Rspca Botches Sa Cruelty Case

[Sayly]

RSPCA botches SA cruelty case

January 24, 2010 12:01am

..THE RSPCA has apologised to the public and sacked a staff member after a bungle led to the acquittal of five suspects in SA's biggest alleged animal cruelty case.

Thomas and Patricia Brinkworth - two of the state's most prominent graziers - were accused of allowing about 800 cattle to suffer by being "gradually starved to death" during the drought in 2007.

However, key evidence was ruled inadmissible in Adelaide Magistrates Court on Friday.

The Brinkworths and three employees were subsequently found not guilty of all 113 charges.

The RSPCA has vowed to do everything in its power to prevent "something like this happening again".

RSPCA president Sheree Sellick said the outcome was "beyond words for us".

"I'm almost speechless with the shock of it and the implications," she said .

"We consulted with barristers about what our position was, and we were quite sick when we couldn't proceed with the case."

An employee who prepared the paperwork had been sacked for misconduct, Ms Sellick said.

In March last year, RSPCA operations manager Ben Johns described the prosecution as one of the biggest cases of alleged animal cruelty in South Australian history.

Mr Johns alleged cattle were too sick to stand up and were left on the ground to suffer.

He also alleged that the RSPCA had found "approximately 800 carcasses or animals that had to be destroyed".

The charges against the Brinkworths - who own 68 properties - related to 10 properties between Keith and Kingston in the state's South-East. Guilty verdicts could have resulted in jail terms and fines exceeding $1 million.

Ms Sellick, who declined to give details about the misconduct, described the outcome as "horrendous".

"(It's) not because we didn't have evidence, but because of this problem with a senior employee doing the wrong thing in preparing the paperwork for the case," she said.

"It rendered the evidence inadmissible."

The Brinkworths were found not guilty of 61 counts of ill treatment of an animal and nine counts of breaching a national code of practice on the welfare of cattle. A station manager, a livestock manager and another employee were also cleared of 43 counts of ill treatment of an animal.

RSPCA SA chief executive Steve Lawrie said it was not possible to bring further charges.

"We're absolutely devastated by this, it was such a big case," he said.

"We tendered no evidence and the courts allowed acquittal and the defendants entered a not guilty plea."

In a statement, Mr Lawrie apologised to the court and the community.

"It is critical that we do everything we possibly can to minimise the risk of something like this happening again," he wrote.

Mr Brinkworth's barrister, Michael Abbott, QC, stressed that a finding of not guilty had been made.

"There wasn't a question of the charges being withdrawn, as reported," he said. An application to recover "substantial" court costs from the RSPCA had been made and it would be heard in April.

The Sunday Mail has been unable to contact the Brinkworths for comment.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0...5006301,00.html

[spottychick]

Oh good grief! How can something like this happen? Those creeps will be laughing over their cocktails tonight. I hope they get mad cow disease

[WreckitWhippet]

The RSPCA has vowed to do everything in its power to prevent "something like this happening again".

How about lending a bloody hand when times get tough. They are supposed to be about the "prevention of cruelty ".

One has to wonder just how far spread and entrenched the miscounduct is.

[Asari]

Was shocked when i read this in the paper i know it left me shaking my head thinking how the hell something so big can go so wrong

[WreckitWhippet]

Was shocked when i read this in the paper i know it left me shaking my head thinking how the hell something so big can go so wrong

Easy when the RSPCA is corrupt to the core

[Christina]

Was watching this on TV the other night.

From the footing shown it was horrendous. One has to wonder why the owners didn't just shoot the ones that were left standing if they had no food.

Mismanagement from both parties. People weren't doing their jobs.

The property owners should have been aware of the state of the cattle & the RSPCA should have done the prosecution right.

Very sad.

[Asari]

Was shocked when i read this in the paper i know it left me shaking my head thinking how the hell something so big can go so wrong

Easy when the RSPCA is corrupt to the core

I hear that! not even our vets or council with go/use the rspca anymore.

[Miz J]

Prosecution should be in the hands of DPP, not the RSPCA. Just goes to show huh!!!

[sandgrubber]

Kicking the RSPCA seems to be a favourite sport on DOL. Having, myself, lost a legal battle through the efforts of a lawyer who seemed more interested in playing footsie with his legal aid than in defending my case (the bastard hadn't even read most of the documentation I sent him and hadn't even worked out a time line on the events fo the case when the preliminary hearing took place) I would be a little slower to condemn. Unfortunately, justice isn't straightforward in Australia. Until I hear the details, I'd as soon blame the bloody lawyers as the RSPCA. Not that the RSPCA is perfect or beyond blame. Just that habitually blaming them without knowing the details is a lazy and unjust way of passing judgement.

