The RSPCA, the judge and *that* hunting court case

December 22nd, 2012 § 5 comments

(I’m doing this on my phone so you don’t get any links and spelling/names might be slightly out.)

The RSPCA prosecuted the Heythorpe Hunt, David Camerons’ local hunt, for deliberately hunting with dogs. The hunt admitted their guilt and it cost the RSOCA approx £330,000 as they brought their own prosecution rather than leave it to the CPS.

The judge in the case made comment along the lines of the RSPCA being a bit silly and that amount of money could’ve been spent better elsewhere. Presumably stopping poor people killing animals for fun in council estates rather than stopping rich people killing animals for fun in the countywide.

The defendants also made claim that this prosecution was politically motivated because the prime minister has ridden with them a few times.

Two things here.

1. I’m pretty sure if the RSPCA had evidence of other hunts hunting dogs on purpose and not just losing control of the dogs, then they’d prosecute. To gather evidence to a standard where one can prove a hunt is deliberately going after foxes is notoriously difficult. Which is partly the second point.

2. For the judge to comment in his closing speech (or whatever it’s called) on the cost and what the prosecutors should do with their money instead is completely outrageous.

The court case is for someone to defend themselves against specific allegations of law breaking. The accuser is not on trial, if the accuser is bringing a private prosecution it is not up to the judge to tell them they should be spending their money elsewhere. The judge should deal with the case and that’s it.

The judge though, by bringing up how much the RSPCA had to spend to get this case to court, raises an important point – the cost of the law. Ask anyone that has has serious dealings with the law and they will agree. The law is not for the poor man but how much it costs is not a debate for a court case.

The RSPCA said they brought the case because they had no faith in the CPS, and they’re probably right. To get the evidence of deliberately hunting with dogs is extremely time consuming and I guess to get a successful prosecution a prosecutor actually needs to be there at the time. It’s probably quite hard to prove the ‘deliberate’ part after the event, and the police etc cannot be there at every hunt meeting just in case, that really would cause an outrage.

Private or public prosecution, it is not up to the judge to decide whether it is a waste of money or not. His job is to preside over the court and ensure justice is done. This judge should be seriously reprimanded.

Tagged , ,

§ 5 Responses to The RSPCA, the judge and *that* hunting court case"

  • Eric Cleary says:

    You make interesting reading so you think that an organisation that is supported by people donating money to save animals is entitled to squander £330,000 pursuing 2 people over a hunting incident, when they can not afford to look after stray horses!
    The result, the horses are shot because the rspca won’t arrange for some one to come and get them because they have no money!

    • Sim-O says:

      Erm, yes I do think they are entitled to spend £330k on taking a hunt to court. It’s their money. People donate to the RSPCA to help them save animals. If a donor doesn’t like how the RSPCA spend their money they’ll cancel their direct debit or stop dropping change in the collection tins.

      But that is not my point. The point is the judge commenting how the RSPCA is spending it’s money when he should be commenting on the accused and the accused only.

      Don’t get angry at the RSPCA, get angry at the people breaking the law and the fact it costs so much to prosecute someone breaking the law.

  • Eric Cleary says:

    You are contradicting yourself my friend the money is indeed donated to save animals! Not to pay one man over 70,000 pounds plus vat and his team a further 90,000 pounds. Don’t say that they had to pay that because that is what the law costs for an expert, because the QC in question specialises in murder and high profile terrorist and drug cases not animal cruelty. It is purely the RSPCA making a political point and throwing their weight about , the judge was merely echoing the thoughts of many other people with common sense. If you followed the actual case you will know that his comments were partly made as a result of the RSPCA asking for the costs not to be disclosed. WHY O WHY was that I wonder did they think some people might think twice about donating to save an animal, if that animal turned out to a human filling his wine cellar with some old age pensioners £1 that he or she thought would be feeding a stray dog somewhere.
    I have read on many occasions where judges have criticised the cps for wasting money prosecuting people so it is only an intelligent person highlighting a failing not singling out the RSPCA. If you look here http://www.huntingact.org/?q=node/18
    you will see there have been over 237 successful prosecutions of hunts predominantly by the CPS/ Police and none have cost any where near £330,000.
    You also fail to mention that invariably when the RSPCA bring a private prosecution and they lose the costs come out of the tax payers pocket because they are a charity.
    Yesterday a young horse was shot here merely because it had escaped from somewhere and there was no where for it to go and the RSPCA “refused to come and get it as they don’t have the resources ” they were asked by the police and refused. Oh and your right I will never ever contribute any money to them ever again and I will do my best to dissuade others from donating to them as well. There are far more charities who are less condescending and do what they say they will.

