RSPCA
Katharine Quarmby
Disability Now magazine has assembled disturbing evidence that the animal charity, the RPSCA, routinely prosecutes disabled people for alleged animal cruelty offences. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which prosecutes for alleged offences investigated by the police, tends not to prosecute disabled people.
A number of high profile cases over the last three years, which Disability Now has examined, suggest that the RSPCA routinely prosecutes people experiencing mental distress. A number of older people and people with other impairments have also been prosecuted.
The CPS has a code for its prosecutors, called the Full Code Test, which must be applied before a prosecutors decide whether to charge someone with an offence. Firstly, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against a defendant on each of the charges applied. The second stage is the public interest stage, where a number of factors are considered for and against prosecution. The code states: “a prosecution is less likely to be needed if…a prosecution is likely to have a bad effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence; the defendant is elderly, or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is a real possibility that it may be repeated…Crown prosecutors must balance the desirability of diverting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public”.
By contrast, the RSPCA, although it states that it abides by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, does not have as its primary aim that of “safeguarding the general public” but, instead, of the suppression “of cruelty to animals”. Although the RSPCA states that it might not prosecute in the case of a “defendant suffering from significant mental or physical ill health”, Disability Now’s investigation demonstrates that many defendants with such conditions are prosecuted by the charity. A number of disabled people whose cases are examined below died shortly after the trial.
In 2005 the RSPCA prosecuted Rosaline Gregson, who was found guilty of animal cruelty after she was found to be keeping 271 pets in her cottage. The prosecutor for the RSPCA said: “It is not the prosecution’s case that this defendant maliciously caused cruelty to the animals in her home, simply that she allowed her obsession to collect animals, as it were, to overwhelm her.” Animal hoarding is seen as a mental health condition in other countries such as the United States. She was jailed for three months but the judge released her on appeal, giving her a three month rehabilitation order instead. Judge Andrew Gilbart said that a community rehabilitation order was more suitable as it would include counselling to help her deal with her grief (at the death of her son) and her mental health problems.
In another case Douglas Stamp, a pensioner with diabetes, was prosecuted by the RSPCA because his rescue dog had kidney disease, unbeknownst to Mr Stamp. He was given a conditional discharge and died soon afterwards.
Betty McDairmaid, a wheelchair user with diabetes, was raided twice by the RSPCA in reference to her job as a dog breeder. Mrs McDairmaid was prosecuted, but the trial was halted when she became too ill for it to proceeed. She died soon afterwards.
In 2005 the organisation prosecuted Mr and Mrs Drury for cruelty to one sheep. Mr Drury was a wheelchair user, who was giving up his farm at the time as he felt he could no longer care for his sheep due to his condition. Their conviction was overturned on appeal and the judge said: “Mr Drury is not be criticized for the level of care that was exercised by him..the adverse publicity suffered by the appellants consequent upon their conviction in the Magistrates Court… is to be regretted”.
In April 2008 the RSPCA successfully prosecuted Victor Matevos, 60, for animal cruelty to a number of cats. His condition had gone downhill after his wife died, the court heard. His house was full of rubbish and the cats did not have proper access to drinking water. The judge sentenced him to 90 days in prison, but considered he had spent more than that in prison, so released him, saying: “Something must have gone drastically wrong following the death of his wife…This man has all sorts of problems…I do not often go home from work worrying about people I have dealt with, but I will worry about him.” Mr Matevos was unable to be in court as he could not walk from the cells to the court.
Edwin Hayes, 68, a pensioner and cattle farmer, was prosecuted three times by the RSPCA and Trading Standards in x?, for animal cruelty offences whilst trying to retire from farming. His wife was dying at the time from cancer. He was acquitted on one count, discharged on another and the last charge was struck out as an abuse of process (which means that the court judges that the case should not have been brought).
Chris Hicks, a farmer with a mental health condition at the time of the alleged offence, and whose wife had multiple sclerosis, was prosecuted by the RSPCA in x?. The case was dropped when the court termed it an abuse of process.
In another case, in 2007, the owner of an animal sanctuary in Sunderland, Clifford Spedding, who had been prosecuted by the RSPCA for cruelty offences, had his suspended jail sentence lifted and his banning order for keeping animals rescinded. Judge Peter Armstrong said: “The appellant began to suffer from depression and was simply unable to cope for a large number of animals and birds that had been dumped upon him” and praised the work he had done over many years to protect animals.
A nurse, Stephanie Greatorex, who had depression, was also prosecuted last year for causing unnecessary suffering to her dog. She is now receiving treatment for her depression but has been given a life-time ban on keeping animals.
A pensioner, Marilyn Read, experiencing mental distress after the sudden death of her partner and her mother developing Alzheimers, was sentenced to 12 months in jail (suspended) after admitting two counts of cruelty to two ponies.
This year a pub landlady convicted of cruelty to animals, Maureen Tote, won an appeal to overturn a life-time ban after the Judge said it was clear that she had a love of animals and was “suffering from depression” at the time of the incident.
A consequence of RSPCA prosecutions is that defendants are featured heavily, with photographs and addresses, in the local press and on the internet, whether or not they are guilty and irrespective of whether or not they have an impairment. Many are then subject to hate mail campaigns and intimidation – which can have an effect on people experiencing mental distress, in particular.
The RSPCA is one of a handful of charities that launches private prosecutions – and is the most prolific private prosecutor in England. It also campaigns against animal cruelty and investigates the cases as well. But this system – whereby it carries out three conflicting roles at the same time – is coming under increasing scrutiny. The police, for instance, used to have the power to launch prosecutions, but after increasing public concern about miscarriages of justice, lost its power to prosecute over twenty years ago, when the CPS was established instead. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) used to carry out private prosecutions on alleged offences involving birds – but again ceased to do so in 1992 after facing increasing criticism in some of its trials. The NSPCC although it could take cases of child cruelty, works instead with the police. The Scottish Society for the Protection of Animals (SSPCA), does not prosecute itself, but hands over the cases it investigates to the Procurator Fiscal’s Office, the Scottish equivalent of the CPS. Superintendent Mike Flynn, of the SSPCA, explained that decision to Newsnight in 2005, adding defendants with mental health problems were rarely prosecuted in Scotland, but referred to social workers instead and adding that he would rather be prosecuted in Scoland, where powers of prosecution and investigation were clearly separated, than in England.
, i wasnt aware of this 