David Cameron's hunt convicted as judge questions RSPCA's £330,000 prosecution costs
Is it moraly correct for the RSPCA to spend nearly £300,000 of donated, charitable money on a prosecution?
Barnfield, of Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was fined £250 for each charge, totalling £1,000, and ordered to pay costs of £2,000. Sumner, of Salperton, Gloucestershire, was fined a total of £1,800 with costs of £2,500. The Heythrop Hunt Limited was fined a total of £4000 with £15,000 costs. All three were ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge.
I believe what the RSPCA have done to be immoral, my thinking falls more in line with what the judge had to say
A judge has questioned the “quite staggering” amount of money the RSPCA spent pursuing the prosecution of a hunt, saying that the money may have been more “usefully employed”.
The District Judge Tim Pattinson made the comments after the charity’s successful prosecution of the Prime Minister’s local hunt.
He fined the Heythrop hunt and its members £6,800, but then rounded on the RSPCA for laying out £330,000 to bring the case – 10 times the defence costs.
“Members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed,” he told Oxford Magistrates' Court.
“It is not for me to express an opinion but I merely flag it up but I do find it to be a quite staggering figure.”
Think this subject has been done to death Blue. We all know your thoughts on this and the reasons behind your post. I understand your thoughts and your reasons, but you do know what the RSPCA stands for?
They have a moralistic duty to protect animals and these ' huntsmen ' knew they were breaking the law of the land. Not once but many times they have been recorded. The fine is laughable to these people as often they are rich so the fine and costs are laughable. If this law is to be looked at seriously then the fines should be in line. A pound fine for a second offense and a million pound fine via a donation to the RSPCA, should stop this hunt from sticking two fingers up to the law, and shouting ' Tally ho ' at their next meet.
I would have thought that as the RSPCA were successful in the prosecution, why should they have to pay their own costs?
I know that people think laws are bollocks, but theses people need to be taught that laws are there to be adhered too. The measly fine is no deterrent at all and that is what was needed.........a damn good deterrent.
Maybe these people should be set loose chased by hounds, nothing like a good dose of their own medicine as a very apt punishment.
It is an absolute disgrace that this law is so badly enforced that the RSPCA had to spend a penny.
When I give money to a charity I do not ask or expect to be told where it is being spent. I trust in the charity to spend the money where and when it sees as appropriate.
It is a shame that a public prosecution wasn't viable, but If the RSPCA believes that this case is worth £330,000 then who am I to argue how they spend their money?
Just for the record GnV I thought you might well like to know how the RSPCA come to the decision to prosecute.
Oh and by saying the public prosecutor was not interested in taking action, or it not being ion the public interest is hogwash. A court found in favour of the RSPCA and so the huntsmen were found guilty, and surely then it was indeed in the public interest, and shame on the public prosecutor for not doing his or her job properly. I hope one day they want to call on the police as a law id being broken against them and the police ignore them.
For me' at a time when the RSPCA are pleading poverty, this sum of money wasted is a disgrace
RSPCA expects to cut more than 130 jobs, mostly in administration and support roles, citing its increasing staff pension fund deficit as a key reason.
In a statement released last week, the animal welfare charity said the charity was under pressure from rising fuel costs and veterinary bills; a drop in donations and an increase in call-centre workload. In 2007, the charity took 21,481 calls about abandoned animals. In 2011, the total had leapt to 28,162, a 31 per cent rise over five years.
RPSCA had already budgeted to spend almost £10m less in 2011 than in 2009. But it cited the impact of inflation, and a growing staff pension fund deficit caused by flat investment returns for its new decision on staff levels.
According to the charity’s most recent accounts, in 2010 its overall pension deficit increased by £4m to In the same year, its wage bill was It had an income of , and spent
The charity is undergoing a staffing review. This is likely to mean restructuring and a reduction of more than 130 posts, particularly in administration and support roles although staff at all levels could be affected. However, the 1,000 or so frontline staff including RSPCA inspectors, animal welfare officers and animal collection officers, as well as workers at hospitals, wildlife and animal rehoming centres, will be protected.
Chief executive Gavin Grant said: “The RSPCA is under pressure like never before. Ever-larger numbers of animals are falling victim to abuse and abandonment in part due to the economic climate.
The prime minister is understood to have ridden with the hunt on six occasions before the legislation came into force.
Says it all.
When a criminal is prosecuted then they should have their assets seized to pay back the cost of bringing them to justice.
I believe they were right to spend the money.
The money is given to assist the RSPCA in protecting animals, whatever format that might take. the fact that courts can be too lenient when handing out sentances and punishments is not the fault of the RSPCA.
The day we count the cost of prosecuting those that have committed offences of any kind is the day we should open all the prison doors.
These convictions must be brought against people who commit such acts.
However, I do believe that we should look at such costs, there must be a better way of financing such cases, cruelty against animals, cruelty against children and the like.
It is not so unlike Doctors, they can earn more in private practice than they can with the NHS I believe, but am I right in thinking that they have to allocate a certain amount of time to NHS patients, (I could be totally wrong but it wouldn't be a bad idea)
The same could be applied to Barristers, Lawyers and Judges, a small amount of thier time could be allocated free of charge to charitable institutions, they are after all protecting those in our community who need thier help the most.
It is not right that the RSPCA should have to bear the costs of these trials, if someone breaks into my house the law will take that person (if known) to court, the RSPCA should only have to give thier evidence to the CPA who should then take the culprit to trial.
There certainly are "wrongs" here but I don't think they are the wrongs of the RSPCA who have carried out the remit of the donations made.
Does anyone know how much the league against cruel sports contributes to the RSPCA?
