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 (“Jamie”) 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, “forthwith”. 

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 family”.”    

“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 suffering”, although some animals had arrived at Mr Gray’s farm “from a semi-feral origin”. 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: -

• The result is another landmark victory for Jacqui Fulton, of Blythe Liggins, who has represented Mr Gray and his family throughout.
  
  
• The RSPCA spends 44% of its annual income of over £100,000,000 (one hundred million pounds) on its prosecutions department.
  
  
• 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 interest”.
  
  
• The RSPCA is a private body so there is no mechanism to challenge the decision which Ms Case reaches
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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 80 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 ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/02/do0202.xml

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)

Press Release
For Immediate Release
3rd April 2008

Another day, another massive RSPCA media operation …

… RSPCA’s 5 day raid seizes and “euthanizes” cattle at East Farm, Thetford

The SHG is very concerned to note that the RSPCA has found yet another target for its extreme activities.  It has recently focussed its operations on yet another hard-working farmer and his wife.  The RSPCA’s media teams, journalists and photographers (including a photo journalist) have been at East Farm in Barnham for the last five days.

East Farm, the new point of focus for the RSPCA’s media-based operation, is farmed by Edward Heading.  Mr Heading, and his wife Margaret, are tenants of the Duke of Grafton, who himself lives nearby at Euston Hall.  The Headings are typical RSPCA suspects – they are hard-working farmers of good character.  They also run a highly-rated bed and breakfast from their farmhouse.

The RSPCA’s operation against the Headings is commanded by Mark Thompson, whose job-title at the RSPCA is “Chief Inspector”.  Mr Thompson is a veteran of many RSPCA raids, and he has been regularly critical of magistrates’ “leniency” in the past.  An example was the infamous “fat dog” case (RSPCA v David and Derek Benton), for which Mark Thompson was personally responsible.  Thompson was also concerned in another disastrous prosecution, when the RSPCA wrongly accused Martin and Gina Griffin of cruelty to one of their horses.

Mark Thompson is supervised by Timothy Wass, the RSPCA’s Regional Superintendent for East Anglia and the Midlands.  Mr Wass will shortly assume command of the RSPCA’s entire Inspectorate and has been repeatedly called upon to resign.  He is another controversial figure in the animal rights movement.  He was personally responsible for the RSPCA’s bizarre operations in December 2007 against the Hindu temple at Bhaktivedanta Manor, and involved in the infamous “Spindles Farm raids”, in which over 100 horses were seized.  These both attracted unprecedented and wide ranging criticism of the RSPCA’s aggressive handling of the cases.

The media have, as is usual for an RSPCA investigation, been afforded access to the Headings’ farm and its animals during the investigation.  This is important to put pressure on the farmers and to generate the headlines that the RSPCA needs for its fundraising.  According to news reports, the RSPCA have seized and photographed over 100 cattle and taken them to a “place of safety” to a farm which has a good relationship with the RSPCA.  They will apparently be cared for there at the expense of the RSPCA’s charitable funds – although it seems many of the animals have already been “euthanized”.

The RSPCA was accused by the Hindu Council of trespass to both land and goods, when it killed the sacred cow in the middle of the Temple in December last year.  The RSPCA’s John Rolls, responding to the media circus which Tim Wass has unwittingly created for his employers, said (on Friday March 28):

“We have received a letter today, asking us to admit liability for trespass to land and trespass to goods.  However, we entered the property accompanied by the police who were holding a valid warrant.  We acted properly, within the law, but clearly they are of a different opinion. I am sorry it has got to this point. We had hoped that the issue could be addressed through dialogue rather than the courts.”

Only one cow was killed during the raid on the Hindu Temple - the East Farm raids show that the Hindu is experience is far from unique.

Concern about the RSPCA in a number of different forums has recently reached new heights.  For example, The Horse Trust (“THT”) and The British Horse Society (“BHS”) are now leading a group of 16 animal welfare charities demanding a major review of animal welfare procedures in England and Wales.  The SHG supports their demands – the fairness and integrity of the RSPCA’s welfare procedures and prosecutions is regularly, and rightly, being called into question.  This is because the RSPCA is completely out of control.  It has no checks and balances and its activities against farmers and others unlucky enough to come into contact with the RSPCA’s enforcers are hitting the national papers on an almost daily basis.  The RSPCA still brings over a thousand prosecutions a year, but its number of convictions has regularly fallen.

These demands for review were followed by the intervention of Shadow Environment Secretary, Rt Hon Peter Ainsworth MP, who joined a host of high-profile politicians worldwide who support the campaign against the RSPCA’s killing of Gangotri.    THT and BHS, by contrast with the RSPCA, are universally respected – they have asked Princess Anne, to convene their review into how welfare investigations are conducted. 

The remarks of Peter Aisworth, THT and BHS follow further revelations about the RSPCA and their “independent expert” vet Nic de Brauwere, which emerged from the ill-fated prosecution of Martin and Gina Griffin, supervised by Mark Thompson.  That case, like so many of the RSPCA’s private prosecutions, ended in more highly-embarrassing disaster when the RSPCA and Nic de Brauwere were severely criticised by Judge Philip Browning.    The conduct of the RSPCA’s Spindles Farm raids, again using “independent expert” Nic de Brauwere, has also contributed to the calls for urgent review.

The SHG, and its many supporters, are calling for a full investigation into the killing of Gangotri, and a change in the RSPCA’s stance on trespassing on farms, and unlawfully killing animals without the owners’ consent.  Mr Ainsworth has given his support to this campaign, saying that “at Bhaktivedanta Manor, something happened which should not have done”.  The SHG welcomes this, and notes the recent, but not unprecedented, spate of high profile criticisms of the RSPCA, and its procedures, by judges and magistrates in the courts – of which the RSPCA v Griffin case was just one.

The RSPCA, after all, has a long-standing conviction for perverting the course of justice - and that is itself another reason why the SHG, more than 30 Hindu organisations and many others, including farmers, and pet owners who are genuinely concerned about the standards and fairness of investigations, are calling for a review, and also for the resignation, or immediate dismissal, of Tim Wass.

