Rspca In Court Case Seeking 2.5 Million Against Them

[Steve]

http://www.standard.net.au/story/2141050/rspca-in-25m-civil-court-case-over-cattle-removed-from-framlingham-in-2003/

A CIVIL court case seeking about $2.5 million against the RSPCA, alleging cattle were put down and removed at Framlingham more than 10 years ago, is under way.

Westmere’s James Holdsworth and Heather Ellison, of Bairnsdale, are seeking compensation, claiming the actions of an RSPCA officer led to 311 head of cattle being put down, seized or going missing and the loss of their stud Murray grey bloodlines.

See your ad here

The trial before Judge Bowman in Melbourne County Court has been going for a couple of weeks, with Mr Holdsworth in the stand for days before former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark and Koori Court elder Lenny Clarke gave evidence.

The civil case in Melbourne is expected to continue for at least this week and possibly longer.

The case dates back to 2003, when almost 500 head of cattle owned by the business partners were herded from Corowa during a devastating drought and went to the Framlingham forest on agistment.

But the action started when the RSPCA was alerted and claimed to have found about 30 cattle dead at Framlingham towards the end of May that year.

In an amended statement of claim lodged with the County Court, the business partners claim the value of the slaughtered, seized and missing cattle was $588,500.

The future income loss is claimed as $557,600 and the loss of future income through artificial insemination purposes $1.32 million.

The writ claims that the herd consisted of 271 cows, 222 calves and four bulls.

It also claims an RSPCA officer and other “raiders” unlawfully shot or otherwise destroyed 115 head and those cattle were taken to Tesbury Meats near Camperdown.

Another 24 live cattle were allegedly transported to the same meatworks, where they were also processed.

“The plaintiffs have demanded the return of the slaughtered cattle, the live cattle and the missing cattle or that the defendant account for the proceeds of the disposal of them, but the defendant has failed and/or refused to do so,” the writ claims.

Melbourne solicitor John Maitland said the long-running case was listed for trial in the civil division of the Melbourne County Court before a judge and jury in December. Mr Maitland said it was alleged the RSPCA officer involved had overstepped the mark in relation to his powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

In part of the lengthy legal process, Ballarat Magistrates Court dismissed animal cruelty charges against Mr Holdsworth and Ms Ellison.

In its 2005 annual report the RSPCA said the legal costs for the Ballarat court case would be tens of thousands of dollars.

It said the case highlighted the “difficult task of inspectors in prosecuting cruelty cases, which need to attain the criminal law benchmark of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt”.

RSPCA spokesmen have in the past declined to comment as the matter is before the courts.

[Steph M]

2.5 mil would be a drop in the ocean but I hope they lose and the publicity hurts.

[Steve]

Not many would be able to fight like this - need money to stand your ground.

[Rebanne]

It said the case highlighted the “difficult task of inspectors in prosecuting cruelty cases, which need to attain the criminal law benchmark of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt”.

of course you have to prove your cases beyond reasonable doubt you ninny

[j]

It said the case highlighted the “difficult task of inspectors in prosecuting cruelty cases, which need to attain the criminal law benchmark of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt”.

of course you have to prove your cases beyond reasonable doubt you ninny

I think they are referring to the difference between the burden of proof for Criminal cases and Civil Cases. Criminal is beyond reasonable doubt, Civil is balance of probabilities. Much easier to get a finding in your favour in the civil court.

[WreckitWhippet]

Bring it on, I hope they cripple the RSPCA, shame more cannot afford to tie them up legally.

[Steve]

It said the case highlighted the "difficult task of inspectors in prosecuting cruelty cases, which need to attain the criminal law benchmark of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt".

of course you have to prove your cases beyond reasonable doubt you ninny

I think they are referring to the difference between the burden of proof for Criminal cases and Civil Cases. Criminal is beyond reasonable doubt, Civil is balance of probabilities. Much easier to get a finding in your favour in the civil court.

Well that s because the penalties and consequences are far greater in a criminal case and animal cruelty is a criminal offence. And most people who have their animals seized and destroyed without a second opinion and feeling that they have a reasonable defence cant afford to stand their ground and fight it out as these people have.

They killed their animals and charged them and named them to the world as animal abusers. They killed their animals. They killed their animals without giving them the opportunity to have their own vet opinions or an opportunity to treat them and save them and all they have to do to justify that is to say they believe the animals were suffering - there is no evidence left - they killed their animals. Then we see an ask for funds to keep a kitten alive and watch it suffer for months through massive third degree burns but no opportunity for the animals in this case to be treated and fed . They killed their animals and charged them with animal cruelty - animal cruelty is a criminal offence it carries gaol terms and it affects your ability to continue living with animals.They killed their animals and surely all of us agree that its not O.K. to come onto someone's property and take or kill their animals without due process. If we dont we are all sitting ducks - what a ranger does with cows they can more easily do with dogs.

A court has found these people not guilty and the RSPCA knows what it needs to get a criminal conviction - they have their own prosecutors, money to burn for expert witnesses and access to the best legal advisers in the country . They did not have enough to prove the people were guilty. If they didn't you can bet no one else could either but after you have killed their animals you have to have a go to try to justify why you did it even if you know they shouldn't have. Unless they have enough to prove they had no choice but to kill these animals to relieve their suffering because there was no other option they will have to compensate them. They killed their animals. If the courts found these people guilty you can bet your life they would have asked for expenses and fees in excess of what they are being sued for. Did they expect to have it both ways ? They are insured against it anyway.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Steve