DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) Press Release For Immediate Release 7th April 2008 EQUINE LAWYERS HAIL AN HISTORIC VICTORY AGAINST RSPCA ALL SPINDLES FARM “RESCUE†HORSES TO BE RETURNED OR SOLD The action for the return of his horses brought by James (“Jamieâ€) Gray against the RSPCA has taken a dramatic turn. All twenty nine donkeys and Shetland ponies which the RSPCA seized must be returned to the Grays, as the court ordered, “forthwithâ€. The remaining ninety-six animals, including some valuable thoroughbreds, will, as Mr Gray’s lawyers requested, be sold at auction. Commenting on the court’s findings, Anne Kasica of the SHG said: “Despite the case having been made a “cause celebre†by the RSPCA’s Head of Media, Henry Macaulay, the RSPCA faces yet another public relations disaster following Judge Sandeep Kainth’s ruling on Friday in Oxford.†“This is an enormously positive ruling. It shows that the RSPCA’s whole approach to welfare cases is wrong - it will not accept advice from independent vets, for fear that they might say something it doesn’t want to hear.†“The RSPCA prefers to take its aggressive courses of action, no matter how unreasonable and wasteful they might be, just as long as they increase the pressure on defendants.†“Let us hope that this result will force the RSPCA to reconsider its belligerent approach to cruelty cases.†Referring to the claim by Kirsty Hampton of the RSPCA that they had intended to ‘seek new owners’ for these horses before trial, Ms. Kasica went on to say: “This is laughable. The RSPCA only “seek new owners†when they have a court order for confiscation following a successful criminal prosecution - so they can ‘rehome’ expensive animals with ‘acceptable’ people for a substantial ‘donation’ and then try to recover huge boarding costs from the defendants.†“As a result of the RSPCA’s refusal to deliver up any of Mr. Gray’s animals the RSPCA faces another huge costs bill from its own lawyers – a specialist firm instructed privately to present the RSPCA’s case.†“And yet the RSPCA accepted that all of the donkeys and ponies which have been ordered back were in "good condition†and claimed that they were seized, not because of their condition, but because of “concerns about Mr Gray and his familyâ€.†“As to the remainder, there was, the judge rightly ruled, “no evidence to show they were in any danger" and that a sale at auction was a respectable, and traditional, way for horses to change ownership.†“The idea of a sale in this case never arose until Mr Gray’s application, and then the RSPCA resisted it. The RSPCA’s idea was to ensure that Mr Gray never got any money for his investment in the horses, and that he should face a massive costs bill.†“Kirsty Hampton is well-known to us. She has been involved in considerable controversy and was responsible for making serious and untrue allegations of cruelty against Mr and Mrs David Burden.†“In their case, the RSPCA organised a meeting of witnesses, at which the RSPCA ghosted a report which was later claimed to have been written by an ‘independent expert’ in sheep. Ms Hampton was present at that meeting, and her case against the sheep farmers was thrown out.†Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said: “There are countless defendants who are experiencing massive high-profile seizures by the RSPCA, who are very aggressive and threaten massive costs orders against them, whilst engaging in a huge media campaign to increase the pressure still further.†“For those still awaiting a private prosecution for cruelty by the RSPCA, which usually takes six months to emerge, this must be very heartening news.†“Only this week David and Margaret Heading have had over a hundred cattle seized from them by the RSPCA from East Farm in Thetford.†“Their animals were transported to ‘a place of safety’ by the RSPCA and I understand that, as with Jamie Gray’s case, the RSPCA have not yet suggested their sale.†Mr. Vine concluded: “The court in Mr. Grey’s case may have been persuaded to make the order by the fact that the RSPCA claimed to have spent an incredible £153,000 boarding his animals so far.†“Evidence given during the hearing by independent equine specialist vet John Parker contrasted starkly with the RSPCA’s highly prejudicial press-releases.†“Mr. Parker stated that none of the horses, donkeys and ponies had been "caused unnecessary sufferingâ€, although some animals had arrived at Mr Gray’s farm “from a semi-feral originâ€. He found the bedding and general condition of the farm to be of an "extremely good quality." And when asked if he believed any animals would be at risk of cruelty if they were returned, Mr Parker simply said "No".†“The RSPCA is now under severe pressure to withdraw its private prosecution against the Grays who face allegations of animal cruelty. They are due before Oxford Magistrates on 28 April 2008.†The RSPCA is believed to be considering an appeal against Judge Kainth’s ruling. Ends Word Total: 798 Notes to Editors: - 1. The result is another landmark victory for Jacqui Fulton, of Blythe Liggins, who has represented Mr Gray and his family throughout 2. The RSPCA spends 44% of its annual income of over £100,000,000 (one hundred million pounds) on its prosecutions department. 