Speaking in relation to one of at least half a dozen recent cases in which the RSPCA has been criticised, the RSPCA’s Head of Press, Henry Macaulay, said on the subject of the RSPCA’s use of a proforma document which was considered to have influenced the evidence provided by expert witnesses in a case which the RSPCA wrongly brought against an innocent primary school teacher:

“The two cats were found dead, and were examined post mortem by a veterinary surgeon assisted and observed by a colleague. The former provided evidence … but before the case came to trial, she emigrated. Her colleague became the principal veterinary witness for the prosecution, therefore it was necessary to establish her in opinion (sic).  She was not experienced in giving evidence in court, and ultimately the District Judge felt that he was unable to attach any weight to her evidence.
 
“The RSPCA takes the view that the principle issue here was one of the lack of credibility of the veterinary surgeon rather than the issue of ‘coaching and rehearsal’. Crucially, this vet did not make it clear to the Court that it was her opinion that the animals had been caused to suffer and that her opinion had not been influenced by the ‘proforma’ which had only been referred to as an aide in the production of expert witness statements.  The RSPCA routinely provides guidance for vets about how to write a complete report for use as evidence in court. In this case the first report provided by the vet didn't give all the information needed, and so a second one was written in accordance with the guidance. This is not out of the ordinary - the evidence did not change, just the details that were included.
 
“Following this case, the RSPCA has welcomed a debate on the role of veterinary surgeons in animal cruelty cases and agrees that veterinary surgeons receive little guidance about giving evidence in cruelty cases. This is why the RSPCA has [arranged] a conference, hosted by the Royal Veterinary College, aimed at providing some information to veterinary surgeons. At the request of many veterinary surgeons, and with the approval of the British Veterinary Association, the Society has also produced a guidance leaflet in this respect. It is this latter document which the defence in this case claimed to be a witness-coaching document, which clearly it is not.”

Anne Kasica of the SHG said:

“I am very concerned to hear about the East Farm raids.  I agree with the Horse Trust’s Chief Paul Jepson when he says ‘the welfare system is not working’.

“The RSPCA, and its sinister anti-farming agenda, are the main reason for this.  It seems that the Headings were not members of the RSPCA’s Freedom Food assurance scheme.  People, and farmers who are not members of this scheme in particular, are living in daily fear about what might happen when the RSPCA illegally enters their farm.  The Headings were a very hard-working couple - tenant farmers who run a successful bed and breakfast from their farmhouse, which offers an authentic farming experience.

“The RSPCA views its private prosecutions primarily as a means of generating headlines and donations.  Recent figures show that the RSPCA spends 44% of its £100 million income on cruelty investigations and prosecutions.  This is a disgraceful position - no prosecution ever directly benefits an animal.  The RSPCA’s leviathan legal department should be shut down and welfare prosecutions left to professional and independent CPS personnel.” 

Ernest Vine, also of the SHG, said:

“I agree with Mr Macaulay, the RSPCA’s Head of Media, that it is necessary for well-respected welfare charities to meet and discuss the problems with ‘independent experts’.  They should do so very urgently – otherwise this will happen to a lot more farms.  The RSPCA is completely out of control and is engaging in raids on people’s properties and farms which are reminiscent of Nazi Germany.  The need for review arises, as the recent front-page article in the Veterinary Times points out, from the RSPCA’s ‘independent experts’ thinking they should act primarily as advocates for their paymaster, and not as court-appointed independent experts.

“I do not know what Mr Macaulay, RSPCA’s Head of Media,  meant when he said of a recent case ‘the evidence did not change, just the details that were included’ when the RSPCA successfully invited their ‘independent expert’ to alter her written opinion – this is also something which Mr Macaulay says is done ‘routinely’.  Strong anecdotal evidence suggests that Mr Macaulay is right –RSPCA experts often produce a draft report, which is not disclosed but is edited by the prosecutor to produce a second report which is both disclosed and relied upon at trial.  Perhaps the best recent example of that was the case of RSPCA v Burden, where the prosecutor accepted that he had written the final report for the expert which was disclosed.  The Burdens, who were hard-working sheep farmers, were wrongly accused by the RSPCA, and they were also rightly acquitted.

“I would be amazed if the BVA has approved this course of action, as Mr Macaulay appears to be claiming.  What on earth can he mean when he says that it was ‘necessary to establish her in opinion’?  It was this ‘proforma’ document, and the RSPCA’s ‘routine’ which worries many people - not only District Judge Gray in Harwich and all the Magistrates in the litigation against Malcolm Ellrich, Janet Walker and Maxine Proudler, not to mention people involved in the prosecutions of Annette Nally in Leamington Spa, Martin and Gina Griffin in Norwich, and the cases in Maidstone.” 

“These are just the prosecutions that we know about in the last two or three months – defendants in RSPCA prosecutions are frequently unrepresented and don’t realise how ‘serious the case was’ until they find themselves vilified on the front page of the paper.  Only then do they do a bit of research and call us –sometimes it really is too late to do anything.”

ENDS

Word Count:  2016

Notes to Editors: -

References

Cattle owner faces prosecution
The Thetford and Brandon Times, UK - 3 hours ago
... including 20 calves, were loaded on to a trailer this afternoon and were transported to an unnamed private farm in East Anglia while the owner of the ...
Cattle rescue enters fifth day Norfolk Eastern Daily Press

Leading charities unite to review welfare issues
Horse & Hound Online, UK - 10 Mar 2008
The RSPCA … have been invited to plan how cases should be managed in future … Horse Trust chief executive Paul Jepson said: "It appears the welfare system is not working ... The BHS and the Horse Trust asked the Princess Royal to convene the review
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/195314.html

Shadow Environment Secretary joins Gangotri debate
Borehamwood Times, UK - 12 Mar 2008
Gangotri was put down at the temple last December after receiving a lethal injection from RSPCA officers. The cow had been suffering from injuries suffered ...
http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.2114290.0.
shadow_environment_secretary_joins_gangotri_debate.php

RSPCA sued over sacred cow ‘mercy killing’
Farmers Guardian, UK - 31 Mar 2008
Last week, Peter Ainsworth, Shadow Secretary for the Environment visited the temple and issued a statement saying that the RSPCA acted wrongly and the ...

Hindus to sue RSPCA over sacred cow death
This is Local London, UK - 29 Mar 2008
A recent statement of support has been received from the shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth MP, who visited the Manor in March to discuss the ...

