The problem of Animal Welfare in NSW is that the government wants to wash its hands of the unpalatable issues. Hence some time back it handed over the contentious situations that would only cost the Government money to a body that has no accountability.
When the matters go before local Magistrates, who have little or no knowledge of the complex veterinary arguments put forth by the Barrister who usually represents the RSPCA, the bigger cases will end up in appeal in the District and then even the Supreme Court.
Take the case of Ruth Downey. In 2007 at the height of the worst drought to hit NSW in memory, RSPCA Inspectors entered her property under the auspices of the NSW Gov and its Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and proceeded to shoot her cows in front of her.
The Inspectors did not impound the cattle, despite protests from her neighbours.
This story starts back in 2007, during an extended drought in northern NSW, when a 71 year old Pilliga single farmer was struggling with her cattle and accused of not providing sufficient food or water.
After a number of visits and official warnings by RSPCA inspectors, the RSPCA unilaterally declared 48 of Ms Downey’s cattle to be “emaciated” and then immediate euthanized the cattle. Once the RSPCA had destroyed the cattle on farm with a rifle, leaving several calves without mothers to provide milk, they then proceeded with prosecution in the local court for animal cruelty.
In October 2008 Ms Downey was found guilty of mistreating her animals under s8(1) and in aggravation under s6(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW), and was ordered to pay costs to the RSPCA of $265,928.56. In September 2010 the District Court affirmed the order, but seems to have reduced the costs order to $192,293.89 for both actions. Ms Downey’s lawyers then unsuccessfully applied for special leave to the High Court.
During October 2008 at Narrabri Local Court, Ms Downey stood trial and was found guilty on all counts. On the mercy of the court she was discharged of the offences via s10 order – not recording an office, although was ordered to pay costs.
This trial ran for 10 days which is an inordinate long time for 48 charges of a single species. It should have clearly demonstrated what were the condition was each of the cattle that would require them to be euthanized. What was the appropriate treatment for each of the cattle; and did Ms Downey in fact, not follow the March 2007 feeding instructions.
Here again is the importance of just what where the feeding instructions given to Ms Downey and what was the evidence that show she had in fact failed to comply with those instructions? None of the documentation has dealt with this issue directly and is almost the most important factual aspect of the case. The evidence about the condition of the cattle seems to be based on personal testimony of the RSPCA’s employees and not any independent expert witness – although this is more of a failure of Ms Downey’s legal representatives, and question whether the action of euthanasia was appropriate in all cases was appropriate in all cases seemed to be accepted by both parties.
From the cost orders, the RSPCA for the period of the trial had its President Mr Andrew Christopher Wozniak as instructing solicitor, a Director Mr Paul O’Donnell as junior counsel and two other senior counsels, Mr Michael King and Mr Robert Sutherland.
This extravagance of legal representation at the local court level in itself is offensive and an abuse of the local court proceeding. I could only ever see having three counsels as appropriate for an extremely complicated matter, such as in a corporate setting where there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.
As a member of the Australian society, Magistrate Mackintosh should have dismissed two of counsels and should have seen this as a blatant attempt to exploit the legal process.
In March 2011 a blogger, Mal Davies then wrote an internet blog on the story and was then sued in absentia by the RSPCA for defamation. He was served by Facebook and by email by the RSPCA. He did not attend the court, the case went ahead, and was found guilty and fined $100,000 plus interest and costs.
In January 2014 a new law relating the the same situation that ruth Downey found herself in was introduced.
Legal matters are still underway for Ruth. Seven years later she still is being pursued for those legal costs pertaining back to 2007!
A Stock Welfare Panel would have gone to Ruth Downey and made a rport to the Director General.
More articles: http://judicialwatch.org.au/article/the-ruth-downey,-mal-davies-and-rspca%28nsw%29-story