Watching what is happening in other jurisdictions is vitally important. We now have RSPCA UK, the SSPCA and RSPCA QLD all wanting to be able to dispose of animals before any court has heard the evidence against the Defendant.

For organisations that claim to care about fair play and due process this is a bizarre position to hold and highlights the disdain these AR-Groups feel for the rights and feelings of those unfortunate enough to come to their notice.

How many Defendants will have the will to continue to fight if either the breeding stock that has taken years to produce and which forms the core of their business is gone? Or if their only companion has either been killed or sold to someone else?

It is heartbreaking that Animal Rights (AR) organisations masquerading as “welfare” groups whose claimed aims include “kindness” prefer solutions that destroy the human animal bond over those that could work to enhance it.

Wouldn’t it be better if a local vet, chosen by the defendant, was to be allowed to oversee the ongoing health and welfare of the animals if they remained with their owners pending the outcome of any court proceedings? Meaning that pet animals could remain in their homes with the people they love without the stress of moving into kennels and grieving for their family,, and commercial animals could be dealt with accordingly?

The costs of the veterinary supervision to be the RSPCA’s if they lose and the Defendant’s if they should be found guilty – or proportioned costs if the Defendant is only found guilty on some of the charges against them?

Of course, in England and Wales, s.20 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already allowed applications to court either by the prosecutor, requesting to dispose of the animals, or for the owner to ask for their return. This has not been good enough for the RSPCA in England and Wales because the courts have not always granted their requests.

Worse, a government that was penny pinching on animal welfare made S.20 a civil application, meaning that there is no legal aid available for individuals fighting for their animals against top prosecution barristers and solicitors. So much for equality of arms and human rights.

Can we really believe that three separate (R)SPCAs are asking for the same nasty solution to a problem of their own making purely by chance? Or is it more likely that they have been colluding together and if any jurisdiction allows these demands the others will point to it as reason for granting the same injustice in their country?

The SHG has collated these figures into tables to provide the media and anyone else interested with a means of easily comparing RSPCA Wales statistics between 2013 and 2019.  A glance will enable busy journalists to see whether claims of increases or decreases over a set number of years really show the claimed trends or if extending the time period shows something completely different.

All of the statistics used here have come from the RSPCA Annual summary. for Wales from 2014 to 2019.  Note that the RSPCA regularly changes the names of the things they measure or the way that they are measured making it very difficult to draw comparisons.

The data for 2013 is taken from the 2014 report.

The 2018 report is light on content.  Very few figures are given.

The 2019 report states that the inspectorate numbers 40.  We have put this down as inspectors but in all probability it means the sum of all employees in the inspectorate, not just inspectors.

One statistic that has not changed over the years is the number of calls which has remained steady at 50,000.  This is important because all of the other figures that are quoted vary year on year.  It is difficult to understand why calls for one issue would increase proportionately to the decrease in another issue leaving the total number of calls constant.

Table 1 shows the make up of the RSPCA Inspectorate in Wales to the extent that it can be ascertained from the figures given in the Annual Summaries.

Table 1.

Table 2 contains the prosecution statistics.

The 2018 report refers to 5940 pet owners offered and accepted animal welfare advice.  We have taken this to mean they were given a welfare and improvement notice.

2 of the 60 defendants convicted in 2019 were  youths.  Children in other words.

No explanation is given for why the  statistics change year on year.  Nor is there any explanation of why the different statistics go up and down but the total number of calls remains static.

We can only speculate that the RSPCA chooses what to investigate depending on the availability of funds and the campaigns they are running.

They state that the number of convictions fell for the first time in 4 years, which is true, although we do not have the 2018 figures.  What they have not pointed out is the steep drop in convictions between 2013 and 2014 and the steady rise  thereafter.

What is really happening is that all of the figures oscillate around an average, some years they rise and some years they fall, and unless the RSPCA increases the number of inspectors and the amount of money it has available to spend on prosecutions that will remain the position.   No charity can ever match the funding or resources available to state prosecutors.  This is why prosecutions should always be the job of the state, not private bodies like charities.
Table 2.

