The zeal of the RSPCA

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Committee has launched an investigation to ascertain whether the RSPCA should be allowed to investigate and prosecute. 

A charity with the sole agenda of protecting the welfare of animals should not be allowed to make the decision on whether cases are heard in court. The situation may be likened to that of the police who, before the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service in the early 1980s, conducted all of their criminal investigations right through to trial. 

The separation of investigative from conduct functions came about following a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice. 

The fundamental difference is that the RSPCA is still a private charity, and thus the mantle of responsibility with what is generally a public function sits uneasily and leads – as it has done recently – to conflict, attracting much media and thus public attention. 

I have represented a number of clients, many of whom operate in the agriculture sector, that have faced prosecution by the RSPCA. In 2014, I represented an agent of French-based Channel Livestock, who was charged with two counts of causing unnecessary suffering to animals after the lorry he was driving was stopped at Dover by the RSPCA.

Two of the 548 sheep on board the lorry were lame, claimed the principal witnesses from the RSPCA in a prosecution brought by Kent Trading Standards ?at Dover Magistrates’ Court. ?The defendant was found guilty. What emerged during the nine-day trial, however, ?revealed the pressure the RSPCA brought upon the local authority prosecutor and their lack of responsibility and accountability towards livestock transporters – and even animals. 

Despite the objections of Defra’s Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) vets, the RSPCA insisted that all of the sheep were unloaded from the lorry onto a hastily improvised lorry wash. 

Ramsgate port was turned into a bloodbath when RSPCA staff had to shoot 43 sheep four to five hours later, in what they claimed was humanely conducted euthanasia. They claimed this was necessary as the sheep were lame and unfit to travel, when in fact it was the prosecution’s case that they had all been examined and passed as fit to travel by an AHVLA vet at the start of their journey. It was argued that any resultant lameness was directly caused by their treatment after they were prematurely unloaded in the port. 

The trial result could ?have frightening ramifications for farmers and livestock transporters. Previously, ?there was flexibility of the Animal Welfare Act – consideration was given ?when animals were injured during transit.

But in this particular case, ?it was ruled that causing unnecessary suffering to animals in transport was governed by strict liability. ?This means that the RSPCA could win a prosecution without evidence or without proving malice.

That puts the public in grave danger of miscarriages of justice while this professed ‘animal welfare’ charity serve their interests only, and not those of the people of England and Wales. 

David Kirwan is senior partner at Kirwans @KirwansLaw www.kirwanssolicitors.co.uk 

Copyright & permissions