We observed an RSPCA prosecution taking place in a magistrates court today and this posting will highlight a number of issues which arose to diminish the protection offered to animals. We have decided not to mention the names of the parties or the location of the court because the purpose of the article is to highlight some issues which arose rather than to point a finger directly at this bench of magistrates.
The defendant admitted he was guilty of inter alia, neglecting the welfare needs of an animal and failing to seek veterinary assistance when the animal clearly became emaciated. Due to the neglect, the animal's health deteriorated to such an extent that it would not recover and later had to be euthanized on the advice of a vet. The post-mortem examination revealed damage to the intestines, liver and lungs of the animal probably arising from the neglect.
In effect, the animal died because of the owner's failure to act responsibly and in line with his legal duty (not to mention his moral duty).
The defendant who had pleaded guilty (although not at the earliest possible opportunity) was given a two year suspended sentence with partial costs awarded against him.
What is astonishing in this case is the comment made by one of the magistrates who stated the neglect had not been towards the high end and they believed and hoped the defendant would not re-offend! (We fail to see how death can be exceeded in terms of severity of outcome, at least for the animal concerned, and for whose benefit the legislation was enacted!).
In addition - it appeared the magistrates had been inattentive to the submissions of the prosecuting solicitor because they claimed not to have heard the request that they should consider imposing a ban on the defendant from keeping animals in future! (This is despite people in the public gallery stating they had clearly heard this submission by the solicitor).
Reality of this case
A defendant who admitted to neglecting the needs of, and turning a blind-eye to the visible suffering of an animal to such an extent that it had to be put down - is still free to go to the pet-shop and purchase any animal he wants today! Guilty of causing suffering to an animal leading to its death, but nevertheless at liberty to continue keeping animals!
It should be said (on balance) that the defendant had no previous convictions and there was no evidence of any intention to inflict direct harm on the animal - the defendant was simply too feckless, lazy or self-absorbed to act in the best interests of the animal.
It also emerged in open court that the defendant was living with a partner who has a lifetime ban from keeping animals because of her previous convictions for animal welfare violations. His partner's son was also in court today receiving judgment for an unrelated offence which resulted in him also breaching his lifetime ban from keeping animals!
A somewhat depressing thought at the conclusion of proceedings was that most of the costs of this prosecution would now have to be borne by the RSPCA - a charity!
Last year, we heard a Crown Court judge comment that the RSPCA provide an important and valuable service to the community. we would echo that sentiment and add that they save the taxpayer a great deal of money and the police and CPS a great deal of time. Perhaps magistrates need to be better informed about the realities faced by the RSPCA and the impact of their sentencing not only on the defendant but on one of our most valuable animal welfare charities.
What are your views on the outcome of this case? Is this what justice for animals should look like?
Should there be an automatic disqualification from keeping animals if a person is convicted of an animal welfare offence?
Should magistrates be compelled to give reasons in open court concerning why they believe a given individual should retain the right to own animals if they have been convicted of an animal welfare offence?
Should licensing be reintroduced with a requirement that only people who can demonstrate competency in animal welfare should be allowed to keep animals and should there be a restriction on the number of animals an individual can keep as a component of the license?
The defendant admitted he was guilty of inter alia, neglecting the welfare needs of an animal and failing to seek veterinary assistance when the animal clearly became emaciated. Due to the neglect, the animal's health deteriorated to such an extent that it would not recover and later had to be euthanized on the advice of a vet. The post-mortem examination revealed damage to the intestines, liver and lungs of the animal probably arising from the neglect.
In effect, the animal died because of the owner's failure to act responsibly and in line with his legal duty (not to mention his moral duty).
The defendant who had pleaded guilty (although not at the earliest possible opportunity) was given a two year suspended sentence with partial costs awarded against him.
What is astonishing in this case is the comment made by one of the magistrates who stated the neglect had not been towards the high end and they believed and hoped the defendant would not re-offend! (We fail to see how death can be exceeded in terms of severity of outcome, at least for the animal concerned, and for whose benefit the legislation was enacted!).
In addition - it appeared the magistrates had been inattentive to the submissions of the prosecuting solicitor because they claimed not to have heard the request that they should consider imposing a ban on the defendant from keeping animals in future! (This is despite people in the public gallery stating they had clearly heard this submission by the solicitor).
Reality of this case
A defendant who admitted to neglecting the needs of, and turning a blind-eye to the visible suffering of an animal to such an extent that it had to be put down - is still free to go to the pet-shop and purchase any animal he wants today! Guilty of causing suffering to an animal leading to its death, but nevertheless at liberty to continue keeping animals!
It should be said (on balance) that the defendant had no previous convictions and there was no evidence of any intention to inflict direct harm on the animal - the defendant was simply too feckless, lazy or self-absorbed to act in the best interests of the animal.
It also emerged in open court that the defendant was living with a partner who has a lifetime ban from keeping animals because of her previous convictions for animal welfare violations. His partner's son was also in court today receiving judgment for an unrelated offence which resulted in him also breaching his lifetime ban from keeping animals!
A somewhat depressing thought at the conclusion of proceedings was that most of the costs of this prosecution would now have to be borne by the RSPCA - a charity!
Last year, we heard a Crown Court judge comment that the RSPCA provide an important and valuable service to the community. we would echo that sentiment and add that they save the taxpayer a great deal of money and the police and CPS a great deal of time. Perhaps magistrates need to be better informed about the realities faced by the RSPCA and the impact of their sentencing not only on the defendant but on one of our most valuable animal welfare charities.
What are your views on the outcome of this case? Is this what justice for animals should look like?
Should there be an automatic disqualification from keeping animals if a person is convicted of an animal welfare offence?
Should magistrates be compelled to give reasons in open court concerning why they believe a given individual should retain the right to own animals if they have been convicted of an animal welfare offence?
Should licensing be reintroduced with a requirement that only people who can demonstrate competency in animal welfare should be allowed to keep animals and should there be a restriction on the number of animals an individual can keep as a component of the license?