Table 3 gives the Regional Prosecution Statistics.  Note that the figures for 2018 and 2019 were not published in the Annual Summaries.

Table 3

Table 4 contains a mix of information given on animals collected, rehomed, neutered etc plus details of the number of Branches and clinics.  They are divided between the RSPCA as a whole in Wales and those for the Branches and Animal Centres.

The 2015 report had this spectacular comment:

Whilst an encouraging 78 percent of dogs were reported to be microchipped, more than 60 percent of dogs acquired in the previous five years had been sourced from private sellers or friends and family. So whilst the RSPCA warmly welcomed the improvements made by the Welsh Government to the standards for licensed dog breeding in Wales, which came into force in April 2015, these statistics show us there is still much work to be done to educate potential dog owners.

Here we see the beginnings of the legislative moves to destroy dog breeding and force those who want to obtain a dog to get one from charities

The 2017 figures for cats neutered is part of the joint project with Cat Protection.  People who took it up were also offered a microchip.  We are not told how many took up the offer of a microchip..

The 2017 report also states that most animals collected and rescued are wildlife.

The number of Branches in Wales dropped from 14 in 2015 to 13 in 2017.

Table 4

We will add to these statistics as new data becomes available.  Please let us know if you find any errors or if you find data that is currently missing from these tables.

There is going to be lots of hate blowing in the wind over the Fairbrother case, mainly because so much of the detail will never be told.

This quote from the article in particular needs an explanation because so few people understand how an RSPCA prosecution (and very often a police CPS prosecution) pans out.

“What really disappoints me is that a number of charges have been dropped, how can you face 17 charges each and be allowed to plead to only a handful?”

A typical raid snatches as many animals as it possibly can. Then it works out what charges should be brought and who should be charged.

The charges can be divided into three categories. Sometimes they will consist of only one category, sometimes all three.

Firstly there are those charges that are going to be impossible to defend except by mitigation.

Secondly there are those charges that might result in a Guilty verdict but which for various reasons can be defended and might result in a Not Guilty verdict.

Thirdly there are those charges that are simply ridiculous but which are included because they can be bargained away. They are useful psychological tools in that they help to further terrify and overwhelm the Defendant and their legal / veterinary team.

The Defendants can be divided into categories too.

Firstly there is the person who is actually responsible for the animals and whatever has happened too them.

Secondly there will be anyone who might have lived on the premises or visited regularly. This second category will often involve vulnerable people, either the very elderly, children, people who are ill, or a spouse / partner who will lose their job if they are involved in an animal welfare case.

When a case goes to court and it becomes clear that someone is fighting back these lesser categories become very important.

In order to get a conviction the RSPCA will make an offer to deal.

“We will drop those charges in the third or even the second category if you plead guilty to some in the first or second category. “

Why would they do this?

It prevents the Defence team raising any legal arguments that might get the case struck out. Was the warrant properly obtained? Used? Did the seizure take place properly? Was it properly documented? Were there any questions relating to the expert veterinary evidence? etc.

it also prevents any problems that might have occurred with the animals while in RSPCA possession being brought into the public domain. Did the animals die? Were they attacked by other animals? Did they become ill or were they injured?

The deal might also include who is to be prosecuted.

“Plead Guilty to some charges and we will drop the prosecution against your child / sick parent / mentally ill sister / partner who will lose their job.”

The pressure on a Defendant who has been made an offer like this just before the case is about to start is immense.

Their legal team can not make the decision for them, only pass on the offer and tell them that courts might give a lesser sentence for a Guilty plea that saves court time.

For those who have to pay for their legal representation and who may well have lost their incomes because of the prosecution there is also the issue of costs to consider.  The costs of a full blown trial can run into many thousands of pounds.  Often far more than any fines are likely to be.  

So next time you see people wondering why charges are dropped or claiming that a Guilty plea means that the people involved must have done something wrong please explain the facts to them.

