After some legal help - Sydney

[asal]

1 hour ago, tdierikx said:

RSPCA NSW have 2 lawyers on their board... and from looking at a few cases, they have represented them on a number of occasions...

 

Seriously though, from the charges I've seen so far, none have much merit and can be countered with evidence/physical proof... and a couple have just been at the very least embellished (if not completely false).

 

Also in question is the length of time they have to actually bring charges... POCTAA says someting about 60 days, but this is certainly not the case here... they have taken 5 months to come up with the latest, and indicate that they might add more in the following weeks... it just keeps dragging on in dribs and drabs which is completely frustrating and time wasting (especially if you are paying legal people to help deal with it all).

 

I'm starting to form the opinion that the strategy is to run their cases in such a way that your legal bills get so high that you end up capitulating so you don't end up bankrupt... grrr!

 

T.

No idea how to find the link at the moment but a chap has a page titled how to lose everything with the right lawyer, he was referring to the Ruth Downey's case rspca fielded three of Wozonic lawyers and bagged over $250, 000 in legal fees alone, as for the chap whose. Murry greys were shot it's said rspca have already ran up $7 million and lost. Now appealing the $2 million or more damages awarded against them, better have deep pockets, it's taken him ten years to get the rspca to this point

Edited March 9, 2018 by asal

[Roova]

Sounds like a nightmare. Surely there must be some law against participants  dragging out the process or providing deliberately incorrect information?? 

[asal]

9 hours ago, Roova said:

Sounds like a nightmare. Surely there must be some law against participants  dragging out the process or providing deliberately incorrect information?? 

nope thats how they break the targets and our government has done nothing. Despite even the past public prosecutor Leon Mills, writing to Parliament recommending the return to all cases being handled by the public prosecutor as was in the past before the then President of the RSPCA , Wosnik giving his own law firm the work.

 

 Letter by Leon Mills submitted to Parliament re RSPCA.

This was posted recently elsewhere. wow

3rd June 2010
The Honorable Members
General Purpose Standing Committee No.5
Inquiry into the R S P C A raid on the Waterways Wildlife Park
Dear Members,
My full name is Leon Andrew Mills and I have resided in Gunnedah since 1982, I moved to Gunnedah as a result of my applying for the Police Prosecutors position for the Gunnedah Local Court Circuit. I continued in that position until my retirement in 2006. In 2008 I stood in the Local Government elections and was successful in gaining office as a Gunnedah Shire Councillor. I am still in that position today.

The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA 9RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit. My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act by done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction.