Victims of RSPCA bite back - Telegraph
... finally exposed how RSPCA witnesses had concerted their evidence in advance, using a proforma document to "coach" witnesses in what to say - about which ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/02/do0202.xml

Useful contact details:

Paul Jepson, Horse Trust, Speen, Princes Risborough  HP27 0PP - 01494 488464
BHS, Stoneleigh Deer Park, Kenilworth,Warwickshire CV8 2XZ - 0844 848 1666
Henry Macaulay, RSPCA Head of Press, hmacaulay@rspca.org.uk - 0300 123 0304

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

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA
(The SHG)

Press Release
For Immediate Release
2nd April 2008

RSPCA v Millington
“Place of safety” kennel convicted of cruelty!

There is generally no need for animals to be seized, but the RSPCA regularly ensures that animals are taken.  It also seeks to recover the (often enormous) costs of boarding them from owners who are successfully prosecuted.

The RSPCA, ever hungry for scalps, has brought a successful private prosecution against ‘place of safety’ kennel-owner Stuart Millington.  He has been convicted of cruelty to fifteen dogs, which had already been seized once from their owners.  Each dog was therefore the unlucky subject of at least two simultaneous criminal cases.

Tameside Magistrates' Court heard how the RSPCA began an investigation into Millington after one owner complained about his pet’s poor condition when it was released.  He had taken it to a vet. 

All 15 animals at Mr Millington’s ‘place of safety’ were ‘found to be in an extremely poor bodily condition'.  The kennels were “cold and wet with rough concrete floors, no food or water and little evidence of bedding”.

The dogs had also acquired a number of wounds, including tail tip injuries.  Some had to have their tails amputated. 

All the dogs had all been placed with Millington because he ran a reputable licensed boarding kennels.  Their care was being paid for, and the police and the RSPCA `fully expected them to be given the same high level of care as any other animal’.

Mr Millington, 61, of Hilltop Kennels in Mossley, admitted leaving 15 seized dogs with nothing to eat or drink in bare concrete kennels. 

The animals were in his care after being formally seized by Merseyside police during investigations conducted by them and by the RSPCA. 

Mr Millington was charging fees for looking after them while their various owners were taken to court. 

At least one of the dogs was linked to RSPCA and police investigations arising from the death of Ellie Lawrenson.

The SHG believes that the bizarre and unfortunate case of RSPCA v Millington shows that seized pets suffer in the care of the “places of safety” to which they are taken by the police and the RSPCA. 

This suffering is not just being separated from their owners – in the ill-fated cruelty case which the RSPCA brought against Annette Nally, the RSPCA were ordered to provide boarding records for Holly, her pet dog.  The “place of safety” produced records for the wrong dog, and it was later revealed that none of the treatments which the RSPCA’s vet had prescribed for Holly had ever been administered. 

Holly had died five months into her stay, but Ms Nally was not told until six months after Holly’s death. 

When Ms Nally was acquitted, the RSPCA admitted it had lost Holly’s body, but only after they had been told to return it.

No doubt because of his good relationship with the police and the RSPCA - and perhaps also because he was not a farmer – Mr Millington was neither banned from keeping animals, nor sent to prison.  He was fined just £2,000 with no further penalty - other than an order for some of the prosecution’s costs of the case, which, for a guilty plea, at £8,000 are significant, but not high by the RSPCA’s standards.  The costs of £8,000 are believed to have included further vets’ bills and more boarding charges.

The RSPCA's Phil Wilson said:

"As a responsible kennel provider Mr Millington ought to have provided these dogs with a far higher standard of care than he did.  We feel extremely let down that this did not happen.”

Anne Kasica of the SHG said:

“For once, I agree with Phil Wilson.  These dogs, who had been taken from their owners, deserved proper treatment and they did not get it.” 

“For the most part, animals are better off staying with their owner.” 

“The SHG has been concerned for decades that the standards of care for seized animals in ‘places of safety’ are not uniformly high.” 

“Defendants have repeatedly complained about the condition in which animals have been released to them - dead or alive - following the end of the trial.” 

“We are also concerned that the charges for boarding which the RSPCA seek to recover against defendants are disproportionately high.”

Ernest Vine of the SHG said:

“Many of the RSPCA’s seizures are totally unnecessary.  The RSPCA uses its own ‘independent experts’, some of whom do not know a dangerous dog when they see one.  However, the RSPCA still seizes the dog, causing suffering and massive costs.” 

“A recent example is John McGowan’s lurcher-cross Duke, who had to endure nine months in an RSPCA ‘place of safety’.  Duke was accused of being a ‘dangerous dog’, and Mr McGowan has just been acquitted and reunited with his pet.”

ENDS

 

 Notes to Editors: -

References

9 Months Locked up Under Dangerous Dogs Law - Now Duke …
Dog Magazine dot net, UK - 25 Mar 2008
Dukes owner, John McGowan had consistently stated that his dog was not a pit bull type and was actually a lurcher cross mastiff that he had owned since Duke ...

Kennel Owner Guilty of Cruelty to Dogs Seized Under Dangerous Dogs Act
Dog Magazine dot net, UK 
Stuart Millington owner of Hilltop Kennels, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to the dogs between 10th March and 24 March 2007. ...

Kennel owner fined £10000
Manchester Evening News, UK - 27 Mar 2008
A KENNEL owner has been ordered to pay almost £10000 for cruelty to animals seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Stuart Millington left 14 bull terriers and ...

Victims of RSPCA bite back - Telegraph
2 Mar 2008 ... In February, after another five days in court, a cruelty case against Annette Nally, owner of Holly, a German shepherd, was called into ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/02/do0202.xml

RSPCA Under Fire as Animal Cruelty Trial Collapses
8 Feb 2008 ... “Annette Nally was, like most defendants to RSPCA prosecutions, a thoroughly ... When disclosure of these boarding records was required, ...
www.dogmagazine.net/archives/334/rspca-under-fire-as-animal-cruelty-trial-collapses/

RSPCA Heavily Criticised as Cruelty Case Collapses
A lawyer has slammed the RSPCA siting “witness rehearsal” amongst a number of .... to have perverted the course of justice when disciplining an employee for ...
www.dogmagazine.net/archives/284/rspca-heavily-criticised-as-cruelty-case-collapses

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

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA
(The SHG)

Press Release
For Immediate Release
12th February 2008

Bad Karma for Gangotri’s Killers?