“I signed over my pets.  The RSPCA said I would be prosecuted/they would fetch the police/have me arrested/seize all my animals/notify social services and have my children taken away if I didn’t.  But I love my animals and want them back.  What can I do?”

These are some of the heartbreaking words that The SHG hears regularly on the helpline (0744 99 89 411).

The first thing to do is take legal advice from a solicitor who is a specialist in animal welfare law to ensure that you will not make matters worse.  Phone The SHG on 0744 99 89 411 and we will give you a list of solicitors.

Next you need to notify the RSPCA that you are rescinding the sign over.  The wording will be different if someone other than the owner signed the animals over.

Send the following e-mail to these e-mail addresses.  Fill in the details in the [brackets]

chris.sherwood@rspca.org.uk

enqserv@rspca.org.uk

ray.goodfellow@rspca.org.uk

and fax it to:

RSPCA fax no’s

0303 123 0100
0303 123 0284

The title is:

For urgent attention of the legal department – Rescinding signover

In the body write:

I rescind signover of the [animals] removed by the RSPCA from [wherever, whenever by whoever] on the grounds that it was done under duress when I was upset and had no benefit of legal advice or medical attention.

Yours sincerely

[Your name]

Or if someone other than you signed the animals over, in the body write:

I rescind signover of the [animals] removed by the RSPCA from [wherever, whenever by whoever] on the grounds that it was done under duress when the person who signed was upset and had no benefit of legal advice or medical attention and they had no authority from the owner to sign the animals over.

Follow up with hard copy by mail that has to be signed for to:

RSPCA Legal Department,
Wilberforce Way,
Southwater,
Horsham
RH13 9RS

The document you have signed is effectively a consumer contract.  If you had signed to buy double glazing you would have 14 days cooling off period in which you could rescind the purchase.  The reason for this is that people who sell items to you are considered to have too much influence when doing so in your own home or on the phone.

Now think about how much more influence the RSPCA have when demanding that you sign over your animals.

If the RSPCA do not respond either speak to your specialist solicitor or ring the Consumer Advice help line on 03454 04 05 06.

Contact the Charity Commission and tell them what has happened.  Stress that you are making a complaint about a charity whose actions are bringing charities into disrepute in the minds of the public.

Make an appointment to see your MP, your local councillors, any politicians you can access and ask them for help.

Consider talking to the local media.  Newspapers or radio are always on the lookout for local stories of interest.  Again, you should take legal advice before doing this to ensure that you are not damaging your case.

Finally, please let us know how you get on.  If you run into problems we will do our best to help.

One of the most difficult issues the SHG has to deal with is proof of ownership.  Animals stray or are stolen.  They end up in RSPCA possession and the RSPCA will not part with the animal.  Or they end up in the possession of an individual who claims that the animal is really theirs.

The police will not act, claiming that these issues are civil, an ownership dispute.

Most people cannot afford to pay a solicitor and there is no legal aid for this type of action.

So what can people do to ensure that they can prove ownership of their animals?

Whenever you transfer ownership of an animal also exchange receipts. Do this even if you give or receive the animal as a gift.

If the animal is going to be looked after for a period of time by someone else then get a signed agreement that details who is responsible for what. Especially in emergencies.   Who has to arrange vet care?  What if the animal strays?  Or the carer is taken to hospital unexpectedly?

You need to create a paper trail of responsibility and ownership.

You also need to create a photo-dossier showing the animal in your possession over its life.  Lots of photos, at least one a week with that day’s newspaper headlines in the photo and something else that is clearly your property or you also included.  Never part with these documents.  Try to keep copies away from home.

Remember that micro-chips are not proof of ownership.  They can also fail or move in the animal.

Consider getting your animals tattooed.  It is an obvious mark and as such is a deterrent.

Get a DNA profile of your animal.  A quick internet search for “DNA profiling of pets” will list many companies who will produce a profile and even store a sample of your animal’s DNA.  And as they say, unlike a micro-chip the DNA is tamper proof.  It cannot be removed or fail. It is not invasive and has no adverse health implications.