    • Sim-O says:

      You are contradicting yourself my friend the money is indeed donated to save animals! Not to pay one man over 70,000 pounds plus vat and his team a further 90,000 pounds.”

      I am not contradicting myself. The RSPCA prosecute people that are cruel to animals. prosecutions are part of a deterrent and prevent people being cruel to animals they don’t like.
      £160k is how much that part of one part of their operation cost. You could also say that about the vans they drive around in. People give them money to save animals, not to buy vans with.

      “Don’t say that they had to pay that because that is what the law costs for an expert, because the QC in question specialises in murder and high profile terrorist and drug cases not animal cruelty.”

      Well, the QC got the job done so it would seem he is an expert on animal cruelty law as well. The issue with costs also affects defendants, the vast majority of whom do not have the resources available to them that the people bringing the case have.

      “It is purely the RSPCA making a political point and throwing their weight about , the judge was merely echoing the thoughts of many other people with common sense.”

      Is that the job of the judge, though? To comment on who/how the case is financed?

      “If you followed the actual case you will know that his comments were partly made as a result of the RSPCA asking for the costs not to be disclosed. WHY O WHY was that I wonder did they think some people might think twice about donating to save an animal, if that animal turned out to a human filling his wine cellar with some old age pensioners £1 that he or she thought would be feeding a stray dog somewhere.”

      I don’t know why the RSPCA asked for the costs not to be discolsed. Maybe you’re right. I have asked them.

      “I have read on many occasions where judges have criticised the cps for wasting money prosecuting people so it is only an intelligent person highlighting a failing not singling out the RSPCA.”

      The CPS is funded directly from public money, so it is not quite the same thing. Besides, should the judge even be commenting about it in those cases? Shouldn’t that be raised with a ‘higher authority’ before/after a case?

      “you will see there have been over 237 successful prosecutions of hunts predominantly by the CPS/ Police and none have cost any where near £330,000.”

      Maybe the RSPCA does have a case to answer about whether they could’ve done it in a cheaper way. That still doesn’t change the fact that the RSPCA are *entitled* to spend their money how they want.

      “You also fail to mention that invariably when the RSPCA bring a private prosecution and they lose the costs come out of the tax payers pocket because they are a charity.”

      Oh? how’s that then? Does the govenrment underwrite all of the RSPCA’s prosecutions?

      “Yesterday a young horse was shot here merely because it had escaped from somewhere and there was no where for it to go and the RSPCA “refused to come and get it as they don’t have the resources ” they were asked by the police and refused.”

      That is sad and shouldn’t happen. I never said the RSPCA’s actions were the right ones though. Maybe they do need to look at their priorities, that is up to them. The point I was making was that the judge shouldn’t comment on the cost or who is bringing the case as it doesn’t give the impression of the judge being unbiased and taking the case on the *evidence*.

  • Sim-O says:

    I got a reply from the RSPCA.

    I asked if the RSPCA requested the cost of the case not be disclosed.

    They said no. The RSPCA did not ask for costs not to be disclosed. What case were you following, Eric? It sounds a little different to the one I’ve posted about.

    I also asked them, if they had lost the case who would’ve born the cost? The RSPCA? The ‘taxpayer’? Some sort of insurance policy?

    They said

    we have to pay costs whether we win or lose so that’s one of the reasons we only take prosecutions if we are certain the evidence is strong enough.

    That’ll be why I failed to mention the taxpayer would’ve picked up the bill if this, or any other prosecution, fails.

    Anyway, besides all that yo still haven’t mentioned if you think the RSPCA is entitled to spend it’s money how it wants.

    If you don’t think it is entitled, who should decide?

Leave a Reply to Eric Cleary Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading The RSPCA, the judge and *that* hunting court case at Sim-O.

meta