[asal]

Kicking the RSPCA seems to be a favourite sport on DOL. Having, myself, lost a legal battle through the efforts of a lawyer who seemed more interested in playing footsie with his legal aid than in defending my case (the bastard hadn't even read most of the documentation I sent him and hadn't even worked out a time line on the events fo the case when the preliminary hearing took place) I would be a little slower to condemn. Unfortunately, justice isn't straightforward in Australia. Until I hear the details, I'd as soon blame the bloody lawyers as the RSPCA. Not that the RSPCA is perfect or beyond blame. Just that habitually blaming them without knowing the details is a lazy and unjust way of passing judgement.

ever occur to you thats exactly what they do to anyone that they please?

ie the lady with the debarked dogs, (remember she is not being charged with debarking them, for "exhibiting them" may as well bring in you cant take a desexed dog to a public place either?) now there would be a real money maker.

the rescue couple? the list is pretty long an the kicked have no place to go to for intercession on their behalf save the courts and that takes money, major money.

and yep its no accident the legal profession is voted on a par with used car salesmen. they too can be totally incompetant and still charge like wounded bulls.

never forget after a divorce case the law society was contacted to dispute a bill in excess of 2,000 for items listed as, "attendance on the phone," by the solicitor concerned to be told that their job was to ascertain if the charges were excessive, not to ascertain if they had been actually services rendered.

the complainant had never spoken to the person on a phone, ever, yet was charged for a service never rendered?

Edited January 26, 2010 by asal

[sandgrubber]

Kicking the RSPCA seems to be a favourite sport on DOL. Having, myself, lost a legal battle through the efforts of a lawyer who seemed more interested in playing footsie with his legal aid than in defending my case (the bastard hadn't even read most of the documentation I sent him and hadn't even worked out a time line on the events fo the case when the preliminary hearing took place) I would be a little slower to condemn. Unfortunately, justice isn't straightforward in Australia. Until I hear the details, I'd as soon blame the bloody lawyers as the RSPCA. Not that the RSPCA is perfect or beyond blame. Just that habitually blaming them without knowing the details is a lazy and unjust way of passing judgement.

ever occur to you thats exactly what they do to anyone that they please?

ie the lady with the debarked dogs, (remember she is not being charged with debarking them, for "exhibiting them" may as well bring in you cant take a desexed dog to a public place either?) now there would be a real money maker.

the rescue couple? the list is pretty long an the kicked have no place to go to for intercession on their behalf save the courts and that takes money, major money.

and yep its no accident the legal profession is voted on a par with used car salesmen. they too can be totally incompetant and still charge like wounded bulls.

never forget after a divorce case the law society was contacted to dispute a bill in excess of 2,000 for items listed as, "attendance on the phone," by the solicitor concerned to be told that their job was to ascertain if the charges were excessive, not to ascertain if they had been actually services rendered.

the complainant had never spoken to the person on a phone, ever, yet was charged for a service never rendered?

I'd put the legal profession below car salesmen. I've know a few decent car salesmen and they don't earn $300+/hr.

As I understand it here, the complaint is that the RSPCA bungled the prosecution. They have had more experience with the legal system than I, and I'd hope they would have found the 'right' legal representation who would be able to secure a prosecution. But if they haven't, I would await full details before pointing the finger. Who knows. They may not be able to point out how badly some brief has screwed them out of fear that they will be sued for deformation.

[Christina]

On last nights news

The government are now prosecuting the owners.

Not sure of the details of how etc.

[WreckitWhippet]

I can't get past the admission of "misconduct " within it's ranks... So just what did this RSPCA employee do that screwed the case and got him/her sacked ?

I very much doubt if the case had been won , that this person would have been sacked, I'm sure the RSPCA would have been celebrating it's victory, no matter how it came about.

The ability to turn a blind eye, let corruption run rife and play by your own rules, came back to bite them on the rear end in this case.

[Alyosha]

On last nights news

The government are now prosecuting the owners.

Not sure of the details of how etc.

They would need to be careful of a double jeopardy situation. How old is the offence? I'm thinking maybe the information wasn't laid within the required time frame? Or is there no other details on exactly what the stuff up was?

[Leema]

I think this just highlights why a charity should not be responsible for prosecutions.

[shel]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01...?site=riverland

RSPCA prosecuting role faces review

The South Australian Environment and Conservation Minister, Jay Weatherill, has asked for a review of the RSPCA's role in prosecuting animal welfare cases.

Five prominent south-east graziers had about 100 counts of animal cruelty against them dropped last week, after it was revealed the RSPCA was unable to tender any evidence to the courts because of an error made by a staff member.

Mr Weatherill says he has ordered a report on the RSPCA's handling of the prosecution case.

He says the RSPCA generally has a long history of successfully prosecuting cases of animal cruelty, but says a review is still needed.

Some SA independent legislative councillors and the Greens have called for the RSPCA's powers to be handed over to the police.

[WreckitWhippet]

Finally someone is talking some sense