ON WEDNESDAY, 13 FEBRUARY, 2008 THE KILLING OF GANGOTRI WILL BE REANACTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF 29 HINDU TEMPLES AT PARLIAMENT AND HER ASHES WILL BE SPRINKLED ON THE GANGES

THE SHG STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE HINDU STRUGGLE TO PROTECT ALL BRITAIN’S SICK ANIMALS FROM THE RSPCA’S “NEEDLES OF DEATH”

On 13 December 2007, an RSPCA team which included a vet chose to enter the Hindu Temple at Bhaktivedanta Manor. Its purpose was a premeditated mission of death – and the team successfully killed Gangotri, a sacred cow, in the middle of the Temple without the knowledge of consent of the monks, or their vets.

Just hours before, the RSPCA had asked to enter the Temple. They and their vets had been invited in as guests, and they had been taken to see Gangotri. The monks say that they were assured by the RSPCA that no immediate action would be taken. Gangotri had been injured by a bull, but was being nursed back to health by possibly the most intensive, caring and informed regime of monks and specialist vets that any organisation could assemble. Gangotri was not sick and had never, for example, tested positive for any disease or even TB antibodies.

The monks’ gentle vegetarian lifestyle, and their respect for all animals, demanded that Gangotri be given a truly admirable routine of intensive care and that she be treated with respect. Instead Gangotri got the usual “needle of death” treatment, which the RSPCA calls “euthanasia”. The RSPCA’s actions have provoked an international outrage – and not just among Hindus. The sacrilege in the Hindus’ Temple will, the SHG believes, come to be regarded as one of the most grotesque acts of unlawful madness - and there are many - committed by the RSPCA’s animal rights activists in recent times.

The killing of Gangotri has launched many thousands of comments and articles in the media. This is because many farmers, pet owners and others have suffered similar experiences with the RSPCA. Many people who are not Hindus have contacted the national and local media to demonstrate their support. We believe that many of them will be at Parliament on 13 February 2008 to show their support for the brave Hindus campaign against the RSPCA’s actions.

In response to the international incident which they have created, one of the RSPCA’s most senior PR gurus, Sophie Wilkinson, has claimed that her employers “were not deceitful” and that the police “were not duped” by the RSPCA. It seems, from what Ms Wilkinson says, that the RSPCA is claiming to have obtained a valid search warrant, despite the fact that the RSPCA knew all about the animal. This is not exactly “positive spin”. Ms Wilkinson’s handlers know that they have not just desecrated a temple – they have revealed that, whatever other people think, and no matter what their vets say, the RSPCA always knows better. In short, the RSPCA evinces an astonishing arrogance.

It is not at this time known whether the misguided Magistrate (who is claimed to have issued the warrant) or the police were actually told by the RSPCA that members of its own “Inspectorate” and vets had been invited in as guests and had been allowed to see, and examine, Gangotri just a few hours earlier! Why a warrant came to be issued - and perhaps more importantly what was said to get it - is a complete mystery to the SHG.

Also, why the RSPCA bothered to obtain a warrant at all (if it did) is another mystery, as the RSPCA and their “Special Operations Units”, in particular, regularly trespass on land and take away and kill farm animals and pets without having any powers to do so. The RSPCA also admits, in relation to just dogs, that its employees and vets killed well over 1,000 in England and Wales in 2006 alone. The figures for horses, cats, cattle and other types of pet and farm animals are not released – the RSPCA is a private organisation, albeit still a charity.

Anne Kasica of the SHG comments: “What was Gangotri to the RSPCA? She was originally just another fund-raising opportunity for a charity that regards every non-perfect animal as a chance for a cruelty conviction, a press release or a big donation. What is she now? Her ashes will be sprinkled on the Ganges and she now represents one of the biggest PR disasters that animal rights activists in the RSPCA have ever committed. The RSPCA’s terrible act of sacrilege is, at least, sure to cost the RSPCA millions of pounds in lost revenue.

“The overwhelming majority of people, including me, support the animal welfare ethos behind the RSPCA’s original foundation. However, the RSPCA is now a very different proposition – it’s a full-blown animal rights machine and its lawyers have a huge appetite for cash. The RSPCA’s infamous ‘Special Operations Units’ are under pressure to deliver and regularly badly misfire. The real difference here from a typical RSPCA scenario is that Gangotri was a sacred cow in a Hindu Temple, rather than a farmer’s free-range cow in a field. The RSPCA routinely kills thousands of animals – and not just cats, dogs, horses and farm animals - every year in the name of ‘welfare’.”

“Farmers who farm on a free-range basis are particularly at risk. They look to reduce their exposure to the RSPCA and many have resorted to keeping their animals inside to protect them from the RSPCA and its unlawful snooping. The fact that even the Hindu community and their monks - who are vegetarian animal lovers – have now had to resort to building a “Cow Protection Unit” at Bhaktivedanta Manor reflects the impact which the RSPCA’s trespassing has had on the way that animals are kept in this country and on proper farming techniques.”

Ernest Vine, also from the SHG, comments:“What is sad about this case is that the Hindu monks were treated no differently from other people who have their paths crossed by the RSPCA – that is, of course, arrogantly, cunningly and reprehensibly. For recent examples, you need look no further than the outrageous cases brought by the RSPCA against Gina and Martin Griffin, decided two weeks ago, or the shameful case of Annette Nally, which was decided only last week. Look at what Judge Philip Browning and Judge David Chinnery have had to say about the RSPCA’s actions in those cases. If you are not convinced by them, then read what District Judge Gray and the Portsmouth Magistrates said in the two infamous cases before Christmas involving a primary school teacher and a kennel maid which have been so well covered in Private Eye.

“We have, of course, been helping people with their difficulties with the RSPCA for nearly 20 years - just after the RSPCA was originally convicted of perverting the course of justice. It’s fair to say that we think that most of the RSPCA’s killing is actually done for cost reasons. In this country, if you work for the RSPCA, you can kill a lot of other people’s animals using animal rights as an excuse. Sensible people believe in animal welfare and doing their best to care for animals. The RSPCA’s ‘euthanasia’ has become its weapon of first resort. Whether you are a farmer, or a pet owner or a vegetarian monk, who has sworn an oath to protect all animals from suffering, it matters not – your animals, if they are sick, are at risk of being put to death or taken away so that you never see them again.

