SUPPLEMENTARY
DRAFT ANIMAL WELFARE BILL
SELF HELP GROUP
REPLY TO THE RSPCA’s AW161(d)
SUMMARY OF REPLY TO THE RSPCA’s AW161(d) ....Pages 1 - 2
IN DEPTH ANALYSIS ................................................Pages 3 – 6
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ....................................Pages 7 - 19
SUMMARY OF SELF HELP GROUP’S REPLY TO AW161(d) from RSPCA
A copy of the figures supplied by the RSPCA to Mr Hendry MP, on which the SHG evidence was based, is attached. It is immediately obvious that the figures are completely different to those now given by the RSPCA in AW161(d). This highlights our concerns over accepting RSPCA statistics. There was only a short period of time between the two sets of figures being produced but they appear incompatible. This is not the first time that the RSPCA has published very different figures for the same time period. In 2002, for example, the RSPCA Annual Report said there were 910 defendants, but the RSPCA figures for the Launch of the Animal Welfare Bill gave the figure as 1006. Similarly at the Launch 768 people were said to have been found guilty, but the RSPCA submission says that 910 were found guilty.
To help the Committee we would make the following comments on the RSPCA submission about their second set of figures.
Para 1 | The percentage of all defendants
that appealed given now by the RSPCA is consistent with the value of 3.34%
of all defendants (no matter what their plea) obtained from the figures
given to Mr Hendry. Far from suggesting that the SHG figures are flawed,
this makes it more likely that the SHG figures are correct.
The most significant problem with the second RSPCA figures is the assumption they make that if a defendant faces more than 1 charge, and subsequently appeals, then they were only ever successful in appealing sentence. There are no grounds for that assumption. A defendant found guilty in the Magistrates Court in relation to 2 animals is just as likely to have a successful appeal of both charge and sentence for 1 animal but be completely unsuccessful for the other as they are to be unsuccessful in both appeals against verdict but successful in both appeals against sentence. The RSPCA assumption is unfounded. The statistics in the SHG submission were based on defendants appealing their conviction, not those just appealing a sentence, for which the RSPCA has never produced the figures. Whilst it is true that the Courts decide
the sentence, in all RSPCA cases the RSPCA seek (and are almost always
granted) leave to address the Court on the 2 vital aspects of sentence,
namely confiscation and banning orders. They also campaign nationally
and address local groups of magistrates on these issues. We are unaware
as to whether the CPS also addresses meetings of magistrates on the subject
of sentencing, although national advice is given by the Lord Chancellor. |
||||||||||||||||
Para 2 |
It is not helpful to introduce allegations of dishonesty in such a forum. The original SHG figures are entirely consistent with the RSPCA figures supplied to Mr Hendry MP, assuming that the figure of 928 defendants given in the 2003 Trustees Report is correct.. Whether Mr Hendry MP or the Committee were supplied with misleading figures will be for the Committee to decide. Not until a proper independent database
is compiled can completely valid conclusions be drawn, but in the meantime
decisions over the Bill should be taken with care. |
||||||||||||||||
Para 3 | Conclusions have to be based
on the figures available. It seems unfair to criticise reliance on the only
official statistics available, especially when that criticism comes from
a body that has produced two such different sets of statistics in the space
of weeks. |
||||||||||||||||
Para 4 | This is again based on unproven
assumptions over multiple appeals. |
||||||||||||||||
Para 5 | This is not valid reasoning.
The enormous number of CPS prosecutions covers a great range of case types,
and they do not only prosecute offences that are easy to prove. It may be
that they only prosecute cases that satisfy their criteria over public interest,
quality of evidence etc but that is another matter. The figures in the SHG
submission were for CPS cases dealt with in their entirety by the Magistrates
Courts, and did not include cases committed to the Crown Court. |
||||||||||||||||
Para 6 | This highlights again the need
for proper figures before making judgements. The RSPCA appear to be suggesting
that different values and criteria should be applied to animal related cases
than to all other prosecutions. This is a very dangerous concept in law.
