Affairs RSPCA.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

For the record here is the letter sent to the RSPCA 22nd October: 




Dear Mr Williams,

*Re: Mr & Mrs Bundy, XXXXX XXXXX, Southampton. *

I am in receipt of your letter dated 16th October 2007 addressed to the above. Please note that until an appropriate solicitor is appointed, I am representing Mr & Mrs Bundy as their agent and I would, therefore, be grateful if you would address all communications concerning Mr & Mrs Bundy to myself. Attached as Appendix 1 is written authorisation in this respect.

I note you wish to interview Mr & Mrs Bundy at Shirley Police station but the dates proposed are not convenient to myself or Mr & Mrs Bundy. Mr & Mrs Bundy are available on the 29th & 30th October between 9am and 12 Noon and any day of the week commencing 5th November, again between 9am and 12 Noon. I will also be attending as their agent. I would be grateful if you could confirm a date and time at your earliest convenience. Additionally, and for the sake of clarity, I would like to request under what auspice the RSPCA are permitted to use police facilities for interviewing in such matters?

Enclosed is a copy of my report concerning this matter, as submitted to FOCAS Appendix. 2. I have also enclosed a copy of all correspondence on this matter to Southampton City Council and other interested parties, Appendix.3. 

In addition to the above I would like to lodge with the RSPCA a formal complaint concerning the conduct of one of your employees, Ms C Coleman. I would, therefore, be grateful if you could forward me, without delay, the appropriate documentation and procedures for making such a complaint.

Yours sincerely,

C.J. Newman

Enclosed
App. 1 authorisation
App. 2 report to FOCAS
App. 3 correspondence


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

Thanks Chris.

How would the public go about pushing for the RSPCA to have an "answerable" body above them? I find it baffling, but not baffling if you get me! It baffles me that these people can get away with being above and beyond any repercussions for thier appalling behaviour but then doesn't baffle me as I know from minor research that the RSPCA often go above and beyond the proverbial joke!

How exactly would a legitimate complaints procedure work with the RSPCA as it is dealing with courts and legal things - I assume pretty much the same as the police force? Or would it happen, as usual, where the RSPCA pass the buck to the centre most local to the persons wishing to complain or to the individual officer who deals with the complainant?

I understand the charities commission works with regards to finances and little else but is there not a body who ensures that a "Royal" charity acts in a manner which is suitable for dealing with Her Majesty's public (is that how it would be worded ???)


----------



## Fixx (May 6, 2006)

brittone05 said:


> Thanks Chris.
> 
> How would the public go about pushing for the RSPCA to have an "answerable" body above them? I find it baffling, but not baffling if you get me! It baffles me that these people can get away with being above and beyond any repercussions for thier appalling behaviour but then doesn't baffle me as I know from minor research that the RSPCA often go above and beyond the proverbial joke!
> 
> ...


I think the only way the public could push for them to be accountable is to make the RSPCA an official body funded by the tax payer (like the Police, Councils etc.). As it is they are a private concern funded by private donations from Joe Public. Because of this there are no legitimate complaints procedures that would work against them other than a private prosecution by a memmber or members of the public (unless of course they broke the law whereby they would be prosecutable by the CPS if there was enough evidence to make a case).
As to the Royal bit, that is only applicable as a member of the Royal family acts as a patron for them, it does not imply that they are responsible to the Monarchy in any way or form.

I think.


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

Fixx said:


> other than a private prosecution by a memmber or members of the public


Does anyone have a break down of the costs involved in this?
Any muppet can say it will be expensive but few of us really know what the individual costs would be.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

reticulatus said:


> Does anyone have a break down of the costs involved in this?
> Any muppet can say it will be expensive but few of us really know what the individual costs would be.


It is not so much as such like this - but more like this:

You could take the RSPCA to court on whatever - and yes you could win in a prosecution.

But what happens if you lose?

If in example you were to take them to court on an issue like neglect or cruelty?