“After their vets’ needles, the RSPCA’s next preferred weapons are, of course, their £300-an-hour lawyers. It seems from what the papers say that the Hindus are going to provide Sally Case, and her ill-advised colleagues in the RSPCA’s Legal Department, with plenty of opportunities to examine their lawyers’ charge-out rates. Unlike the sheep farmer, or pet-owning pensioner, the RSPCA will not be able to get their Legal Aid discharged – they won’t need any! ‘Act in haste and repent at leisure’, is one of my favourite maxims. The RSPCA have certainly acted hastily – indeed, when they think they see a weak target, they almost invariably do so. I can only think that someone made a huge tactical error here and confused the poverty of the monks themselves with financial weakness on the part of the Temple.”

Notes to Editors: -

References

JUDGE CRITICAL OF RSPCA IN CASE OF INNOCENT COUPLE
The court heard that Mrs Griffin bought Florry as a three-year-old, but because of ... Mrs Griffin claimed the RSPCA inspector had an "aggressive attitude". ...
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/178608.html

RSPCA HEAVILY CRITICISED AS CRUELTY CASE COLLAPSES
In this case, the RSPCA’s vet had made two similar reports – which is .... David Tyne: I guess that’s what Annette Nally thought, poor innocent that she is. ...
http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/284/rspca-heavily-criticised-as-cruelty-case-collapses/ -

RSPCA CAUGHT YET AGAIN - TWICE
This was a private prosecution brought by the RSPCA against a lady .... Press Release from Nigel Weller solicitors YOUNG KENNEL MAID ACQUITTED - RSPCA ...
http://myreader.co.uk/msg/129330786.aspx

ATTORNEY GENERAL V RSPCA (RSPCA PERVERTING COURSE OF JUSTICE)
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/The%20Attorney%20General%20v%20The%20Rspca.htm

JUSTICE FOR GANGOTRI – CAMPAIGN CENTRAL
http://www.justiceforgangotri.org/

RSPCA “WAS NOT DECEITFUL” – RSPCA PR SOPHIE WILKINSON
http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/news/letters/display.var.2028413.0.rspca_was_not_deceitful.php

HINDU FURY OVER COW KILLED AT TEMPLE | METRO.CO.UK
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=79699&in_page_id=34

BRITISH HINDUS FLAY UK GOVT ON COW SAFETY ISSUE
Times of India, India - 5 Feb 2008
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indians_Abroad/British_Hindus_flay_UK_govt_on_cow_safety_issue
/articleshow/2759619.cms

BRITAIN'S "QUIETIST" HINDUS SAY IT'S TIME TO SPEAK OUT
Independent, UK - 5 Feb 2008
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/independent/2008/02/britains-quieti.html

WORK STARTS ON HINDU COW CENTRE
The unit at the Bhaktivedanta Manor temple near Watford will be dedicated to Gangotri, a 13-year-old cow put down by lethal injection by RSPCA officers. ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/7225016.stm

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

 

ENDS

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
08 February 2008

RSPCA v ANNETTE NALLY

ANOTHER RSPCA CRUELTY CASE KICKED OUT

… ANOTHER DEFENDANT IS COMMENDED BY THE JUDGE

… AND THEN BREAKS DOWN IN TEARS

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 Chinnery’s 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 Annette’s 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 Holly’s 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 Chinnery’s 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 Nally’s 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”.”

Before: District Judge David Chinnery, sitting at Leamington Spa

Prosecution Counsel: Mr J Cave

Defence Counsel: Anne-Marie Gregory

Defence Solicitor: Jonathan Cairns of O’Garra’s Solicitors Leeds

Notes to Editors: -

1.        The claim that cruelty is “an offence of strict liability”, requiring no mens rea (“wrongful mind”) and an objective standard of care, is one which the RSPCA’s team of highly paid specialist lawyers makes time and time again.  The Court of Appeal made clear findings on this point in RSPCA v Peterssen - a Defendant has to behave unreasonably in all the circumstances as (s)he knows them to be.  However, the RSPCA took another specimen case to appeal - RSPCA v Isaac (correct).  There, the RSPCA’s lawyers appeared alone, having promised Ms Isaac an acquittal, but failed to cite RSPCA v Peterssen to the Court of Appeal.  Indeed, the Court of Appeal in Isaac was led to, and it is clear from the judgement of Lord Justice Holland did, believe the case was the first occasion that the 1911 Act had ever come before a court of record.  Many lawyers, inexperienced in animal welfare law, have since fallen for the “strict liability” argument.  We would direct them, and the reader, to the unreported cases rightly relied on by the defence in this case.  In RSPCA v C - another of the more infamous RSPCA cases - the RSPCA unsuccessfully appealed findings that it was wrong to impose a uniform adult standard of care on a child.  The child was said by the charity to have failed to summon a vet to care for a cat with a bad tail sufficiently quickly.

2.        The RSPCA, in order to increase the “stigma” that defendants like Annette have to face before and during trial, promotes the idea that there are strong links between child abuse and animal abuse.  Jonathan Silk, South West Regional Director RSPCA, is Chairman of "The Links Group”, whose sole purpose is to promote the idea of a strong link between these most regrettable, and in our view unrelated, phenomena.

3.        Annette Nally's case is very far from being the first time that such serious findings have been made against the RSPCA.  Indeed, as a very basic example, and as seasoned “RSPCA-watchers” will all know, the RSPCA has a conviction - which, unsurprisingly, Ms Case and her team of highly-paid specialists do not like talking about - arising out of the RSPCA v Retallick case, for perverting the course of justice.  Very senior personnel from the RSPCA were involved in disciplining one of their own inspectors for allowing material which assisted the defence to fall into the hands of the defendant’s lawyers (see Attorney General v RSPCA, The Times [1985] 22 June).  The result of this, back then, was a huge fine in the Attorney General’s contempt proceedings against the charity.