All of the above are relatively cheap and easy to do.  Especially when you think about how much it would cost if you ever had to fight to get your animal back.

Writing in response to a criticism of the police for sending ten officers to rescue a confused seal by Richard Littlejohn, Chris Hobbs asked:

“In addition to the police, the fire brigade were also present. Should they have been or should they have been reserving their skills for real fires or pulling people out of road accidents?”

and went on to say:

“The emergency services refusing to help a stranded seal who eventually dies a slow and agonising death in a farmer’s field would be a master class of PR wouldn’t it?”

No mention of the self proclaimed emergency service for animals, the RSPCA. No question of where their trained seal experts had disappeared to, or why the money the public donates appears to have failed to produce an emergency RSPCA response service that can act without the need for police officers or members of the fire service to do the job for them?

There have been many criticisms of the special relationship between the RSPCA and the police.

For instance, the Wooler Report took on board the SHG submission and noted that the RSPCA ‘piggy backing’ on police powers by passes the important safeguards imposed on both local authorities and the police. Each has internal complaints procedures that culminate in independent external bodies, the IPCC and the local government ombudsman.

But what of the special relationship between the Fire Service and the RSPCA?

The Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA) has a Memorandum of Understanding with the RSPCA. The CFOA has committed to sharing the MoU, and encouraging its adoption, with every member of the Association who sit within every fire and rescue service within the UK.

Although the CFOA has no authority to ensure Fire and Rescue services compliance with the MoU it is clear that they are expected to adopt it.

Adherence to the MoU, which details how the Fire and Rescue Service can, if they deem it appropriate, charge members of the public for their services rescuing animals, but should never charge the RSPCA the full rate, have led to confusion and complaints that the Fire and Rescue service is wasting public money and resources by attending animal rescues at the behest of the RSPCA. On one occasion the Fire and rescue service sent two fire engines to provide light so that the RSPCA could continue an investigation in the dark. No-one thought to ask why an RSPCA investigation team had no lights or torches with them.

Some Fire and Rescue services are refusing to turn out to rescue animals unless they are asked by the RSPCA. Others say that the reason they undertake animal rescues is to prevent members of the public from attempting a rescue and putting themselves in danger.

All will turn out without being asked by the RSPCA if a member of the public is already attempting a rescue that could endanger them or is already in difficulties.

This raises an important question. Who should be responsible for Fire and Rescue Service policy in any local area? Unelected charities like the RSPCA and the CFOA deciding who will respond to calls for help from the public and who will pay? Or should local government make the decision?

Is this really the way the policies that govern our public services should be determined?

The RSPCA have claimed that their opposition to a radio show holding a vote to decide whether a pair of turkeys should be slaughtered and eaten is because they oppose killing animals in entertainment.

Meanwhile the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme has many turkeys available ready killed on the supermarket shelves and according to Mia Fernyhough, RSPCA Farm Animal Welfare scientist, this is fine because the turkeys were given a better quality of life and so people wishing for a turkey dinner should choose Freedom Food turkeys.

Since the two turkeys who are the subject of the radio show are free range from Callow Farm, one has to wonder if the RSPCA’s objections are real or if they are a marketing ploy aimed at damaging the competition.

A more serious issue needs to be thought about.  How many people actually think about where their food comes from?  The radio show is trying to bring the reality home to people.

Reading about the latest fashion trend, roadkill fur,  reminded us of a case that came in to the SHG a long time ago.

An ex-squaddie suffered from combat stress resulting from the time he was serving in Aden and sent in to fire into a building that intelligence said was full of terrorists. He did and the bodies were all women and children.

In an attempt to try and stop the nightmares he started drinking.

He kept a few rabbits and one day found a dead fox that had been killed by a car. Thinking he could make himself a Davy Crockett hat the fox was skinned and hung to cure.