3. In the light of Judge Kainth’s findings, the RSPCA, which claims to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, will have to satisfy Sally Case, Head of Prosecutions, that it has considered whether each of the allegations stands “a reasonable prospect of success†and is “in the public interestâ€. 4. The RSPCA is a private body so there is no mechanism to challenge the decision which Ms Case reaches. 5. Mr. Gray’s animals had been placed with organisations such as the International League for the Protection of Horses (ILPH) and Redwings, with whom the RSPCA has a special relationship and with whom it worked on the raids which it conducted against Mr Gray. 6. Many of Mr Gray’s animals were seized on advice from “independent expert†Nic de Brauwere, who is Head of Welfare at Redwings. Mr de Brauwere claims to have been on hundreds of “unannounced visits†with the RSPCA. He was severely criticised by District Judge Philip Browning, when the RSPCA’s private prosecution against Gina and Martin Griffin was thrown out in Norwich. 7. Launching the RSPCA’s usual attack on judges who have found against them, Kirsty Hampton, who was responsible for the raids, said: “The decision to return the horses to the Grays is devastating. We had hoped that the court would ask us to seek new owners for them who were guaranteed to provide for their future welfare. An open sale to an unknown bidder means that we cannot be sure of the level of future care they will receive.†Useful Contacts: Jacqui Fulton at Blythe Liggins: 01926 831 231 or jf@blytheliggins.co.uk Henry Macaulay, RSPCA Head of Media: 0300 123 0304 or hmacaulay@rspca.org.uk For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. The national help line number is 08700 72 66 89 A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at http://www.the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion website: http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion References: Rescued ponies ordered to be returned to family BBC News, UK - 15 hours ago James Gray, 44, Julie Gray, 40, Cordelia Gray, 19, and Jodie Gray, 25, all of Spindle Farm, deny 12 charges. Deputy District Judge Sandeep Kainth agreed to ... Judge orders immediate return of donkeys and ponies Buckinhamshire Free Press, UK - 18 hours ago The farm's owner, James Gray, had made a formal application to have the animals returned. But the judge also ruled that around horses that were removed ... Only eight horses seized by RSPCA were at risk Buckinghamshire Free Press, UK - 21 hours ago By Andy Carswell A vet who examined more than one hundred horses seized from a farm, has told a court he believed only eight were at risk. ... all 12 news articles » Five accused over cruelty The Sun, UK - 17 Mar 2008 They are alleged to have caused unnecessary suffering to 125 horses, ponies and donkeys. They will appear at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on March 27. ... Spindles Farm horses have not been returned says RSPCA 7 Feb 2008 ... The RSPCA has quashed rumours that 20 horses have been returned to Jamie … no information to suggest that we are giving, are going to give or have given any horses in this case back to either Jamie Gray or his family," said an RSPCA spokesman … www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/article.php?aid=178476 RSPCA rescue 100 cows near Thetford Norfolk Eastern Daily Press, UK - 31 Mar 2008 A major animal rescue operation is under way following concerns about the welfare of a herd of cattle on the Norfolk-Suffolk border. The RSPCA today ... Victims of RSPCA bite back - Telegraph 2 Mar 2008 ... Victims of RSPCA bite back … Florry, which had been with Martin and Gina Griffin's family for 20 years. The RSPCA ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...3/02/do0202.xml Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SHOT Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 thanks for posting that, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SportingShooter 0 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 thanks for posting that, When i saw the words; THE RSPCA SHOT I jumped for joy until i realised my mistake. :clapper: ss06 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest john the baptist Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 (edited) The R.S.P.C.A SPEND 44 million pounds on prosecutions? A friend of my wife rang these clowns about a horse in the next stable to hers. The owner hadn't been to it for 3 weeks. My missus and her friend mucked out, fed and watered this animal otherwise it would have died. The r.s.p.c.a told her NOT to feed and water it in order for them to get a conviction. They actually expected her to feed and water her own animal while the one in the next stable was left without. All they cared about was getting the conviction of the owner, not the welfare of the animal. Feckin clowns. Edited April 8, 2008 by john the baptist Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Coney 3 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Some stern stuff there well worth a read and just goes to show "the holier than thou" approach does not always work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rusty 0 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 good to see maybe the tide is