So you bring in your witnesses of expertise, and then the RSPCA bring in their entire networking team - expert witnesses and barristers, lawyers the lot.

If you lose, you have to pay your court costs and theirs - and theirs could amount to in simple figures of say £100K.

Now if they prosecute you and they lose, they still do not have to pay their court costs due to a loop hole in the charity system, but you will still have to pay yours.

Make sense anybody??

Rory


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

Fixx said:


> I think the only way the public could push for them to be accountable is to make the RSPCA an official body funded by the tax payer (like the Police, Councils etc.). As it is they are a private concern funded by private donations from Joe Public. Because of this there are no legitimate complaints procedures that would work against them other than a private prosecution by a memmber or members of the public (unless of course they broke the law whereby they would be prosecutable by the CPS if there was enough evidence to make a case).
> As to the Royal bit, that is only applicable as a member of the Royal family acts as a patron for them, it does not imply that they are responsible to the Monarchy in any way or form.
> 
> I think.


Who is thier Royal patron? From what I understand, they were not ever preceded by a Royal patron but given the Royal title by Queen Victoria as a gesture for the good work they once did for animal welfare.

I understand that from a legal point, public members may push a prosecution against the RSPCA which is funded by themselves. As this can only be done if an illegal act has taken place, what other chance could the public face other than the fact the RSPCA have flouted the law by having witnesses and experts in "conferences" discussing individual cases before they reach court. If this is proven out in court against the RSPCA then I would be excessiveley interested in following the outcome of cases brought against them -what would be the next thing "RSPCA prosecution cases, no win no fee"!!!!!

Dan - with regard to costs, I wouldn't even like to imagine. If you think what a standard court case for theft by MR X of the public against Mr Y of the corner shop costs the tax payer, then the same would more than likely be applicable in a Mrs Z vs RSPCA case. The costings alone ofr expert witnesses would be a fair whack - and we all know that solicitors earn a good wage. My hubby's business solicitor charges £13.50 for a "unit" which works out at being a 6 minute period. And in all fairness, our solicitor is amazingly good but even he would not take on such a mammoth task!

I would say with a straight forward case with little or no twists, Rory's estimate wouldn't be far off right.


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

Not to point out the obvious here but i did say any muppet could say it would be expensive.

I was just looking for some kind of realistic breakdown of what kind of team would be needed and what sort of money they'd be looking at for each team member.

For as long as i can remember the "dream" has always been to take the RSPCA to court and show them for what they are. But here we are a decade later and still no closer to that. 

Meanwhile, the RSPCA have proceeded to get themselves comfy in just about every place they want to be. 
Let's be serious here, does anyone REALLY think that a multi-million pound operation gives a flying f**k about losing one court case that isn't going to be advertised in a manner that will stop anyone donating to them?

This really isn't a rant about us not doing anything, just an observation.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

You raise a valid question Dan. 

And both you and l know that the figure brought up to take the RSPCA down was in the million.

We just do not have that money.

But more importantly, it is not so much l feel about bringng down the RSPCA local centres, but bringing down the leading banner.

But worse than that, who do we put into their place?

It is not an easy question to answer l am afraid.

I had/have an issue l am dealing with now, and there is no one to call in but the RSPCA and to do that would place another nail in the industrys coffin - yet who do we have??

NO One!

So we bring them down, then what??

R


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

Surely it doesn't take more than 10 years for a group of people covering so many aspects of working life to come up with an answer?

No matter how you look at it you have 2 options:
You can moan and whinge about apathy and being penniless
OR
You can do anything and everything in your power to change what ever you can.

The above doesn't just apply to Rory but to everyone reading.


----------



## brittone05 (Sep 29, 2006)

I agree Dan but you must remember that most of us can only do what is within our own power to help.

The kind of cash it would take to launch a campaign against the RSPCA on the level realistically needed is way beyond what anyone here, I imagine, could manage.

