Rspca

[Odin-Genie]

Hi,

Based on the other thread, I was wondering what rights RSPCA and other animal welfare agencies have to enter someone else's property and seize animals? Could they actually break into a house to seize dogs/cats? Or is that right limited to the grounds of the property, not the actual house?

Also, what legislates this power? Is there a legislative item that specifies these powers?

[Kavik]

It is probably outlined here

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/poctaa1986360/

Going through it but trying to feed the kids lunch so a bit crazy atm lol

[megan_]

There are different rules for different states.

[mixeduppup]

In NSW I'm pretty sure they can enter a yard but need police presence to enter a house

[Steve]

I watched RSPCA rescue where there had been a report of a dog with a docked tail located around Bankstown. I watched while the inspector knocked on the door got no response so she got a ladder and climbed up to the second floor - open window - went in and seized the dog. Left the owner a note to get in touch with them. The dog was about 6 months old and did have a docked tail which had been done some 6 months earlier. So based on that I guess the answer is they can and do. owner said the dog was docked when she got it and her ex boyfriend had purchased it for her so she didn't know who the breeder was and the ex was travelling overseas and she had no idea how to contact him to ask him. So they returned the dog to her.

[Little Gifts]

In comparison statutory child protection workers would not be able to enter a house without the police even if they could see an injured child inside an open window. Nor would they be able to do more than knock on the front door and leave a card without the police - no wandering around the house and yard for evidence gathering. Obviously lots of pets are kept in backyards so maybe that is ok but to have more powers than child protection workers to enter a house without the police seems very wrong to me.

[Salukifan]

From the relevant NSW Act: Note that "land" includes "premises"

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1979 - SECT 24E

Power to enter land

24E Power to enter land

<b>

(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any

function

under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may

exercise

a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the

occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector

believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an

animal

has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering

significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires

immediate

veterinary

treatment

, and

(b) it is necessary to

exercise

the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical

injury to the

animal

or to ensure that it is provided with

veterinary

treatment

.

</b> Edited October 8, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[yarracully]

So following on From Haredowns post. In NSW if an RSPCA inspector has reason to believe an act of animal cruelty has occured, is currently occuring or is about to occur then yes they can enter your premises (including your home) without a warrant, police presence or your presence and seize the animal. Best of luck getting them to pay for any damage done in the process.

You can pretty well guarantee they will always BELIEVE something is being done or about too. How can you define a belief . How can you provide evidence of a matter that someone believes.

The power is given by the state governement that drafted the act. The same government that was voted in by the citizens, and via similar acts are removing your rights. In NSW its the companion animal act. Most other states have something similar these days.

Furthermore they (RSPCA) do not have to justify their actions to any other regulatory body. Unlike police and governments. Its ridiculous that a charity has greater powers (with no accountability) than a legitimate body such as police. It's like having the girl guides doing health inspections at restaurants and being able to shut down a cafe without explaining why.

Edited October 8, 2012 by yarracully

[espinay2]

Note that that second clause in application can be applied in a VERY rubber manner when it comes to an inspector beleiving they have 'reasonable grounds', as the case Steve outlined above of the docked dog shows.

Edited October 8, 2012 by espinay2

[Salukifan]

So following on From Haredowns post. In NSW if an RSPCA inspector has reason to believe an act of animal cruelty has occured, is currently occuring or is about to occur then yes they can enter your premises (including your home) without a warrant, police presence or your presence and seize the animal. Best of luck getting them to pay for any damage done in the process.

You can pretty well guarantee they will always BELIEVE something is being done or about too. How can you define a belief . How can you provide evidence of a matter that someone believes.

The power is given by the state governement that drafted the act. In NSW its the companion animal act. Most other states have something similar these days.

Furthermore they do not have to justify their actions to any other regulatory body. Unlike police and governments. Its ridiculous that a charity has greater powers (with no accountability) than a legitimate body such as police. It's like having the girl guides doing health inspections at restaurants and being able to shut down a cafe without explaining why.