turning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 (edited) good to see maybe the tide is turning. THE TIDE WILL TURN WHEN THE GREAT BRITISH PUBLIC BECOME AWARE OF WHAT IS REALLY GOES ON. I KNOW ONE LAD YOU WHO PLEADED WITH THE RSPB AND OTHER FOR HELP AS SOME ONE WAS KILLING HIS BIRDS WITH SMOKE FROM BURNING TYRES AND NO ONE WOULD HELP HIM THE BIRDS JUST HAD TO DIE. Edited April 9, 2008 by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 good to see maybe the tide is turning. THE TIDE WILL TURN WHEN THE GREAT BRITISH PUBLIC BECOME AWARE OF WHAT IS REALLY GOES ON. I KNOW ONE LAD YOU WHO PLEADED WITH THE RSPB AND OTHER FOR HELP AS SOME ONE WAS KILLING HIS BIRDS WITH SMOKE FROM BURNING TYRES AND NO ONE WOULD HELP HIM THE BIRDS JUST HAD TO DIE. Victims of RSPCA bite back By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 02/03/2008 Have your say Read comments Parliament Square saw a highly unusual demonstration on February 13. Robed Hindu priests joined with farmers and animal lovers to protest at the killing by the RSPCA of a sacred cow, Gangotri, at a Hindu temple in Hertfordshire. • More articles by Christopher Booker Two months before, the RSPCA had been invited to examine the cow, which had been injured by a bull and was being tended by vets. The RSPCA returned hours later, claiming to hold a court warrant, to give the cow a lethal injection. The Hindus were horrified. The following day the RSPCA applied for the warrant that it had claimed to have already. advertisement As Gangotri's ashes were being scattered on the Ganges, the demonstration in London widened into a general protest against what many people, including specialist lawyers and vets, regard as the high-handed actions of RSPCA officials. As one of our biggest charities, with donations of more than £100 million a year, it relies on massive favourable media coverage, reinforced every time it brings criminal prosecutions against animal abusers. However, in a succession of recent cases, the courts have severely criticised the methods used by the RSPCA to mount such prosecutions, against people who were wholly innocent of the serious charges brought against them. These cases and the publicity surrounding them have caused intense anguish to those wrongly accused. In two cases in Harwich and Portsmouth before Christmas, Nigel Weller, a Lewes solicitor, finally exposed how RSPCA witnesses had concerted their evidence in advance, using a proforma document to "coach" witnesses in what to say - about which magistrates and a judge expressed grave concerns. In each case the defendants, accused of depriving a dog and two cats of a balanced diet, were acquitted on all charges. In the same month Maidstone Crown Court heard the appeal of Craig Sargent, a Kent farmer, who had been fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 costs on five charges brought by the RSPCA including four of cruelty. After hearing his barrister, Jonathan Rich (briefed by Mr Weller), Judge Jeremy Carey agreed that the RSPCA had been unable to produce any evidence of cruelty. In Norwich in January, Judge Philip Browning was critical of the RSPCA's conduct in seizing a much-loved pony, Florry, which had been with Martin and Gina Griffin's family for 20 years. The RSPCA held Florry in an animal sanctuary for over a year, claiming that she was "emaciated". The Griffins' vet, Charlotte Mayers, made it clear from the start that vets from her practice were treating the horse, which was laminitic and needed to be kept thin for that reason. Colin Vogel, the author of the RSPCA's own veterinaray manual on horse-care supported her views. At one point the RSPCA had wanted to put Florry down, but after 15 months she was finally re-united with her owners. In February, after another five days in court, a cruelty case against Annette Nally, owner of Holly, a German shepherd, was called into question when it was found that RSPCA documents alleging her failure to treat the dog properly for ear and bowel conditions related to another dog. Holly died six months after the RSPCA had seized her (as Miss Nally only discovered five months later). In acquitting her on all charges, Judge David Chinnery praised her obvious care for her animals and her "impressive" evidence, and also that of her chief witness, Colin Vogel. The Self-Help Group of farmers and others has existed for nearly two decades to put anyone experiencing difficulty with the RSPCA in touch with specialist welfare lawyers and vets. They have never been busier and cite scores of other instances in recent years. None is more shocking than that of PC Jonathan Bell, a Stoke-on-Trent policeman who in 2004 was called to a night-time disturbance where a cat had been squashed flat by a car. The RSPCA could not be contacted, so he put the cat out of its misery with a spade. PC Bell was prosecuted for cruelty by the RSPCA and the case dragged on for two years, at a cost of £50,000. After his initial acquittal, the RSPCA appealed. Finally, in April 2006, the High Court threw out the case, prompting the Federation of Companion Animal Societies to comment that some of the RSPCA's prosecutions "seem to have a political agenda" rather than being concerned with "animal welfare". The growing number of people who fall foul of that agenda would heartily agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA has put this page together because you need to be prepared before the RSPCA come knocking on your door. Many people have thought "It will never happen to me because........." and then it happened.. ...the called and they lost their good name and animals forever!! An RSPCA Inspector arrives Have they any rights to be on your property?. NO!! Do they have any special legal powers?. NO!! Can they demand entry to your dwelling to look at your animals?. NO!! Can they demand that you answer questions?. NO!! What should you do?? Be polite, and refuse them entry. Tell them to leave. Do not be bullied into complying by threats of returning with the Police. If they refuse you are entitled to use reasonable force to eject them, as you would any other common trespasser. Do not volunteer any information. Refuse to answer any questions asked by the RSPCA Do not even give your name. They may caution you and tell you that you are not under arrest, using the standard police wording. They may do their best to ignore you and talk over you, trying to goad you into giving answers to their allegations. The uniform, the caution, and the general demeanour are meant to intimidate you. You may feel that you have nothing to hide but do not let yourself be lulled into a false sense of security. DO NOT LET THEM IN THE RSPCA DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIAL POWERS WHATSOEVER. What to do when they have left. Your battle has only just started.. Get photographs of all your stock, land and premises. Get your vet out to look at all of your animals and get him to write a report. Act immediately on any recommendations he has. The written report is essential. Get specialist legal advice. Below is a phone number. We have Solicitors, Barristers, Specialist Veterinary Surgeons and Land Experts who are accepted by the courts as expert witnesses. For any help : 0870 072 6689 Should your number be withheld place 1470 in front Do not treat the RSPCA lightly. They are an immensely wealthy and incredibly powerful organisation who openly admit to breaching people’s civil and legal rights. For further information /downloadable signs and posters : http://www.the-shg.org/ For background information visit: http://www.webtribe.net/a/animadversion Have your say Read comments Parliament Square saw a highly unusual demonstration on February 13. Robed Hindu priests joined with farmers and animal lovers to protest at the killing by the RSPCA of a sacred cow, Gangotri, at a Hindu temple in Hertfordshire. More articles by Christopher Booker Two months before, the RSPCA had been invited to examine the cow, which had been injured by a bull and was being tended by vets. The RSPCA returned hours later, claiming to hold a court warrant, to give the cow a lethal injection. The Hindus were horrified. The following day the RSPCA applied for the warrant that it had claimed to have already. advertisement As Gangotri's ashes were being scattered on the Ganges, the demonstration in London widened into a general protest against what many people, including specialist lawyers and vets, regard as the high-handed actions of RSPCA officials. As one of our biggest charities, with donations of more than £100 million a year, it relies on massive favourable media coverage, reinforced every time it brings criminal prosecutions against animal abusers. However, in a succession of recent cases, the courts have severely criticised the methods used by the RSPCA to mount such prosecutions, against people who were wholly innocent of the serious charges brought against them. These cases and the publicity surrounding them have caused intense anguish to those wrongly accused. In two cases in Harwich and Portsmouth before Christmas, Nigel Weller, a Lewes solicitor, finally exposed how RSPCA witnesses had concerted their evidence in advance, using a proforma document to "coach" witnesses in what to say - about which magistrates and a judge expressed grave concerns. In each case the defendants, accused of depriving a dog and two cats of a balanced diet, were acquitted on all charges. In the same month Maidstone Crown Court heard the appeal of Craig Sargent, a Kent farmer, who had been fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 costs on five charges brought by the RSPCA including four of cruelty. After hearing his barrister, Jonathan Rich (briefed by Mr Weller), Judge Jeremy Carey agreed that the RSPCA had been unable to produce any evidence of cruelty. In Norwich in January, Judge Philip Browning was critical of the RSPCA's conduct in seizing a much-loved pony, Florry, which had been with Martin and Gina Griffin's family for 20 years. The RSPCA held Florry in an animal sanctuary for over a year, claiming that she was "emaciated". The Griffins' vet, Charlotte Mayers, made it clear from the start that vets from her practice were treating the horse, which was laminitic and needed to be kept thin for that reason. Colin Vogel, the author of the RSPCA's own veterinaray manual on horse-care supported her views. At one point the RSPCA had wanted to put Florry down, but after 15 months she was finally re-united with her owners. In February, after another five days in court, a cruelty case against Annette Nally, owner of