The Law and the RSPCA
By Dr.Barry Peachey LLB(Hons), LLM, PhD, FCollP, MBAE, ACIArb, FETC
THIS ARTICLE is written in my joint capacities
as Legal Adviser to a number of dog organisations, and Chairman of the Legal
Aid Working Party of the British Academy of Experts.
I had been approached by a number of dog people, and by fellow professional members of the Academy, and asked to clear up a number of misconceptions about the RSPCA and the law that appear to be widely held and indeed publicly fostered by the Society itself.
Members of the Inspectorate in senior positions have on various occasions stated in public that they have a cavalier disregard for the law, and the protections that it affords to suspects. On September 3, 1992, Chief Inspector John Paul gave evidence at Richmond-on-Thames Magistrates’ Court in the case of David MacKay. During cross examination, defense barrister Mr Thomas Derbyshire asked the RSPCA man: "Are you telling this court that you encourage your staff to flagrantly disregard civil and legal rights in the pursuit of your ends?" Chief Inspector Paul replied: "My duty is to look after the animals, and if that involves infringing people’s civil or legal rights then so be it. The animals cannot defend themselves so we have to do it for them."
It is a matter of public record that in this case the RSPCA had illegally entered property, and illegally seized animals The recent RSPCA television series Animal Squad – Undercover which appeared on , Channel 4 featured Chief Superintendent Donald Balfour, Head of the RSPCA Special Operations Unit. He was asked on camera by a police officer if he had any legal powers to do what he was proposing to do. His reply was "Officially no, but we do it all the time."
In the recent press release in which the Society announced that they would be withdrawing their staff from prosecutions under Sl Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, they described the five men concerned as "qualified as expert witnesses". They are nothing of the sort, and this is yet another wilful misrepresentation of their legal position. The qualifying body for expert witnesses in this country is the British Academy of Experts. Only holders of full professional membership, or fellowship in the practicing category of membership are "qualified" as expert witnesses. The law is that any expert may give expert evidence if they can satisfy the court as to their expertise, but there is a vast difference between that and Academy membership. None of the RSPCA Inspectors authorised by the Society are Academy Members or Fellows, not the least because the academy requires candidates to be educated to at least first degree level, to have chartered or equivalent status in their primary profession, and to be able to pass an extensive and demanding vetting procedure, covering professional conduct and competence.
At present only three of the experts who have regularly appeared in Dangerous Dogs Act cases are on the professional register of the Academy All of them are Panel Members of the A.G.Fox litigation consultancy practice.
The RSPCA has sought to present the withdrawal
of its staff from these cases as an effort to protect innocent dogs. That is
an exercise in hypocrisy that is unsurpassed. The truth is that it has been
driven off the field by a whole series of crushing defeats in the courts that
have made the staff concerned look amateurish in the face of true experts, in
an exercise that in my view has brought the Society into gross disrepute.
The above article was printed in Our Dogs magazine May 21st. 1993 and still holds true today.
Any comments, thoughts or suggestions that you may have would be welcome. Please write
|Return to Main Page|