Mr Darling Is Calling On The Rspca To Explain

[Steve]

http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/news/call-for-major-review-of-rspcas-involvement-in-sa-prosecutions/1741623.aspxCall for major review of RSPCA's involvement in SA prosecutions

EMMA PARTRIDGE04 Feb, 2010 04:00 AMA NUMBER of farmers are scrutinising the RSPCA's ability to prosecute animal welfare cases, according to a recent poll.

The poll followed the RSPCA's clerical blunder which allowed 61 counts of alleged animal cruelty charges against South East graziers Thomas and Patricia Brinkworth to be dropped. They were subsequently found not guilty.

More than 70 per cent of voters in Stock Journal's online poll believed the South Australian Government should be responsible for the prosecution of animal cruelty cases, rather than the RSPCA.

Grazier James Darling, Duck Island, Keith, said the RSPCA's failure to tender evidence against the Brinkworths was "not simply unsatisfactory, but an appalling outcome."

And he wants to know why the Director of Public Prosecution was not employed as the prosecuting authority for such a serious and criminal charge. "Why was it left to a largely voluntary organisation, a public charity such as the RSPCA to prosecute the case?"

Mr Darling is calling on the RSPCA to explain how and why one of their employees altered crucial documents in the case.

"It is necessary for the public to know why the RSPCA was so incompetent and why their legal tasks were undertaken by an employee and not a properly resourced firm of lawyers," he said.

Democrats Legislative Council candidate Jeanie Walker is also calling for the State Government to prosecute animal welfare cases, rather than a cash-strapped RSPCA.

Environment Minister Jay Weatherill called for urgent reviews of the Brinkworth case and the arrangements under which the RSPCA prosecutes animal welfare cases. "We have received an initial report from the RSPCA on the circumstances of the particular case," he said. "The review announced last week is being established and will commence soon."

http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/liv...s/1741623.aspx#http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/liv...s/1741623.aspx#java script:changeFontSize(

[WreckitWhippet]

Mr Darling is calling on the RSPCA to explain how and why one of their employees altered crucial documents in the case.

Hmmm yes, please explain ?

[asal]

this does not make sense, elsewhere i read that the rspca has inhouse legal team???

i forget the wording but to the effect that as some were solicitors and board members some thought there was a "conflict of interest" or something like that?

or is that just in one state and not others?

Edited February 4, 2010 by asal

[Winterpaws]

this does not make sense, elsewhere i read that the rspca has inhouse legal team???

i forget the wording but to the effect that as some were solicitors and board members some thought there was a "conflict of interest" or something like that?

or is that just in one state and not others?

That's NSW

[iffykharma]

Every state RSPCA operates differently.

I would love to see Government take over enforcement and prosecution of the various animal protection acts. I just can't see them being willing to do it (ie front up the money, resources and manpower) without a fight. Hopefully the results of the SA review will lead to some changes being adopted there and in other states.

Edited February 6, 2010 by iffykharma

[WoofnHoof]

This is good it means that the idea of prosecutions (and hopefully eventually investigations) being handled by government instead of RSPCA is being given more and more attention, hopefully this will gather momentum and start to put pressure on government.

[Erny]

I like that attention is being drawn to some of the RSPCA activities. They need to be kept honest and I think that the free run and mate-ship with Government (so it seems to me) has caused this organisation to become lax and a bit self centred and righteous.

There is no "body" that the RSPCA can be reported to for wrong-doings and perhaps the RSPCA has languished in that luxury for a bit too long. The base structure of the RSPCA as I knew it many moons ago was good (to my knowledge) but I think it needs a dose of salts to bring it back on track.

I agree that a charity organisation should NOT have influence in Government nor be splashing in money. Didn't they have $52 million in the bank only just recently? Or was that just RSPCA Vic. ? A charity organisation who has no obligation to be accountable to anyone should NOT be given the power for prosecution and judgement. That's madness on the part of the Government who grant them that right and it needs to be reversed.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Erny

[Jed]

What Erny said. RSPCA used to be a really good organisation. They need to step back, and return to "all creatures great and small". It's such a big machine now, I don't think this will happen without the change being forced.

Love to know why the RSPCA employee was altering the paperwork

[WreckitWhippet]

What Erny said. RSPCA used to be a really good organisation. They need to step back, and return to "all creatures great and small". It's such a big machine now, I don't think this will happen without the change being forced.

Love to know why the RSPCA employee was altering the paperwork

What else has been altered over the years and who has been stitched up as a result of it ? Makes you wonder doesn't it, how many people never got a fair go at their hands

[Erny]

What Erny said. RSPCA used to be a really good organisation. They need to step back, and return to "all creatures great and small". It's such a big machine now, I don't think this will happen without the change being forced.

Love to know why the RSPCA employee was altering the paperwork

Don't think it is an entirely new occurrence. You'd already be aware of how evidence was fabricated in the RSPCA -vs- Innotek case regarding e-collars.

And what you said, SBT123 ....

What else has been altered over the years and who has been stitched up as a result of it ? Makes you wonder doesn't it, how many people never got a fair go at their hands.

Completely agree. History dictates that one has to wonder.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

And he wants to know why the Director of Public Prosecution was not employed as the prosecuting authority for such a serious and criminal charge. "Why was it left to a largely voluntary organisation, a public charity such as the RSPCA to prosecute the case?"

Mr Darling is calling on the RSPCA to explain how and why one of their employees altered crucial documents in the case.

"It is necessary for the public to know why the RSPCA was so incompetent and why their legal tasks were undertaken by an employee and not a properly resourced firm of lawyers," he said.

Democrats Legislative Council candidate Jeanie Walker is also calling for the State Government to prosecute animal welfare cases, rather than a cash-strapped RSPCA.

Mr Darling needs to do some reflecting on his own position re the Victorian legislation that enables the RSPCA to do what they do.

The law speaks of the activities carried out.....as The Minister directs. So actions sheet home to that Minister.

This seems to be constantly overlooked that the law already sheets reponsibility home to a State Government Dpt. Some moneys from that Dpt's budget get paid to the RSPCA to act on behalf of the Minister. But, as the Judicial Review Act in Qld indicates, even a body partly paid from the budget set by Parliament... bears the same responsibility as a government dpt. And, theoretically, open to the same system of checks & balances.

There's been a running theme in DOL posts that the State Government should follow the already existing direction of the animal cruelty/neglect legislation... & take up the full responsibility for enforcement of that law.

In recent times, the CEO RSPCA Qld has publicly said so, too.

Bit O/T. But I've just been looking at the position in Sweden (granted a smaller & more closely settled country than Australia). They have administrative boards in the various areas to receive complaints re animal cruelty/abuse. And police officers are sent to enforce.....& even seize animals. Interesting to know how other countries manage the enforcement of animal cruelty/abuse/neglect laws.

Edited February 8, 2010 by mita