Holly, a German shepherd, was called into question when it was found that RSPCA documents alleging her failure to treat the dog properly for ear and bowel conditions related to another dog. Holly died six months after the RSPCA had seized her (as Miss Nally only discovered five months later). In acquitting her on all charges, Judge David Chinnery praised her obvious care for her animals and her "impressive" evidence, and also that of her chief witness, Colin Vogel. The Self-Help Group of farmers and others has existed for nearly two decades to put anyone experiencing difficulty with the RSPCA in touch with specialist welfare lawyers and vets. They have never been busier and cite scores of other instances in recent years. None is more shocking than that of PC Jonathan Bell, a Stoke-on-Trent policeman who in 2004 was called to a night-time disturbance where a cat had been squashed flat by a car. The RSPCA could not be contacted, so he put the cat out of its misery with a spade. PC Bell was prosecuted for cruelty by the RSPCA and the case dragged on for two years, at a cost of £50,000. After his initial acquittal, the RSPCA appealed. Finally, in April 2006, the High Court threw out the case, prompting the Federation of Companion Animal Societies to comment that some of the RSPCA's prosecutions "seem to have a political agenda" rather than being concerned with "animal welfare". The growing number of people who fall foul of that agenda would heartily agree. Courts overrule RSPCA and Government Vets Options Newsgroups: lt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, uk.environment.conservation, uk.rec.birdwatching, uk.rec.gardening, uk.business.agriculture, sci.agriculture.poultry From: Old Codger <oldcod...@anyoldwherewilldo.com> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:33:19 +0100 Local: Wed, Apr 9 2008 3:33 am Subject: Re: Courts overrule RSPCA and Government Vets Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:32:06 +0100, Fenris <Fen...@webtribe.net> wrote: >Here's another point of view: >The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing >difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) The courts may be playing silly buggers with animal welfare, but the facts are crystal clear. Village idiots who are incapable or unwilling to look after animals in their care should not be allowed the custody of animals. The RSPCA are quite correct in standing against animal abuse it doesn't matter how legal that abuse is. News - Court orders 29 Amersham horses to be returned http://tinyurl.com/5kugm3 07.04.08 The future welfare of the Amersham horses has been thrown into doubt after a court has declared that 11 donkeys and 18 Shetland ponies should be returned to their owners, and has ordered the remaining 82 horses to be sold at auction. At a hearing at Oxford Magistrates Court on Friday (4 April), Deputy District Judge Sandeep Kainth partially accepted the application made by James John Gray, Julie Gray, Cordelia Gray and Jodie Gray, of Spindle Farm, Hyde Heath, Amersham, Buckinghamshire to have 29 of the 111 equines returned to them. The court heard that these animals were considered family pets by the Grays. The RSPCA, which contested the Grays' application for all the animals to be returned, argued in court that it instead should oversee the rehoming of the animals in order to safeguard their future welfare. However, Mr Sandeep Kainth said the donkeys and Shetland ponies had to be returned to the Grays "as there is no evidence to show they are in any danger." However he was not happy for the remaining horses to be in the care of the Grays, and ordered they be sold at the first auction in May at Henley-in-Arden, Warwickshire. The Society, with help from other welfare organisations, has temporarily been caring for the horses, ponies and donkeys after they were seized by police in January. It will now seek all legal avenues open to it to contest the court's decision. RSPCA Inspector Kirsty Hampton said: "We are devastated that the court has today ordered that some of the animals be returned to the defendants, as we have grave concerns about their ability to care for them. It is now our intention to pursue all other legal avenues available to us in order to secure the welfare of the animals involved. "On Friday the court had a flavour of the reasons for our concern. This has also been reflected in the evidence of two vets, and of the public, who continue to call us with serious worries about the welfare of other horses currently in the Grays' care. "We had hoped that the court would ask us to seek new owners for them who were guaranteed to provide for their future welfare. An open sale to an unknown bidder means that we cannot be sure of the level of future care they will receive. Hopefully they will be bought by people who will properly care for them into old age. "Given criminal proceedings are active, the RSPCA must remain cautious about commenting on evidence for that case." The judge also set the date for a pre-trial review of the RSPCA's criminal case against James John Gray, Julie Gray, Cordelia Gray and Jodie Gray - along with a juvenile - after they entered 'not guilty' pleas. This will be heard on 28 April 2008 at Oxford Magistrates Court. They face 12 charges related to