JUSTICE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS BY ORGANISATONS BY MS.P. WALLWORK The way in which large organisations conduct private prosecutions; RSPCA Navigating the submission. Submission summary in bullet points page 2 POINT NUMBERS BELOW The RSPCA in a prosecution role, with the reasons it should not continue 1 – 36 Lawfulness of any RSPCA prosecution? 6 – 36 Role of the police, 37 – 43 Role of the RSPCA 44 – 85 A. Charitable status 44 -46 B. Prosecution lack of legal oversight 47 – 49 C. Crown Prosecution Service not involved 50 – 68 D. Lack of oversight by the courts 69 – 85 RSPCA double standards 86 – 91 RSPCA without police present and where police do not have a warrant 92 -105 RSPCA witness statements 106 – 115 RSPCA and the Courts 116 – 122 RSPCA and the legal profession 123 –125 RSPCA and the cost to the charity of a prosecution policy 126 – 129 Cost to the public from an RSPCA prosecution 130 – 135 RSPCA relationship with local authorities 136 – 144 Benefit to animal welfare 145 – 147 Cost to local authorities of implementing section 51 inspectors 148 -162 Proposals - page 30 Additional material in support of points made in the body of the submission Twenty ways to have your animals taken unlawfully page 32 RSPCA recruitment – demonstrating that ‘inspector’ level employees are unqualified to inspect animals. (Direct from RSPCA ) page 33. Wooler report page 35 RSPCA, firearms, and killing animals page 40 CASE FILES PAGE 44 - 57 end off submission. 1 JUSTICE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS BY ORGANISATONS BY MS.P. WALLWORK The author of this submission. The writer of this document re ‘private prosecutions’ by organisations has been researching the subject of the RSPCA since 2015, including many cases in depth, having graduated with a law degree, completed examinations to become a solicitor, and lectured within a university setting to law undergraduates. As submissions should be published, attempts have been made to keep the language simple for members of the public. A unique perspective is claimed, having both a legal background, and in-depth knowledge of various breeds of animals, domestic, equine and farm. Individual cases, if referred to, are only to illustrate important points, and not by name, date or venue. Where abuses of process occur, these will, if ongoing be dealt with through the Courts. However, that itself raises serious issues. RSPCA cases, as they deal with animal welfare, are rarely heard by the courts, due to early guilty plea, the spread of magistrate’s courts, the huge number of magistrates, and the specialist knowledge that is lacking in defence solicitors. This is the summary of three years research, it covers virtually every reason why the RSPCA should never prosecute offences, supported by evidence. SUBMISSION SUMMARY, the RSPCA in a “private” prosecution function. The RSPCA conduct prosecutions by virtue of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 section 6(1). The writer does not consider that the RSPCA has the right to bring a ‘private’ prosecution, for legal reasons that involve – - the Charities Act 2011, sections 1,2,3,4,11 - the RSPCA Act 1932, section 4. - the Code for Victims, definition, and chapter 4, - the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, - PACE Code B, from 2008, entire code , NB 6.9 , 6.9A, 7.11 - Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6 (1) , 6(3)(b) Articles 6,8,P1A1 - Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 section 26. - Animal Welfare Act 2006, sections 10, 18,19, 20, 23, 30, 32 – 41, 51, 52, Schedule 2 (all) NB section 10, and 15. 2 JUSTICE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS BY ORGANISATONS BY MS.P. WALLWORK The position of the RSPCA is briefly considered under subject headings, some of which overlap, relationship with police, Crown Prosecution Service, the Courts. The narrative of the RSPCA vis a vis other authorities is long but explains most scenarios that occur. The RSPCA does not have to follow the Codes for Crown prosecutors, where there is no redress in real terms, where either evidence was unlawfully obtained, the defendant had no access to the means to rebut prosecution evidence, or the public interest test not satisfied. There is no place in a country that prides itself on being a democracy for two tiers of justice, the independent police investigation, with a file handed to an independent Crown prosecution service, neither of which BENEFIT from a prosecution, or have any personal interest in the outcome. The RSPCA is never a victim of the offence, but derives BENEFITS from the publicity generated to enable it to self perpetuate the organisation, by donations, to conduct prosecutions to self perpetuate….. The RSPCA as charity employees have no specialist knowledge or training for the roles. (unqualified in animal care, promoted to prosecutions with no legal qualifications) Due