Justice is based on the fact that the same standards of evidence of proof
are applied to all defendants and to all offences. We do not let the CPS
apply easier standards to murder cases than to driving offences just because
they might be considered more abhorrent. |
||||||||||||||||
Para 7 | If the RSPCA produce their figure
for a different time period than the CPS, Lord Chancellor etc then we would
suggest that the onus is on them to change their system so that they are
compatible, not the other way around.
We are puzzled as to why the RSPCA does not want to compare their trial to conviction rate to that of the CPS. One obvious reason for their claim would be that having applied proper criteria, in particular the evidence disclosed by the Defence, the CPS does not always take a case to trial, whereas it is precisely the failure to apply those criteria and instead to proceed to trial in almost every case which results in the appeal discrepancies in RSPCA cases. It might be significant that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has to present its cases to the Procurator Fiscal, lodged 34 cases in 2003 and had 16 cases dealt with by the Courts. This compares with the CPS figure in the UK quoted by the RSPCA of 78.9%. It is the RSPCA, who do not submit their proposed cases to any independent scrutiny, whose figures are out of line with expectations. The discrepancy in scrutiny may well reflect both the high number of not guilty pleas in RSPCA cases and the successful appeals against RSPCA prosecutions. It is not thought that there were any successful appeals against SSPCA prosecutions in Scotland in 2003. |
||||||||||||||||
SHG’s response to the comments made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals {RSPCA} within their written reply to the EFRA Committee’s request for the RSPCA’s comments on the assertions made by us, {SHG} that, “whilst the RSPCA may have a 96% conviction rate in its prosecutions compared with 98% for the Crown Prosecution Service {CPS}, the number of defendants who appeal convictions in the magistrates’ courts is 26 times greater for RSPCA prosecutions than for CPS prosecutions and that the number of successful appeals is two times greater in RSPCA cases than CPC cases.”{fromRSPCA submission entitled AWB161(d)}. |
|||||||||||||||||
Prior to responding to the RSPCA’s allegations, we must advise the Committee that further and more comprehensive analysis of data relevant to the year 2003, indicates that upon a percentage basis:-
|
|||||||||||||||||
Our resonse
to the comments made by the RSPCA within their written reply to the EFRA Committee
and as referenced in the opening paragraph above. |
|||||||||||||||||
Within their reply the RSPCA
state that the SHG are:- |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
We, the SHG, vehemently and
entirely refute the RSPCA’s allegations that the figures supplied by us
to the EFRA Committee were “seriously flawed” and “dishonest”. We respond
as follows:- |
|||||||||||||||||
Despite the SHG’s {and others’}
repeated requests, the RSPCA have consistently declined to make any disclosure
{let alone full disclosure} as regards their prosecution, plea, conviction,
acquittal and appeal figures. |
|||||||||||||||||
Seemingly the only official
figures freely available to the general public are those contained within
the RSPCA’s 2003 Trustees Report and 2002 Annual Report {see Chart 3 & Chart
4 attached hereto}.
However, the only relevant figures contained with such reports
are those which come under the heading “Cruelty statistics” and list only
figures for “Prosecutions”, “Convictions”, and “Defendants”. These
are not only entirely insufficient for the purpose of any form of meaningful
analysis but also, in consequence of their falling beneath the heading
“Cruelty statistics”, are persuasive for the reader believing that such
figures are total and all encompassing {for surely, the number of “defendants”
within a table entitled “Cruelty statistics” can only be the total
number of defendants who were actually prosecuted
for alleged animal welfare infringements (as opposed to the number of
defendants who were prosecuted and subsequently found guilty of such);
unless, that is, the RSPCA seek to ‘massage’ the general public’s perception
of fact}. |
|||||||||||||||||
This clouded position is further
exacerbated by the differing figures now disclosed. We cite, for example
the following for the year 2002:-
|
|||||||||||||||||
These not inconsiderable disparities
make it not only virtually impossible for outside parties accurate analyse
and/or investigate the RSPCA prosecution figures, but also mislead and confuse
the public in general. |
|||||||||||||||||
The figures quoted to the Committee by the
SHG were based and calculated upon figures eventually supplied by the RSPCA’s
Director General Ms. Jackie Ballard {in writing upon official RSPCA paperwork
and authenticated by her signature} for the year 2003 to a Member of Parliament,
and thus leaving no doubt whatsoever for such figures’ accuracy or authenticity
{see Exhibit 1 & Chart
1}. |
|||||||||||||||||
These figures were as follows: |
|||||||||||||||||
149 defendants pleaded not guilty; 33 defendants were found not guilty; 31 defendants appealed their conviction; 17 defendants were successful in their appeal. |
|||||||||||||||||
The RSPCA’s published “Trustees Report for 2003” {see Chart 3} evidence there having been 928 defendants in 2003. Simple calculation therefore reveals that
at magistrates’ court,:- |
|||||||||||||||||
779 defendants pleaded guilty
(928 total defendants less 149 who pleaded not guilty) being 83.94% of
total defendants |
|||||||||||||||||
895 defendants either pleaded guilty or were found so to be (779 plus the 116 who pleaded not guilty but found guilty (see the next entry) and being 96.44% of the total 928 defendants. | |||||||||||||||||
116 defendants pleaded not guilty but were found guilty (149 less 33) | |||||||||||||||||
Of these (116 defendants) | 31 defendants appealed their
conviction at Crown Court (see Exhibit 1 &
Chart 1); being 26.72% |
Of these (31 defendants at Crown Court) | 17 defendants were successful
in their appeal (being 54.84% of those who appealed); and 14 defendants were unsuccessful in their appeal (being 45.16% of those who appealed) |
We therefore assert that the figures presented to the EFRA Committee by the SHG were entirely accurate; namely that, based upon authenticated information supplied by the RSPCA’s Director General, J. Ballard, 26.72% of defendants who pleaded not guilty but found guilty appealed conviction and 54.84% of these appeals were successful. Notwithstanding, and now having more detailed
information to hand, we do accept the RSPCA’s contention that the number
of such appeals is indeed 3 times greater in prosecutions brought by the
RSPCA than those brought by the CPS. |
|
In their reply to the EFRA Committee, the RSPCA state: “Statistically valid comparisons can be made only by comparing RSPCA conviction rates with CPS (and other prosecuting bodies) conviction rates for animal related offences”. We are of the opinion that conviction rates reflect properly progressed cases wherein evidence is both properly brought and of sufficient weight to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are a measure or indication of justice and we cannot really see any relevant difference in the process involved in bringing a prosecution for theft, drugs, etc. to those involved in animal welfare cases. The RSPCA also state: “To a large extent, the number of defendants who appeal conviction is irrelevant”. Surely, the number of appeals reflects the dissatisfaction felt by defendants’ counsel; and we have no doubt whatsoever that were there no such appeals the RSPCA would be hoisting the flag of total ‘righteousness’. Clearly, the number of defendants appealing is indeed of relevance. Also included in their reply to the EFRA Committee, the RSPCA state: “Second, a prosecutor is not allowed to address the court on the issue of sentence. It is a matter decided purely by the magistrates having heard representations from the defendant. Therefore, a reduction in sentence cannot in any way reflect upon the propriety of bringing a prosecution in the first place or its conduct”. It is a matter for known and absolute fact that the RSPCA attempt to influence Magistrates by “writing articles in the Magistrates’ own journals and attending their seminars and briefing them on their responsibilities” {Quote from Peter Davis, Director General of the RSPCA 1996} They ask for tougher sentences both in the media and in court. Possibly this is one of underlying causes as to why not only did 26.73% of defendants who pleaded not guilty but found guilty appeal conviction, but also, and importantly, 54.84% of these appeals succeeded. The RSPCA, when comparing the 98% conviction rate in CPS cases with the 96.6% for those brought by the RSPCA, state “the 98% figure compares all CPS cases, which go to trial, with the number of those cases which result in a conviction. If one compares all CPS cases (and not just those that go to a full trial) with those cases which result in a conviction, the figure is 78.9%.” This statement is at best misleading and,
at worst, untrue. The total number of defendants who went to trial
in CPS prosecutions in the year 2000 was 1,358,800 {see Chart
6, Chart 7 & Chart C).