The RSPCA prosecuted on the grounds that even though these were domesticated rabbits they would be terrified of the smell of fox fur hanging in the same air space, as foxes are natural predators of rabbits.

The RSPCA eventually dropped the case, but not until they had put this poor man through utter misery to the point that we were on suicide watch.

He died of cancer a couple of years later, so the RSPCA can no longer hurt him.

Who would have thought that dogs are being regularly imported to the UK by the very British charities who are claiming that we have a massive dog overpopulation problem?

Since last February the Brighton branch of the UK animal charity the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has helped find new families for 114 stray and neglected dogs from a number of animal rescue associations in Portugal, having re-homed all but two of the dogs that were shipped there (to Brighton) over the past year.

The SHG has been informed that many rescues import dogs from abroad because there is a shortage of easily saleable animals (re-homeable for a fee).  Nevertheless, we were surprised to be sent proof that the RSPCA in Brighton regularly sells such imports via its branch rehoming facilities, not just from Portugal, but from Ireland as well.

German Shepherd Rescue have long argued that every rescue dog that comes into the UK from Ireland is a risk to the life of a rescue dog already in the UK.

Bizarrely the RSPCA has also stated that Irish animal welfare charities should stop sending unwanted dogs to Britain for rehoming, and David Bowles of the RSPCA said the influx was affecting the ability of British charities to find suitable homes for unwanted and abandoned dogs. “There are enough dogs in the UK that need rehoming. Around 10,000 dogs have to be euthanised every year due to lack of good homes in England and Wales alone,”

But now there is a far greater risk than an imported dog simply taking the home that would have been available for a British dog.  There are concerns that the risk of Rabies has risen and there is now the added risk of a dog carrying ebola entering the country.  If that happens the authorities would have no option but to cull every animal that might have come into contact with that dog or its contacts ad infinitum.

Would any responsible rescue continue the practice of importing dogs knowing the risks they are taking with the lives of every dog already in the country?

Few people could  fail to be sorry to hear that Excalibur, the pet dog of a Spanish nursing assistant who contracted ebola, has been killed in the interests of public health.  It becomes even more heartbreaking to read about how his owners had left him with a bathtub full of water and 30 pounds of dry food when they were taken away to be quarantined.

One wonders whether any of the protesters or the people who signed the petition aimed at saving Excalibur had thought about what would happen to all of the other animals in the country if there was a full blown outbreak of ebola.  Here in the UK it is almost certain that ebola or even rabies would lead to mass culling of animals as a precaution.

It is known that dogs can pass ebola on to people.

Thus, dogs

appear to be the first animal species shown to be naturally

and asymptomatically infected by Ebola virus.

Asymptomatic Ebola infection in humans has also been

observed during outbreaks (18) but is very rare. Although

dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete

infectious viral particles in urine, feces, and saliva for a

short period before virus clearance, as observed experi-

mentally in other animals. Given the frequency of contact

between humans and domestic dogs, canine Ebola infec-

tion must be considered as a potential risk factor for human

infection and virus spread. Human infection could occur

through licking, biting, or grooming. Asymptomatically

infected dogs could be a potential source of human Ebola

outbreaks and of virus spread during human outbreaks,

which could explain some epidemiologically unrelated

human cases. Dogs might also be a source of human Ebola

outbreaks, such as the 1976 Yambuku outbreaks in

Democratic Republic of Congo (19), the 1995 Kikwit out-

break, some outbreaks that occurred in 1996 and 2004 in

Gabon and Republic of Congo (5), and the 1976 (6), 1979

(20), and 2004 (21) outbreaks in Sudan, the sources of

which are still unknown. Together, these findings strongly

suggest that dogs should be taken into consideration dur-

ing the management of human Ebola outbreaks. To con-

firm the potential human risk of Ebola virus–infected dogs,

the mechanisms of viral excretion (i.e. body fluids and

virus kinetics of excretion) should be investigated during

experimental canine infection. This research would also

offer insights into the natural resistance of dogs.