References

The Attorney General v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/The%20Attorney%20General%20v%20The%20Rspca.htm

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

ENDS

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
28th January 2008

 

YET ANOTHER JUDGE VILIFIES THE RSPCA …
YET ANOTHER ‘CRUELTY’ CASE COLLAPSES

RSPCA v MARTIN GRIFFIN & GINA GRIFFIN

Hot on the heels of the severe criticism of the RSPCA’s Prosecution Department last month by:

comes the damning judgment in Norwich, on the afternoon of 23 January 2008, of Judge Philip Browning.  It concerned Martin and Gina’s 24 year old laminitic horse Florrie, which had been a family pet for two decades.

The case, as usual for the RSPCA, was a private prosecution for ‘cruelty’:

The RSPCA’s ‘expert’ in this case was Nic de Brauwere.  Rather worryingly for the RSPCA, in the light of the court’s findings against it, Mr de Brauwere is the vet in the RSPCA’s recent high-profile seizures in Amersham.  Mr de Brauwere is in charge of welfare at ‘Redwings’, the rescue centre which the RSPCA pays to stable many of its ‘rescued’ horses.  The Griffins vainly tried to tell de Brauwere that they knew the horse was thin and that they had to keep its weight down to avoid an acute recurrence of the long-standing laminitis.  This is not only good equine practice – it followed the excellent advice obtained from their horse’s vet, Charlotte Mayers, who knew all about the horse, but with whom it seems that de Brauwere disagreed.

So, the RSPCA’s ‘Inspector’ John Jenkins and Mr de Brauwere thought they knew better than the Griffins’ own vet.  The horse was seized from the Griffins’ field where all the other animals, everyone agreed, were in superb condition.  Three ‘cruelty’ charges eventually emerged.  The animal was taken to a “place of safety” - de Brauwere’s facility - and his clients, the RSPCA, blindly pressed on with its case.  They were undeterred by the report of Colin Vogel, the country’s pre-eminent equine specialist (who incidentally writes the RSPCA’s own “Horse-Care Manual”).  Mr Vogel was called as an expert by the defence.

Judge Philip Browning, who is not known as a firebrand, made the following findings:

The SHG speculates that the RSPCA might have brought the case to highlight the 10th anniversary of the damning report from BEVA (the British Equine Veterinary Association).  BEVA’s concerns – one of many criticisms by specialist vets – are attached for ease of reference.  Is it possible that Sally Case, the Barrister in charge of the RSPCA’s Prosecutions Department, and her team of highly-paid support staff and “out-house” lawyers, wanted to emphasise the correctness of BEVA’s report?

“Some BEVA Council Members have voiced concern that the Society has appeared to prosecute cases more in order to generate publicity and gain ‘scalps’ than out of genuine concern for equine welfare.” “In most cases, equine welfare cases do not present as an emergency; the cases usually involve [alleged] neglect or malnutrition, which is by nature not acute … Recent cases have highlighted the failure of some vets to perform full, or competent examinations, which are necessary to support the decision to seize animals, or prosecute owners.”

Ten years ago, it was hastened by specialist equine vets who were concerned that the RSPCA was damaging the profession.  The criticisms in RSPCA v Humphries are quite well summarised by BEVA, and every one of these points could be made of the RSPCA again today.  The RSPCA has learned nothing in ten years, other than better ways of causing expense, distress and misery for ordinary decent people, like the Griffins, who look after animals properly.  It has also “generated publicity” recently!

The Self-Help Group (“SHG”) was formed to, and does, help people like the Grffins.  SHG’s Anne Kasica said:

“Like BEVA ten years ago, the public have had enough.  The Griffins’ case shows the RSPCA does not want to learn a thing from BEVA.  It wants money to keep its leviathan prosecutions running.  The public, and the judiciary, are turning their backs on an RSPCA which is increasingly desperate to justify and promote its sinister and unattractive agenda.  It is not just the RSPCA’s most obvious victims - like the Griffins, the Harwich and Portsmouth, and the many others referred to on SHG’s website http://the-shg.org - who see the RSPCA for what it is.”

Ernest Vine, also from the SHG said:

“The reporting of the recent cases shows that even the media now recognise the public don’t like the RSPCA’s animal rights ‘take and spin’ approach.  The actual results, and serious consequences, of the RSPCA’s ridiculous cases have been escaping into the public domain.  The truth sells papers better than printing the RPSCA’s press releases, which furiously spin against honest and decent defendants like the Griffins.  The RSPCA was more donations from people to run more cases like this.  We want to save the RSPCA from animal rights extremists and its own lawyers, who are regularly paid ten times more than defence teams.  I sincerely hope the result of the Griffins’ case will be reported with the same alacrity and prominence that the RSPCA’s preposterous allegations against them were given.  Long may judges like Gray and Browning, and brave magistrates, like those in Portsmouth, continue to hear the cases fairly, objectively and also without fear.”

 

Name Withheld**Names removed to protect individuals who have been the subject of animal rights harassment.Can be supplied but only to bona fide journalists.

Notes to Editors: -

References

Full details of the cases referred to can be found in the following articles

Pair cleared of horse cruelty
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?
or
http://tinyurl.com/23tgq7

BEVA Report
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/bevastatement.htm

YOUNG KENNEL MAID ACQUITTED
RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES
http://the-shg.org/kennel%20maid%20acquitted.html

RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES
http://the-shg.org/RSPCA%20criticised%20again.html

Trio cleared by court in dog cruelty case
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/fareham-and-meon/Trio-cleared-by-court-in.3540766.jp

The Attorney General v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/The%20Attorney%20General%20v%20The%20Rspca.htm

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 

ENDS

SHG Press Release
 
The SHG challenges the Crown Prosecution Service to Review every RSPCA prosecution after two RSPCA prosecutions collapse following evidence of witness coaching and court decides RSPCA expert veterinary evidence ‘unsafe’.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30th December 2007

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is challenging the Crown Prosecution Service to review every RSPCA prosecution following startling revelations.

Two recent RSPCA prosecutions have collapsed following admissions by the RSPCA that they:

• Routinely hold case conferences involving lay and expert witnesses,
  
  
• Effectively ‘coach’ veterinary experts with the use of an extremely negatively worded pro-forma document

During the trials:

• District Judge Grey at Harwich Magistrates Court expressed “grave concerns” about what had happened
  
  
• Magistrates at Portsmouth Magistrates Court were highly critical of the RSPCA’s conduct and methods of investigation,
  
  
• The Chairman of the Magistrates, Mr. Jim Morrison, stated that the RSPCA should change their practices in future,
  
  
• Magistrates made serious criticisms of RSPCA Inspector Janet Edwards’ failure to explain what offences were being investigated.
  