Of these, 1,272,900 were dealt with in the magistrates’ court; 976,300
resulting in conviction. This equates to a 98.37% conviction rate at
magistrates’ court and does not take into consideration those cases that
were committed to a full trial at Crown Court. |
|
Our
further analysis of the available data. Whilst wishing to analyse like to like as regards the relevant figures for specific years, lack of disclosed information results in our only being to give meaningful comparisons of RSPCA and CPS prosecutions for the years 2000 (Re the CPS) with 2003 (re the RSPCA). Possibly this might be the moment to suggest that the RSPCA be requested to make full disclosure for the past (say) 10 years. Notwithstanding, the figures produced by the CPS show little overall relevant change or deviation during the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, in consequence, are suitable for the purposes of comparison with and evaluation of the RSPCA’s figures for the year 2003. A summary of this comparison is contained within the attached Chart A; one that is linked and cross referenced to the other attached supporting charts which themselves are evidenced and sourced for authenticity. |
|
The major areas of concern in consequence
for our analysis are that:-
|
|
Sources of Information. |
Chart A | Comparison of RSPCA figures
for 2003 with those of the Crown Prosecution Service for 2002 |
Chart B | Figures supplied or provided
by the RSPCA for the years 2002 and 2003 |
Chart C | Crown Prosecution figures for
2002 taken from Chart 5 & 6 (Home Office Lord Chancellor’s Department;
Crown Prosecution Service Report) |
Exhibit 1 | Copy of Reply from J Ballard,
Director General RSPCA |
Chart 1 | Figures taken from Exhibit
1 (J Ballard’s letter) |
Chart 2 | Extract from the RSPCA’s second
submission to EFRA |
Chart 3 |
Extract from the RSPCA’s 2003 Trustee’s
Report |
Chart 4 | Extract from the RSPCA’s 2002
Annual Report |
Chart 5 | Extracts from the “Launch of
the Animal Welfare Bill” |
Chart 6 | Extract from the Home Office
Crown Prosecution Service 2002 Report |
Chart 7 | Extract from the Home Office
Crown Prosecution Service 2002 Report |
Home
Office, Land Chancellor’s Office, Crown Prosecution Service data is shown in
Charts 6 & 7
Exhibit 1
CHART 1 | |||
Contents of the letter sent to Miss Jackie Ballard, Director General, RSPCA, together with the quoted replies {see attached copy} made by Miss Ballard to the precise same questions asked of her by Mr. C. Hendry MP. {Note: The numbers placed to the left of each question and response do not form part of the quoted letter. However, such numbers are the Reference Numbers for this particular Chart {i.e. Chart 1} |
|||
“Dear Ms. Ballard, Superintendent Tim Wass was allowed to come onto the C-View Media Forum in order to try and allay some fears and myths regarding the RSPCA. I asked him the questions below, and he replied that he had forwarded the questions to headquarters for accurate answers. Superintendent Tim Wass has now, I believe, gone on holiday. Would it be possible for you to supply me with the answers? I have added one further question to the list, which arises from the draft amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill. In it, it states that "5. In 2002 (the latest available figures) there were 1,006 defendants
proceeded against for offences under 1911 Act. 768 of whom were found
guilty." |
|||
1. | Could
you please tell me the total number of defendants who pleaded Not Guilty
{in the year 2002}. |
||
J Ballard gave no reply |
|||
The questions which had already been posed to Mr. Wass were:
|
|||
2. |
How many
defendants pleaded Not Guilty? |
||
J Ballard replied: "149 defendants” |
|||
3. | How
many were found Not Guilty? |
||
J Ballard replied: "33 defendants” |
|||
4. | How
many that pleaded guilty did not have legal representation? |
||
J Ballard replied: “We do not record this
information.” |
|||
5. | How many that pleaded
not guilty had legal representation, and of those how many were found not guilty? |
||
J Ballard replied: "We do not record this information”. |
|||
6. | How
many convicted persons appealed their conviction? |
||
J Ballard replied: "31 Defendants”. |
|||
7. | How
many persons who appealed were successful in their appeal? |
||
J Ballard replied: "17 defendants”. |
|||
8. | How
many cautions were offered and how many cautions were accepted and how many
were refused. |
||
J Ballard replied: "387 defendants”. |
|||
“how many were refused? |
|||
"No information available.” |
|||
9. | Are
cautions that are accepted included in the convictions figure of 1,829? |
||
J Ballard replied: "No”. |