section 4 and section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and cover causing unnecessary suffering to and failing to meet the welfare needs of a total of 125 equines, removed between 4 and 12 January 2008. http://www.ilph.org/news_details.asp?id=930 Story Last Updated 07/04/2008 14:42:00 The International League for the Protection of Horses The International League for the Protection of Horses (ILPH) is appalled at the implications of the decision made at the plea hearing of John James Gray, and co-defendants, at Oxford Magistrates Court on Friday 4th April. We are devastated that 29 ponies and donkeys will be returned to James Gray and that the remaining 82 horses taken from Spindles Farm in January this year are to be sold on his behalf at public auction. We will be fully supporting the RSPCA who are pursuing all other legal avenues in order to secure the future welfare of the animals involved. This is the worst possible outcome for the horses and for our staff but is by no means the end of this matter. In addition to the legal efforts to try to reverse last week’s decision by the Courts, Mr James Gray, and co-defendants, will be appearing at Oxford Magistrates Court again on Monday 28th April for another a pre-trial hearing for the criminal case being brought against them by the RSPCA, where a date for a trial will be set. Reply Reply to author Forward watchdog@bbc.co.uk. Dear Watchdog BBC Watchdog, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS would you like to do a follow up programme on Mark Robb about DEFRA conspiring to pervert the course of justice, as it is still going on and they are victimising Mark Robb. Please read below. The crimes of the RSPB and Animal Health go back many years. See below. The Watchdog programme and setting Sweetman up by DofE and the RSPB. ________________________________________ file 1 file 2 file 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Before you go any further make a note of these Help Line numbers 1470 0870 072 6689** Should you wish to email us please make sure you have a valid return address How it Started.... The Origins of the Group -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What rights, if any, do the RSPCA have? What rights do you have? Even the RSPCA admit they have No Right of Entry or Seizure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFRA says: "The RSPCA cannot issue formal improvement notices under the Act. They do, and will continue to, issue their own informal ‘improvement notices’. These are not formal notices under the Act and have no power in law." DEFRA website Here -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The legally worded sign for your gateways What Rights do the RSPCA have Poster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A growing collection of UK legislation used by the RSPCA, also special request Statutes asked for by those fighting to retain their animals. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The RSPCA may say: "You do not have to say anything but......." "You say.........." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no such thing as a "friendly" chat. The RSPCA are not your friends! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrested ?.........We know it happens, be prepared- read this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Animal owners should be aware that if during an RSPCA prosecution they give permission for their vet to discuss their animals with the RSPCA or the policeman seizing them, they are waiving all future rights to client privilege during pending court proceedings. This becomes important if your vet is ( or later becomes as a result of RSPCA involvement) critical in any way. It is of use to the RSPCA in some cases where the owner's vet examined the animals but is not being called for the defence, with a view to issuing a witness summons to the vet. If the accused has waived their right to confidentiality the vet can then disclose to the prosecution any adverse advice or reports that would otherwise have remained unseen, and give evidence against the defendant. The answer is: Dont allow your vet to talk to the RSPCA or the police until you have a report in writing ( possibly handwritten on the day) that you know is favourable to you. Wherever possible your vet should not disclose or say anything that has not been specifically cleared by your solicitor. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding for legal representation in RSPCA cases. We are at present awaiting clarification and a rewrite of this page. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New powers for RSPCA in England regarding Commercial Establishments Please note that we will be updating the advice given on these pages as soon as we have assessed the full implications of this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Be Very Very wary of a solicitor who tells you to give more than a "No Comment" interview to the RSPCA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read what some Solicitors have to say about Dealing with the RSPCA Defending Animal Welfare Prosecutions Farm Animal Welfare -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tape Recording a Conversation or Telephone Call Is it Legal? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All the articles on this main page are downloadable as Word Documents from here -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DO NOT go to court without legal advice -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and the Proposed Animal Welfare Bill. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit the Campaign for change in the RSPCA page. For more background information visit the RSPCA Animadversion Site This petition has now closed with a total of 2027 signatures, there has now been a response from the Government it can be found here with the wording of the petition: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12912.asp We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Hold a public enquiry into the policies and running of the RSPCA. Shg wishes to emphasise that, while every effort is made to regularly update this site, the material on it is subject to alteration or amendment in the light of changes in the law, regulations or other necessity. **National Rate Number Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 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 Chinnerys 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 Annettes 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 Hollys 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 Chinnerys 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 Nallys 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 Annettes 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: 21% [?] ShareThis Never miss another breaking dog news story, exclusive article or canine column. Subscribe to the Dog Magazine dot net email updater and you'll get an update every time we add a new dog news story or article. No hassle, no spam, just keeping you ahead of the game with the latest, breaking dog stories. Enter your email address: Email This Post Friday, February 8th, 2008 at 3:43 am and is filed under Animal Charities, Animal Welfare, Dog News. 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. 6 comments...What do you think? Posted by David Tyne 8th February, 2008 at 10:01 am The Prosecutions Department of the RSPCA is a disgrace and should be shut down. What on earth can they be thinking of treating someone like this? In the past, I've given money to the RSPCA, but they spend it on this and other cases. I'd rather spend my money on a subscription to K9 or Private Eye - great article, incidentally, on the RSPCA v Griffin case this week! Posted by John 8th February, 2008 at 11:21 am If you are not abusing animals then you have nothing to fear. Posted by David Tyne 8th February, 2008 at 12:16 pm I guess that’s what Annette Nally thought, poor innocent that she is. How wrong Annette was because she did not tell them to get lost, even when they were shaping up to took her dog away. How sweet it is that people like you and her are still so trusting. (That is, if you are trusting, John, rather than a member of the animal rights movement!) Posted by CrazyCanine 11th February, 2008 at 4:08 am What a total disgrace, the problem here is that the RSPCA on the one hand have TV commercials and programmes made that show them to be a one stop shop for all matters animal. Ring them up when you have found a stray dog (as many people do due to the confusing messages they give out on TV and in the rest of the media) and see if they will help you, I think not! An excellent example of the RSPCA suiting themselves is the case of the confused dog owner from eastern England who was taken to hospital and had forgotten where his dog was, he thought he may have left the dog in his car which he could not remember the registration of. the resultant search for it involved the RSPCA, taxi drivers and a kennel owner who knew he should have rung the local council dog warden when it was clear that the dog was not in the car, it then became a stray dog that was the remit of the local council and to a lesser extent the police (until 6th April 2008). Did the presence of a Sky News satellite van that was covering the search have anything to do with an RSPCA Inspector getting involved with the search for this dog? I may be cynical but you can see that they want publicity at any cost, even when it blurs who is responsible for an actual role. The claim that they are inexperienced at prosecutions in court must be an example of contempt of court, surely a Barrister knows about disclosure? Personally I believe that as the board of the RSPCA has a number of animal rights extremist types on board then they now have a different outlook on human life and rights. Another area where the public get confused is due to the fact that the RSPCA Inspectors wear a police style uniform, what has to be remembered is that they are a charity and have no enforcement powers of any kind, maybe the public needs to be told that? Sadly those RSPCA Inspectors out in the field that do make a difference by their firm but fair approach to animal welfare are let down by people who do not stick to the rules of law, is it not hypocritical to use the rule of law to bring a prosection and to get your own way but not adhere to the law yourself, isn't that how nazi Germany stated? Posted by annette nally 25th February, 2008 at 7:06 am Thank you for the kind