  
• Magistrates Chairman, Mr. Jim Morrison, stressed that in future the legislation must be explained to suspects and the RSPCA must tell them they have a right to have their own solicitor present during an interview,
  
  
• The RSPCA must not imply any adverse inference will be drawn if there is an adjournment for this reason,
  

The revelations did not become known until the trial was under way because the RSPCA’s solicitors:

• Steadfastly refused to disclose relevant documents to which the Defence were entitled.

 Ernest Vine of the SHG said “We have seen transcripts of RSPCA conferences from other cases, so this is not an isolated incident. In fact we have one transcript from as long ago as 1999.  This should raise alarm bells with all of the relevant authorities about the safety of every previous RSPCA conviction.  Indeed, it is likely that many people have erroneously pleaded guilty on the basis of the RSPCA prosecution veterinary reports alone.”

“The SHG has been campaigning for the CPS to use their powers to quality control RSPCA prosecutions for some time and we wonder how much public money donated for animal welfare, and how much court time is going to continue to be wasted before the RSPCA is brought under the control of the laws that apply to everyone else in this country.”

Anne Kasica of the SHG concluded: “We told the government that proper protections for the public were needed in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 during the consultation exercise. We warned them that such abuses of the human and civil rights of animal owners would be inevitable if they failed to implement such protections.”

“How many innocent people are going to be convicted, or put through the agonies of a highly public prosecution that fails, because the RSPCA is out of control and the relevant authorities are doing nothing to protect the public?”

 

References

Full details of the cases referred to can be found in the following articles

YOUNG KENNEL MAID ACQUITTED - RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES
http://the-shg.org/kennel%20maid%20acquitted.html
Attached as a word doc.

RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER “CRUELTY” CASE COLLAPSES
http://the-shg.org/RSPCA%20criticised%20again.html
Attached as a word doc

RSPCA pro-forma for coaching expert witnesses
http://the-shg.org/Coaching%20of%20expert%20witnesses.html
Attached as a word doc.

Trio cleared by court in dog cruelty case
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/fareham-and-meon/Trio-cleared-by-court-in.3540766.jp

The Attorney General v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/The%20Attorney%20General%20v%20The%20Rspca.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/3d2q7a

 

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 

ENDS

SHG Press Release
 
RSPCA figures misrepresent the facts

Statement from The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
6th August 2007

Anyone who has seen the figures recently released by the RSPCA would believe that the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 has caused a 20% drop in convictions when comparing the years 2005/6. 

A glance at the graph below shows this to be completely untrue.  Conviction rates have been falling steadily since 1998.  The exception to this trend was the dramatic rise in 2005 followed by a return to steady falls as reflected in the 2006 figure.
.

 

Said Anne Kasica of the SHG:  “The real effect of the Animal Welfare Act has not been to drive conviction rates down, but to increase the numbers of animals given up by people, something the RSPCA have admitted they were not expecting, and yet this increase was predicted in paragraph three of the Memorandum submitted by the SHG to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during the consultations on the Animal Welfare Bill,

“The result of this legislation will be to reduce the number of people prepared to keep animals of any kind because they have privacy concerns and because they are not prepared to put themselves at risk of attracting the attention of the RSPCA whose unlawful activities are well documented, and who are feared by many animal keepers”

Ernest Vine of the SHG said: “What we really need to know is what caused the dramatic rise in convictions during 2005.  Did the massive publicity the RSPCA received during the run up to the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act have an affect on the decisions made by Magistrates?  If so, this illustrates the dangers of allowing a politically campaigning organisation to bring prosecutions without the sort of scrutiny and checks imposed on police investigations by the Crown Prosecution Service.”

 “Far too often legislation supported by the RSPCA that is intended to improve animal welfare has a detrimental effect and actually discourages people from keeping animals.”

“The SHG believes that if the government were to introduce an NHS for the animals of pensioners it would do more to reduce animals suffering than all of the animal welfare legislation that has been passed while this government has been in power.

 

Notes to Editors: -

References

 

Surrey Advertiser - ‘Horrific’ animal cruelty cases rise
http://www.surreyad.co.uk/news/2013/2013462/horrific_animal_cruelty_cases_rise

Paragraph 3
House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Minutes of Evidence
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4101313.htm

Dramatic rise in unwanted pets | Metro.co.uk
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46224&in_page_id=34

The Citizen – Animal Cruelty Cases Fall
http://www.prestoncitizen.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.1584342.0.animal_cruelty_cases_fall.php

SHG Press Release - RSPCA Cruelty figures at a ten year low
http://the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

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 

 

ENDS

SHG Press Release

 

Legal Aid changes deny a defence to people prosecuted  by the RSPCA

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
26th June 2007

 

Animal Welfare prosecutions are a very specialist area of the criminal law which are usually strongly contested and hinge on expert evidence, often lasting several days or even weeks

The current legal aid changes will lead to increased delays,  miscarriages of justice and higher costs as more RSPCA cases go to appeal, claim the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (the SHG).

“The RSPCA fields specialist solicitors experienced in Animal Welfare Law and barristers who travel across England and Wales to undertake  private prosecutions in the Magistrates Courts. The RSPCA also have a select number of expert  witnesses who consistently travel to wherever they are required.” Said Ernest Vine of the SHG

“The people the RSPCA are prosecuting are being denied the Equality of Arms they were promised in the Human Rights Act.  They are being told by the Legal Services Commission that they must use solicitors who are local to them irrespective of that solicitor having any experience in defending Animal Welfare Prosecutions.”

Anne Kasica of the SHG said “On top of the normal stress involved with an RSPCA prosecution the government have added the despair of being unable to access specialist solicitors or even being able to fund a defence at all.”