It would generally have to be "reasonable belief" ie a belief based on some factual basis or on a report, not pulled out of thin air.

[mixeduppup]

A docked dog that's not injured hardly sounds like reasonable cause though. Or was it not healing well?

I understand that docking is illegal but seizing a dog with a docked tail sounds weird.

Edited October 8, 2012 by mixeduppup

[espinay2]

The RSPCA considers docking to be cruel and a significant physical injury.

Remember before entering the house they had not 'seen' the dog. But they 'beleived' it to be docked and therefore had suffered a significant physical injury.

A long bow? we might think so, but they obviously thought they had a right under the legislation to break in and enter the house.

And were sure enough about it for it to be filmed for public television.

Edited October 8, 2012 by espinay2

[Steve]

Remember every state is different as far as I know in Victoria they cant enter a dwelling without a warrant in NSW they can

Edited October 8, 2012 by Steve

[mixeduppup]

Oh i thought they had seen the dog. Makes sense now.

[Steve]

She could see the dog before she went in through the window and clearly she was able to see before she carried the dog out that the docking had taken place months ago. The dog was not at risk nor was it suffering. In fact it was very healthy and happy.

[mixeduppup]

That's just a waste of time then. Probably because it was on TV

[yarracully]

So following on From Haredowns post. In NSW if an RSPCA inspector has reason to believe an act of animal cruelty has occured, is currently occuring or is about to occur then yes they can enter your premises (including your home) without a warrant, police presence or your presence and seize the animal. Best of luck getting them to pay for any damage done in the process.

You can pretty well guarantee they will always BELIEVE something is being done or about too. How can you define a belief . How can you provide evidence of a matter that someone believes.

The power is given by the state governement that drafted the act. In NSW its the companion animal act. Most other states have something similar these days.

Furthermore they do not have to justify their actions to any other regulatory body. Unlike police and governments. Its ridiculous that a charity has greater powers (with no accountability) than a legitimate body such as police. It's like having the girl guides doing health inspections at restaurants and being able to shut down a cafe without explaining why.

It would generally have to be "reasonable belief" ie a belief based on some factual basis or on a report, not pulled out of thin air.

"Saw a dog through a window. Could not see any water bowl. Therefore I believe the dog has no water. On this basis I entered the property and seized the dog to prevent an act of cruelty"

That is a reasonable belief (within the intent of the act) Doesn't matter that there probably is a water bowl available. But because it can't be seen that is a reasonable belief it doesn't exist.

Where does it say anywhere in the act that the reasonable belief must be based on some factual basis or report? As it is not mentioned there is no requirement. If a matter were to get to a court of law all the inspector would have to say is "I thought there was an act of cruelty that had occured, was happening or was about to happen." They would then be protected by the letter of the law.

Where in the matter that Steve raises is there any basis of fact or a report. I also watched the RSPCA rescue with the inspector going into a house about a docked dog. There was no factual evidence that the dog was docked illegally or suffered any form of cruelty. The inspector seen the dog through a window with its curtains pulled open. That is a reasonable belief and thats all that is needed.

[Odin-Genie]

In comparison statutory child protection workers would not be able to enter a house without the police even if they could see an injured child inside an open window. Nor would they be able to do more than knock on the front door and leave a card without the police - no wandering around the house and yard for evidence gathering. Obviously lots of pets are kept in backyards so maybe that is ok but to have more powers than child protection workers to enter a house without the police seems very wrong to me.

Totally agree. I read through the Act and it seems like everything is subjective. What's to stop an inspector from saying that feeding bones is cruel so every dog that is fed bones can be seized??? Or is that an improbable extreme?

The Companion Animals Act lists the appeal procedure. But there doesn't seem to be any room for appeal in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (NSW). What's to stop an inspector from using this as a personal vendetta (if someone complains against them for any reason?)?

[Maddy]

Tasmania is a bit different, the important bit bolded..

16. Power to enter, search and inspect premises

(1) An officer may, without warrant, enter, search and inspect any premises, other than premises or a part of premises being used as a dwelling, if the officer reasonably believes that there is on the premises an animal in respect of which an offence under this Act has been, or is being, committed.