I would give my left arm to do more, and I say that from the heart as animals are a very large part of both mine and my children's lives. What more can I do? I am a stay at home mum with 2 young kids, a reasonable income yes but have the same bills anyone else does and the expenses of running a business also. 

Other than campaigning and offering support tot he bodies who are working hard, what else can I do as an individual? I don't ask in a theoretical manner but pose a genuine question as I would do more if I could. This is not forgetting of course that I already work research and other aspects that nI can be of use on for PKL and offer my help in any angle I feel I can have a valuable input into.


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

I'm not here to argue anything so bare with me.

If you take ANY of the popular forums over the last couple of years and add them all together, taking £1 per month for 10 years would give you £300,000 without interest. That's a very rough figure but you get the idea of the funds available if someone capable could tap into it.

Why are you not looking at where the funds currently donated by the trade goes? 

The hobby IS small in the real world but it is also pretty well off. 

I've been asked "so what do we do" hundreds of times all over the place and i don't think i often ignore the question. My thoughts on what should be done are available just about most places.
At the end of the day though it is always put down to other people to solve the questions. When you (as a hobby) are able to ask yourselves instead of those around you then you'll be a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

brittone05 said:


> Thanks Chris.
> 
> How would the public go about pushing for the RSPCA to have an "answerable" body above them? I find it baffling, but not baffling if you get me! It baffles me that these people can get away with being above and beyond any repercussions for thier appalling behaviour but then doesn't baffle me as I know from minor research that the RSPCA often go above and beyond the proverbial joke!
> 
> ...


The only body that can make the RSPCA accountable for the actions is the government. Theoretically, government is accountable to those that elect it - you and I (well not me as I don’t vote). Therefore if enough people raise concern about the RSPCA, by writing to there MP’s or perhaps the government, then perhaps something would happen.

Unfortunately, this is all theoretical. The RSPCA has its own political department which spends its time ‘entertaining’ MPs, the RSPCA regularly throw lavish receptions for them at parliament, this means that the RSPCA have unparalleled contact with MPs and whisper in there ears how wonderful they are and how its only the animal abusers that are complaining.

For the passed ten years I have been calling for a Public Inquiry into the RSPCA and how its operates, slowly, very slowly the ‘vale of respectability’ held by the RSPCA is slipping, more and more people, including some MPs are beginning to ask questions. All we can do is keep the pressure up, keep chipping away and hopefully the wall will crumble, but it will fall.


----------



## C.C. Rider (Nov 19, 2007)

This case is mentioned in the latest issue of Private Eye. Not for the first time the RSPCA get a bit of a kicking from them. PE is a very influential and widely read magazine counting some very well placed people amongst it's readership, let's hope they'll take note.


----------



## Genseric (Oct 7, 2007)

The USPCA (the Northern Ireland equivilent) has no where near the same power the RSPCA seems to have.. I wonder if the Jocks equivilent is as powerful in their Executive?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

LeviathanNI said:


> The USPCA (the Northern Ireland equivilent) has no where near the same power the RSPCA seems to have.. I wonder if the Jocks equivilent is as powerful in their Executive?


The RSPCA formal has no powers, there just have an immense amount of money which equates to the same thing in this day and age. I have no experience with the USPCA, yet. Therefore I cannot comment on how they operate, however, as I am beginning to get more involved with animal politics in NI I am sure I will find out in due course. With regards to the Scottish SPCA, in my view this is how an animal welfare organisation should be run, a shining role model. This is not to say that I agree with everything they do or say, but in my experience they operate with integrity and transparency, and above all accountability, virtues entirely lacking from their brethren at Horsham (RSPCA) The fundamental differences are the SPCA do not have an Animal Rights agenda, and secondly to work as an inspector for the SPCA you have to have practical animal knowledge and experience, unlike RSPCA requirement. I have no idea which is the role model for the USPCA, I hope it is there Scottish cousins!


----------