comments. Further to this I would like to add that Holly was actually taken from me on 13th January 2006. This has taken 2 years to be heard. As it stands at the moment Holly body is still yet to be returned to me to be laid to rest dispite a request immediatly after the hearing. Posted by janet walker 27th February, 2008 at 9:41 am i really feel for annette as i myself am still struggling to come to terms with having had a dog taken and being dragged throw the courts by the rspca as with annette i was luckily enough to be put in touch with a specialist solisiter who helped me prove my inosence after 6 days in court luckly he is alive and well i feel so sad that her elderly gsd spent the last months of his life in kennels. I have every respect for charitys that help abandoned and misstreated animals how ever with my case and many others i have heard of i have no repect for the rspca its all about publicity and money small charities that have very little funds do more good than the rspca and from what i hear they have millions in the bank. I say stop spending tens of thousands of pounds on these cases that clearly were not cases of cruelty and stop putting healthy animals that can be rehomed to sleep because of lack of space and put the money into building more kennels etc and stop paying the suits that work there ridiculicly high saleries spending millions building a new head quarters (how many animals wouldnt of had to be put to sleep if theyd used that money building accomadation instead)at some point my story will be on the victims of the rspca site found on the rspca animadversion web site.Reading it may show you that even owners who love and care for there much loved pets can still be put through hell by the rspca just because they have been given to much power for one organization to have uncoverned. you might not think it but it could happen to you too so please read the reasent press releases by shg and see that the rspca is not perfect i myself wish someone would lock up these people that starve and beat helpless animals however the rspca for some reason is taking inocent people to court instead and yes being inosent we can prove it in court and walk out of court free men and woman but it doesnt mend the pain of having our pets taken away from us or the fear awaiting court or that some people think the rspcas so perfect that those people they take to court must be guilty even if the court says inocent...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Foxgun Tom 75 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hi Derek without appering rude can I ask where you studied law??, what medium of law you specialise in, where your practice is and what case's of signifigance have you've been involved in involving rural pursuits?? have you had any dealings in the Scottish Legal system?? The reasons I ask?? is my wife at the moment is studying law at a leading Scottish university Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Hi Derek without appering rude can I ask where you studied law??, what medium of law you specialise in, where your practice is and what case's of signifigance have you've been involved in involving rural pursuits?? have you had any dealings in the Scottish Legal system?? The reasons I ask?? is my wife at the moment is studying law at a leading Scottish university Tom Studied law at Northumbria University where I did a law degree, which make me an ‘LLB’. As I also did a dissertation, therefore I also have ‘Hons’. My personal interests in relation to the Law are general however given the fact that I have been wrongly convicted in relation bird a prey offences, which is why I did a law degree, my attention, is drawn to cases of wrongful convictions. I am at the moment going through a number of cases that 'we' will be putting on a website that will affirm not only my conviction was wrong but various other people that have been wrongly treated by so called charities. I do not making a living from practising law. The cases that I done have been for myself or others, which I have done free. Scottish law is more of a codified law than English Law and an English solicitor cannot work in Scotland as far as I am aware. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jacob 28 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 hello,so youre a convicted LLB with honours,only joking Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 (edited) hello,so youre a convicted LLB with honours,only joking Birmingham Six, Bridge Water four, Steffen kisco case and so on. In short, injustices are not a joke. Without you reading the facts then your comments are a waste of time, unless you are saying every person that has been convicted is guilty? Edited April 10, 2008 by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] Quote Link to post Share on other sites
![DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%201024%201024%22%20style%3D%22background%3A%23c46362%22%3E%3Cg%3E%3Ctext%20text-anchor%3D%22middle%22%20dy%3D%22.35em%22%20x%3D%22512%22%20y%3D%22512%22%20fill%3D%22%23ffffff%22%20font-size%3D%22700%22%20font-family%3D%22-apple-system%2C%20BlinkMacSystemFont%2C%20Roboto%2C%20Helvetica%2C%20Arial%2C%20sans-serif%22%3ED%3C%2Ftext%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.