75ZT Community

This article caught my eye...I have ongoing concerns about the RSPCA which, it seems to me, at times gives itself a 'legal' authority it simply does not possess.....this seems to be a case in point...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100825/tu ... 23e80.html

Now, disregarding the unfortunate cat and the ignorant, infantile and uncaring attitude of the perpetrator, it does concern me that the RSPCA seem to act, at times, like they are the Police....

West Midlands Police said Ms Bale had not committed a criminal offence. A spokesman said: "The RSPCA is leading an investigation into the incident and will be interviewing the woman shortly. Coventry police are supporting the society's investigation and would urge the public to leave the matter to be dealt with in the appropriate manner by the authorities. Coventry police have not arrested the woman because she has not committed a criminal offence."

CAN (Bus Controller Area Network) they choose to interview this woman? Does she HAVE to answer their questions? Can she not simply tell them to bugger off? I note, on this occasion, the Police are 'supporting the investigation'...how so? Given no offence has been committed...I am genuinely interested....

I ask, not because I have any sympathy with people who are cruel to animals, but because recently my own sister had the RSPCA turn up on her door step demanding entry, asking her all sorts of questions about her cat, which had been reported to them as looking 'undernourished'....it was in fact ill / dying but under the full treatment of the local vet...anyway, my sis was alone in the house with three young children and with two uniformed RSPCA gentlemen getting very stroppy because they clearly wanted her to believe they had the 'right' to enter her property in order to 'rescue' her cat; even after being told very clearly and in no uncertain terms what the situation was...the cat, as usual was off in the fields somewhere anyway! Fortunately sis has Mummy Zeb's genes also and stood her ground on principle....believing they had no legal right of entry. They made it clear that they did not believe her...fair enough in some respects...they had no evidence to say he was fine...but equally they had only a phone call to say he might not be. I believe the whole business was only brought to a conclusion by her demanding they phone her local vet. However, the incident left her much less than impressed with how the representatives of the organisation conduct themselves and I believe she did make a complaint......the question is and I am very curious to know...what 'Rights' do the RSPCA have in pursuit of their aims?

A very open area Carl I'm afraid,
If the RSPCA believe and have a report of mistreatment or otherwise,
they do have the right of entry to remove or check on the said animal/s.
Normally if they think they will experience any problems with the owner they are accompanied by a police officer.

You really would be surprised by the number of people that can obtain entry into your premises,
the Police believe it or not find it more difficult without a warrant not required by many agencies.

JohnDotCom wrote:A very open area Carl I'm afraid,
If the RSPCA believe and have a report of mistreatment or otherwise,
they do have the right of entry to remove or check on the said animal/s.
Normally if they think they will experience any problems with the owner they are accompanied by a police officer.

You really would be surprised by the number of people that can obtain entry into your premises,
the Police believe it or not find it more difficult without a warrant not required by many agencies.

Hmmm...I remember reading that there are a huge number of agencies / individuals who, in theory, can demand entry....given that the RSPCA is a non-governmental organisation I find it amazing that they can be given such powers when the checks and balances of accountability would appear not to really be there?

Had this a few times Carl when I was in the Police, accompanying RSPCA officers.
Many agencies require warrants but likewise many don't for some reason, including Customs and Immigration departments.

Carl,

The RSPCA, in common with any group or individual, have the right to bring a private prosecution.

In the case of the RSPCA, it would be for an offence contrary to Animal Welfare Act 2006 Sections 4, 8 and 9.

This is a summary offence and would be heard in the Magistrates' Court.

The sentencing powers of the Bench are of the widest latitude, upto and including 6 months custody.

In view of that, the RSPCA must make a prima facie case to present to the Bench so that consideration can be given as to whether there is a case to answer.

Interviewing the accused individual, whilst not a statutory right, aloows the prosecuting authority to gain further insight into the alleged offence(s) and also allows the accused person to refute the suggestion in an informal manner.

If I recall correctly, I don't think the RSPCA have a statutory right to demand entry to premises but can do so if the premises are unoccupied and they have strong reason to believe that an animal is in distress.

If the RSPCA asked for access and were refused, the Court is entitled to take such a refusal into account and make an inference, ini the absence of any clear defence evidence.

Some of the inspectors do, on occasion, push their luck but in doing so, render themselves liable to prosecution.

If the prosecuting authority suspects animal(s) to be in distress but don't have evidence that it might be an immediate life and death matter, they can apply to a Magistrate for a warrant of entry, which would usually be executed with a Police officer present if there was a risk of criminal activity such as assault or a public order offence.

Hope that makes things clearer.

I suspect the RSPCA will want to interview the individual in this case to see if the alleged actions were deliberate, reckless or whether the individual might have had an excuse, for example, but not limited to, mental illness, depression, child-like mentality etc.

Further, I disagree with the assessment that she has not commited a criminal offence.

Should she plead guilty or be found guilty after trial, she will have a criminal record.

In my view, what should have been said is that the alleged offecne falls outside the remit of the CPS, as do a lot of offences, including breach of sentence, benefit fraud etc.

Thanks Paul, some very useful information there.