(2) An officer, authorized by the Minister to do so, may, at any reasonable time enter, search and inspect any premises where animals are sold, presented for sale, assembled or kept for commercial purposes.

(2A) An officer may seize anything found on premises searched or inspected under subsection (1) or (2) that the officer reasonably believes –

(a) is being, or has been, used in committing an offence against this Act; or

(b) is evidence that an offence is being, or has been, committed against this Act.

(3) If a magistrate or justice is satisfied on application made on oath by an officer that–

(a) an animal is in premises or a part of any premises being used as a dwelling; and

(b) the officer reasonably believes that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in respect of that animal–

the magistrate or justice may grant a warrant authorizing the officer named in the warrant to enter, search and inspect those premises and seize anything the officer reasonably believes is being, or has been, used in committing the offence.

(4) In entering, searching and inspecting premises, an officer may –

(a) use such force as is reasonably necessary; and

(b) be accompanied by such assistants as the officer considers necessary; and

© stop any vehicle or conveyance.

(4A) In entering, searching and inspecting premises, an officer may inspect or examine any animal on the premises.

(5) An assistant in the company of an officer has the same powers under this section as the officer.

So, without a warrant, in Tasmania, an officer could not enter your house but could enter your yard or any other buildings not used as a dwelling (sheds, etc). Unfortunately, this also means that in the event of an emergency, a warrant is still required and the process could result in the death of the animal. I suppose it's a very tricky area because on one hand, you're granting power that could be abused, on the other, officers don't have enough power to act when it really matters. The problem with this sort of legislation is that it is forced to rely on opinion of the officer, rather than set standards for emergency entry.

[asal]

So following on From Haredowns post. In NSW if an RSPCA inspector has reason to believe an act of animal cruelty has occured, is currently occuring or is about to occur then yes they can enter your premises (including your home) without a warrant, police presence or your presence and seize the animal. Best of luck getting them to pay for any damage done in the process.

You can pretty well guarantee they will always BELIEVE something is being done or about too. How can you define a belief . How can you provide evidence of a matter that someone believes.

The power is given by the state governement that drafted the act. In NSW its the companion animal act. Most other states have something similar these days.

Furthermore they do not have to justify their actions to any other regulatory body. Unlike police and governments. Its ridiculous that a charity has greater powers (with no accountability) than a legitimate body such as police. It's like having the girl guides doing health inspections at restaurants and being able to shut down a cafe without explaining why.

It would generally have to be "reasonable belief" ie a belief based on some factual basis or on a report, not pulled out of thin air.

"Saw a dog through a window. Could not see any water bowl. Therefore I believe the dog has no water. On this basis I entered the property and seized the dog to prevent an act of cruelty"

That is a reasonable belief (within the intent of the act) Doesn't matter that there probably is a water bowl available. But because it can't be seen that is a reasonable belief it doesn't exist.

Where does it say anywhere in the act that the reasonable belief must be based on some factual basis or report? As it is not mentioned there is no requirement. If a matter were to get to a court of law all the inspector would have to say is "I thought there was an act of cruelty that had occured, was happening or was about to happen." They would then be protected by the letter of the law.

Where in the matter that Steve raises is there any basis of fact or a report. I also watched the RSPCA rescue with the inspector going into a house about a docked dog. There was no factual evidence that the dog was docked illegally or suffered any form of cruelty. The inspector seen the dog through a window with its curtains pulled open. That is a reasonable belief and thats all that is needed.

Exactly

there was an incident when a homeowner arrived back home to find his front door forced and his "dog" about to be seized.

Except his 'dog' was a lifesize statue, the inspector had seen the 'dog' through the window. Apparently a complaint had been lodged there was an unregistered dog on the premisis and it was never allowed out of the house.

In that case the home owner was left pretty offronted at the damage to the home but few seemed to realise te inplications of how that can affect anyone with an actual live pet left home alone.

wonder where I might find the link?