RSPCA Inspectors obtain their powers s a result of being issued an Authority under .section 4D(2) of the Act. In relation to this Inquiry it is clear that Inspectors Prowse and French have no idea of their powers. I say that on this basis, the Act is clear in relation to what an inspector can do and is set out in Division 2 of the Act. On the Friday following the taking of the Koalas a report was broadcast on the 6.30am local A B C News that Officer Prowse said the reason for taking the Koalas was that they were “stressed”. There is no power under the Act to take an animal that is stressed. It alledging distress, as referred to in Section 24H subsection (5) of the Act, there is no evidence at all that any of these animals were suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. To support what I am submitting, the Honorable Committee would note that the Officers examined the Koalas at about 10.30-11am. They gave no treatment to these Koalas from that time until after 4.30pm, why? There was nothing wrong with them, and of course we are talking about Officers that would be expected to take immediate action if an animal was suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. These two Officers had to do something and they illegally removed these Koala for the sole purpose of the T V show R S P C A Animal Rescue. To further support this submission the head of the R S P C A Mr Steve Coleman said no proceedings would be taken against Nancy Small as a result of community outrage. I completely reject this statement. As a former Police Prosecutor of 28 years both in the city and country on rare occasions there is community outrage when some proceedings are taken. I have never before heard of proceedings for a criminal matter being abandoned or not brought because of community outrage. The reason there were no proceedings brought was that there was nothing wrong with these animals.
Offences under the act are Criminal. Officers French and Prowse were supposed to be “investigating” this matter. It is interesting to note the quality of this so called investigation. No interview with Nancy Small or any other carers of these Koalas. No exhibits such as, stool samples, feed provided in the Koala enclosure, photos for identifications of each Koala, no tagging for identification. When one looks at the R S P C A Seizure Notice re this matter S N 010 16 the Officers have not even identified the Koalas to the extent of their sex. This so called investigation is absolutely pathetic and shows the quality of how RSPCA inspectors carry out their duties.
The N S W police have a branch now called the Rural Crime Unit these branches operated both in the city and country. They are staffed by sworn Police who have been fully trained in investigation techniques. Many of these Officers are fully trained Detectives. It would be my respectful submission that these officers should take over the compliance section of the R S P C A. Of course it would require extra staff and resources. It would be my suggestion that appropriate funding could be transferred from the funding the State Government gives to the R S P C A to the Police Budget.
Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves.
The subject Koalas were living in a happy well cared for environment when they were illegally removed by Inspectors French and Prowse. One of the females had a baby Koala in her pouch that Mrs Small was aware of. I have been told that the R S P C A Inspectors became aware of this fact over the 48 hours following their removal. One of the other Koalas was an elderly female that Mrs Small has described as the “Old Lady”. Mrs Small has never denied that this Koala was elderly and whilst ever in good health could live out her days in the Koala Enclosure. Both these Koalas that were supposed to being cared for by Inspectors French and Prowse are now dead so I ask this question what investigation has the RSPCA done in relation to the deaths of these Koala or am I correct in assuming that when an animal dies because of the ignorance or lack of care by that inspector no investigation takes place. This is another example as to why the Police should take over these responsibilities so that when this type of incident occurs it can be properly investigated or reviewed by an appropriate authority.
I referred earlier in this document to the fact that prior to my retirement I was the police Prosecutor for the Gunnedah Court Circuit. During the 1980’s and 1990’s and in some cases still to this day besides representing Police informants in Court Police prosecutors represent many other entities, for example, Probation and Parole, National Parks and Wildlife, D O C S, Roads and Traffic Authority and the RSPCA. Over the years until about 2000, every so often I would receive a brief from an RSPCA Inspector who would be the informant usually in more than one information. If the matter was a “not guilty” plea I would present the case on behalf of the informant. If the offence or offences were proved some costs would be sought by the Informant that would usually be for witness expenses and any fodder that may have been required to give to the animals in question. No Legal professional costs were ever sought. In addition a fact I feel is relevant is that Police Prosecutors DPP Prosecutors and Crown Prosecutors have a duty to place all the evidence before the Court. Each carries a custodial penalty of 2 years imprisonment. True there is a difference in the monetary penalty but goal is the most severe penalty for a Criminal Offence. A common assault is one where the victim suffers no serious injury. For some reason the Parliament does not view aggravated cruelty as a serious offence at law.
The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system.
It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law.
In conclusion it is my humble opinion that inspectors French and Prowse have no knowledge in respect to their obligations under the Act and it is clear they see their careers more in the field of TV and to add insult to injury when asked a question by myself about the TV show RSPCA Animal Rescue and their role in this incident when he attended Gunnedah on the 18th February last, Mr Coleman’s explanation was and I quote, “the Officers had been on another job with them and when they said they were going to Gunnedah the crew said we might just tag along” end quote. I informed him that I did not accept that explanation at all. It’s a sad situation when the head of such an organization is trying to assist the coverup.

Yours faithfully
Leon Mills
Councilor
Gunnedah Shire Council

[tdierikx]

9 hours ago, Roova said:

Sounds like a nightmare. Surely there must be some law against participants  dragging out the process or providing deliberately incorrect information?? 

You'd think so...

 

The average RSPCA case takes about 2 years to just get to court... and if they have your animals in their "care", they will charge you a minimum of $23/day per animal until the case is finished... however long they can drag it out in court, appeals, etc...

 

Most people tend to plead guilty to some charge just to save losing everything by the looks of it - even if they CAN prove their innocence, they simply can't afford to do so up against this behemoth... grrr!

 

T.