“The Legal Services Commission is failing to understand the problems people are faced with when up against a private prosecutor for whom money is no object.” (Over £5 million spent on prosecutions in 2005)

 “This is happening at the same time as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is increasing the numbers of prosecutions.  Despite the concerns raised by the SHG, the government did nothing to ensure that private prosecutions brought by the RSPCA should be subjected to the same quality controls imposed on the police by subjecting all prosecutions to the scrutiny of the Crown Prosecution Service.  And now the government are ensuring that people prosecuted by a charity which has no independent complaints body or ombudsman cannot even access the specialist legal advice that is necessary to defend themselves.”

Quotes from people calling the SHG Helpline:

“I’ve never been in court for anything before.  I don’t understand why this is happening to me. We’ve worked all our lives, but now we can’t afford a solicitor or an expert to defend ourselves.  Each night I go to sleep I hope and pray that I won’t have to wake up.  Ever again.” 
(A woman who had just been told that she would not qualify for means tested legal aid )

“What they’re saying is that the solicitor who has defended lots of RSPCA prosecutions and knows how to fight the case and says I have a good chance of winning  can’t represent me, but the one who says Plead Guilty and who couldn’t even find an expert witness until you (the SHG) gave me some is the only one they’ll pay.  We’re guilty before we start.  We  might as well just go in and speak to the magistrates ourselves.  We’re going to appeal it all the way.  We’ve already lost everything so what else can they do to us?.”
(A couple referred to a specialist solicitor who can no longer take cases out of area on Legal Aid.)

“I’ve rung all the numbers that help line (LSC find a solicitor) gave me but the only one who said he would look at it rang me back and said he couldn’t take the case. The others didn’t really seem to know anything about RSPCA cases anyway.  I’ve had two adjournments from the court to let me find a solicitor.  What do I do now?”
(An elderly farmer who has been struggling to represent himself in court.)

I have been involved with an RSPCA prosecution and without the legal aid I was given would never of been able to fight my case and successfully win.
My solicitor was a specialist in animal welfare cases and also my barrister was very experienced in this particular field, both were situated over 350 miles away from my home.
I am positive that if I had used a local solicitor my case against the RSPCA would of been lost.
 My experience with the RSPCA was two years of hell for myself and my family and if it wasnt for the skilled experienced solicitors and barristers that I found with the help of legal aid, I am sure I would not of won my case.
(A winner thanks to Legal Aid.  Willing to talk to the press but requests anonymity.)

 

Notes to Editors: -

Please note that the petition to the Prime Minister for a public Inquiry into the policies and running of the RSPCA now
has over 1900 signatures and can be seen and signed at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rspcainquiry/

References

SHG response to Legal Aid Consultation
http://the-shg.org/Consultation%20responses.htm

The Law Society – What Price Justice?
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/news/majorcampaigns/view=newsarticle.law?CAMPAIGNSID=306046#support
or
http://tinyurl.com/2xcoxc

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 

 

ENDS

SHG Press Release

Animal  Welfare Act 2006 gives NO new powers to the RSPCA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
10th May 2007

The Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (the SHG) is receiving calls from worried animal owners who believe that the RSPCA have been given new powers by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) and who are  realising that there are no safeguards written into the AWA that will protect people’s civil and legal rights.
“Despite claims by Jackie Ballard, the Director General of the RSPCA, that the AWA  ‘enables our inspectors to prevent animals suffering by taking effective action earlier in cases of ongoing neglect.’ the RSPCA have been granted NO new powers under the AWA” said Ernest Vine of the SHG.
“Unless the RSPCA, as a whole or individually, are appointed as “inspectors” as defined by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, they will have no more powers than they already had under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.” 

“This means that the RSPCA currently have NO right of entry, NO right to demand answers and NO right to seize your animals.”

Anne Kasica of the SHG said  “There are supposed to be consultations before secondary legislation and the Codes of Practice which will detail how an animal is supposed to be kept are implemented, but a spokesman for Mr. Bradshaw talking about the consultation on circus animals has stated that  "The Bill is intended to ban all species not native to Britain." and that the consultation was needed before the ban becomes law!”

“Every animal owner in the country should take heed of these weasel words.  It seems that the consultations are simply exercises to fulfil the requirements of the Act and that they are seen by Mr. Bradshaw and his Department as legal hoops to jump through before introducing the ban.”

“Animal owners should be telling the government, the Welsh Assembly and their local authority that they do not want the RSPCA to be appointed as “inspectors” under the AWA and that it is the duty of the authorities to appoint professionals with no political axe to grind..” 

Notes to Editors: -

Please note that the petition to the Prime Minister for a public Inquiry into the policies and running of the RSPCA now has over 1800 signatures and can be seen and signed at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rspcainquiry/

References

BLOW FOR ANNE THE ELEPHANT
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/tm_method=full%26objectid=18355794%26siteid=98487-name_page.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/25jby6

Notes from FoBAS: The Federation of British Animal Sanctuaries
http://www.warmwell.com/04oct23awb.html

Act Helps Keep Pets Safer (from Harrow Times)
http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1312188.0.act_helps_keep_pets_safer.php
or
http://tinyurl.com/2s4l7e

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 

ENDS

SHG Press Release

RSPCA's  increase in abandoned animals the inevitable result of
the Animal Welfare Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
25th April 2007

As the RSPCA flexes its muscles with the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) asks what the AWA has actually achieved.

The RSPCA are claiming a massive increase in the numbers of animals handed in and abandoned.

As predicted in paragraph three of the Memorandum submitted by the SHG to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  

“The result of this legislation will be to reduce the number of people prepared to keep animals of any kind because they have privacy concerns and because they are not prepared to put themselves at risk of attracting the attention of the RSPCA whose unlawful activities are well documented, and who are feared by many animal keepers”

According to Anne Kasica of the SHG  “Even if we take out the huge numbers of people who have been terrified into giving up staffordshire bull terriers and staffie crosses who were loving family pets as a result of yet another RSPCA campaign on dangerous dogs,  the RSPCA are still admitting that our predictions are correct.”

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

Notes to Editors: -

References

Paragraph 3 House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Minutes of Evidence
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4101313.htm

Dramatic rise in unwanted pets | Metro.co.uk
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46224&in_page_id=34

SHG Press Release - RSPCA Cruelty figures at a ten year low
http://the-shg.org/SHGPressReleases.htm

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

ENDS

SHG Press Release

The SHG challenges the RSPCA to help a sick animal in distress after the RSPCA’s insurance company refuses to pay out.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

19th April 2007

The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG)