Tags

, , , ,

Animal welfare groups and the state’s chief animal welfare enforcer, RSPCA NSW, are at loggerheads over the prosecution of animal cruelty cases.Aussie Farms and Animal Liberation NSW have called on RSPCA NSW to relinquish its role as a prosecutor under the state’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. source: Sydney Morning Herald  15/12/2014

RSPCA NSW has rejected any suggestion that it should lose its powers of prosecution. The organisation has previously admitted that it is unable to effectively regulate the state’s puppy farms under current funding arrangements.

It costs RSPCA NSW $43 million a year to operate. Less than 1 per cent, or $424,000, of those operational costs come from the state government. The rest is made up by donations, fund-raising and payouts from animal cruelty cases.

____________________________________________________________

The RSPCA has vast sums set aside and benefits from a charitable persona that leverages money from well meaning donors.

Nationally, the RSPCA employs over 100 Inspectors throughout the country. There is no specific qualification or course completion that leads to a role in the Inspectorate.

The RSPCA Prosecutions Division has been very benevolent to the legal team of Board Director/Barristers. While they sit on the RSPCA Board and drag out prosecution cases up to hundreds and millions of dollars, the taxpayers of NSW appear to get very little return for the benefit of their endorsement.

Botched prosecutions and poorly formed briefs has meant that thousands of dollars are thrown away and valuable court time taken up. Wallys Piggery is just one example.

However, the Board Director/Barrister/Prosecutor turns up in court for these prolonged charades of justice and gets paid for every appearance.

The DPP would not handle the cases the way the BoardDirector/Barrister/Prosector does. They would ensure that every t is crossed before even embarking on the costly excercise.

And the DPP does not do it for private financial gain. While they can seek costs – those costs go to the State- not to the Prosectors Firm.

An excert from the Wooler Review on the UK RSPCA and its role in prosecutions in Sept 2014 states:

The current role of the RSPCA has evolved largely outside the mainstream criminal justice
system and owes more to history than any strategy. The unstructured and haphazard
environment within which the RSPCA operates now means that the RSPCA role is poorly
defined and its relationships with the public bodies with whom its work overlaps are unclear. Despite this and extensive criticism in the media and elsewhere, there can be no doubt that
the RSPCA makes a major contribution and brings expertise that is too valuable to be lost. It
also continues to enjoy substantial public support. Nonetheless, there are significant
weaknesses. In particular, its prosecution role has failed to develop to accord with
contemporary expectations of transparency and accountability – issues recognised by my
terms of reference. It therefore needs to adapt.
My report therefore presents challenges not only to the RSPCA but also to government and
the public authorities who share the responsibility for animal welfare. There is at present an undue readiness on their part to opt out of tackling animal welfare issues on the basis that the RSPCA will then pick up the task – and the cost. Its main recommendations propose that the Society seeks to re-position itself so as to achieve a close and more structured
relationship with government and the other relevant public authorities on the basis that its
role is formalised within a framework that provides the necessary accountability and
transparency – with the Society being afforded the status and authority it needs to discharge
an enforcement role in a manner that conforms with 21st century expectations. Such
partnership would be consistent with arrangements found in other sectors and would not compromise the Society’s status as an independent charity.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Downloads/WoolerReviewFinalSept2014.pdf

..

In its final summation the report draws the conclusion

The level of costs is important for three reasons:
• first, the RSPCA needs to be confident that it is receiving best value for money. That is especially important for a charity that is discharging a function that would ordinarily be funded out of the public purse;
• second, the Code for Crown Prosecutors identifies as one of the factors relevant to consideration of the public interest whether a prosecution would be a proportionate response. Decisions should not be taken on the basis of costs alone but they are a relevant factor.
• Third, the level of costs incurred by the RSPCA is seen as higher than those of other prosecutors for comparable cases and many consider that the level of prosecution costs has the potential to impact adversely on the
overall fairness of proceedings.
The level of claims for costs by the RSPCA has attracted comment from the senior judiciary as well as legal practitioners who described the resultant pressure on defendants to plead guilty – especially those who do not qualify for legal aid and, if acquitted, may only recover costs on a legal aid basis, thus being heavily out of pocket. Such comments seem mainly based on the fact that animal welfare offences are universally summary only and fall to be equated in terms of gravity with the more routine work of the magistrates’ courts such as domestic violence, wounding and assault as well as violent and/or aggressive public disorder. The use of the scale approach merely emphasises the difference as regards contested cases.

Its about time that the Politicians of NSW, and Australia for that matter reads the report and sets in place an equitable process that achieves the outcomes athat are desired.

And that is not lining the pockets of the Barrister/Board Member/Prosecutor.