to lack of adequate safeguards for defendants in RSPCA cases, trials are unfair. This is a combination of – - Public perception - Lack of defendants solicitor knowledge of specialist law - Lack of knowledge and experience of lay magistrates and judges - The inability due to geography for experience to be built up - Reliance on RSPCA prosecutor, (for interpretation of the law), with his own agenda, in cases that are heard. - Failure of the Courts to allow Cases to be Stated on legal points - Failure of the courts to allow Judicial Review over errors of law and abuse of process. The narrative that follows attempts to describe how and why the RSPCA should be stripped of any prosecution function, which should be taken 3 JUSTICE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS BY ORGANISATONS BY MS.P. WALLWORK over by a planned transfer of that role to Local Authorities for Welfare and the police and CPS for sustained or deliberate cruelty. THE RSPCA IN A PROSECUTION ROLE, WITH THE REASONS IT SHOULD NOT CONTINUE. 1. The RSPCA appears to be unique as an organisation which undertakes literally hundreds of prosecutions annually without ever being a “victim” of any offence, purporting to be a “private prosecutor”. 2. The RSPCA have no lawful right of entry to premises, no right to apply for a warrant, and frequently rely on police powers to gather evidence. 3. Where no reliance has been placed on police presence, there is often wholly misleading information given to the animal’s owner that qualifies as coercion. 4. Evidence offered will demonstrate widespread abuse of process, leading to miscarriages of justice on a grand scale. 5. These invariably activate provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, section 6, (actions of public authorities) together with Articles 6, (fair trial), 8, (intrusion into private life) and Protocol 1, Article 1, (unlawful deprivation of property). The effectiveness of existing safeguards that regulate private prosecutions Summary, wholly ineffective, multiple inter-related factors. LAWFULNESS OF ANY RSPCA PROSECUTION? The most serious point in this submission is the question of whether any purported prosecution by the RSPCA is ever lawful, given the relevant legislation. 6. There are three major factors to consider, the first is that there has been no statutory empowerment specifically that would allow a charity to exceed the provisions of the Charities Act 2011, to perform public functions. 4 JUSTICE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS BY ORGANISATONS BY MS.P. WALLWORK 7. The second is that the traditional position for any private prosecutor is that they are a victim of the crime alleged. (Supreme Court in R (on the application of Gujra) v CPS [2012] UKSC 52) ALSO, Victims Code. 8. By the definition, the RSPCA cannot act as a “proxy” prosecutor, as legally, there is no victim to the alleged crime, where the “victim”, is an animal, it is classed in law as “property”. 9. The RSPCA have frequently used that an animal is “property” when persuading the police to enter premises without a warrant, under PACE section 17, “risk of serious damage to property”, as the ‘save life or limb’ provision applies only to human life. Breaches of the HRA Protocol 1 Article 1 occur on every occasion where animals are removed following entry under this provision. (PACE section 17). 10. PACE Code B section 6.9, 2008, in force from 1ST February, provides that a search must end when the original purpose of the search is achieved. Removing animals for a proposed prosecution is “another purpose” that requires a separate warrant. Explained later that this has modified PACE 1984 section 19 (3)(a), “any other offence” no longer applicable law. 11. Victims Code. quoted directly,- 4. For the purposes of this Code, a “victim” is: “• a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence2 5. Legal persons (e.g. businesses) are not included within the definition of a victim” 12. The third is the position created by the Human Rights Act 1998 section 6(3)(b). “(3) In this section “public authority” includes— (a) a court or tribunal, and (b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature”, 5 JUSTICE COMMITTEE, PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS BY ORGANISATONS BY MS.P. WALLWORK 13. An individual, that is, a ‘natural person’, who is a victim of a crime, is not performing functions of a public nature, as his right has been preserved in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 section 6(1). 14. Prosecuting a crime becomes a public function, where the prosecutor is an unrelated “third party” to the alleged crime. 15. The RSPCA cannot become a “proxy” private prosecutor as there is no victim in law, as defined, “property” can NOT be a natural person. 16. Some agencies have been given power to prosecute a limited range of offences, relevant to their particular area of expertise.