ANOTHER RSPCA PROSECUTION OVERTURNED

POLITICIAN WINS APPEAL AS RSPCA LOSE CASE

SENIOR Councillor Paul Shotton and his wife Annette have won their appeal against an animal cruelty conviction and sentence.

The couple, were yesterday cleared of causing unnecessary suffering to their 13-year-old labrador Baron.

Last November they received two-year conditional discharges and were banned from keeping dogs for the same period after being found guilty at North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court.

Councillor Shotton, who sits on Stoke-on-Trent City Council and is a former deputy elected mayor, was forced to stand down from the authority's cabinet.
But yesterday judge Mark Eades, sitting with two magistrates at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, said evidence from veterinary pathologist Dr Udo Hetzel cast a new light on inferences from the first case.

Dr Hetzel, who carried out a post-mortem examination on Baron, said the dog had a heart condition and could have had a "sudden event" after the Shottons left him to go on holiday at 2pm on Saturday, July 15, 2006, and before the RSPCA inspector found him about eight hours later.
Judge Eades said: "Dr Hetzel said the factual accounts could all be true and the dog could have had a sudden event after 2pm. That could have been precipitated by heart problems and heart failure and therefore the inference the prosecution has been asking us to draw – that Mr and Mrs Shotton have been telling untruths – is not the case.

Dr Hetzel had also said the degree of suffering was not serious and would not reach the level of significance to amount to an offence.
"We are therefore formally of the view that when it comes to proof the prosecution cannot meet the required standard of proof."

After the judgment, councillor Shotton, aged 48, released a statement. It said: "Annette and I are pleased that after two-and-a-half years we have been cleared of every one of the RSPCA's allegations against us.
"At the original trial they claimed that our much loved family pet Baron was emaciated and dehydrated. He was not."

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/councillor-cleared-cruelty-pet-labrador/article-525482-detail/article.html

ANOTHER RSPCA PROSECUTION OVERTURNED

POLITICIAN WINS APPEAL AS RSPCA LOSE CASE

SENIOR Councillor Paul Shotton and his wife Annette have won their appeal against an animal cruelty conviction and sentence.

The couple, were yesterday cleared of causing unnecessary suffering to their 13-year-old labrador Baron.

Last November they received two-year conditional discharges and were banned from keeping dogs for the same period after being found guilty at North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court.

Councillor Shotton, who sits on Stoke-on-Trent City Council and is a former deputy elected mayor, was forced to stand down from the authority's cabinet.
But yesterday judge Mark Eades, sitting with two magistrates at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, said evidence from veterinary pathologist Dr Udo Hetzel cast a new light on inferences from the first case.

Dr Hetzel, who carried out a post-mortem examination on Baron, said the dog had a heart condition and could have had a "sudden event" after the Shottons left him to go on holiday at 2pm on Saturday, July 15, 2006, and before the RSPCA inspector found him about eight hours later.
Judge Eades said: "Dr Hetzel said the factual accounts could all be true and the dog could have had a sudden event after 2pm. That could have been precipitated by heart problems and heart failure and therefore the inference the prosecution has been asking us to draw – that Mr and Mrs Shotton have been telling untruths – is not the case.

Dr Hetzel had also said the degree of suffering was not serious and would not reach the level of significance to amount to an offence.
"We are therefore formally of the view that when it comes to proof the prosecution cannot meet the required standard of proof."

After the judgment, councillor Shotton, aged 48, released a statement. It said: "Annette and I are pleased that after two-and-a-half years we have been cleared of every one of the RSPCA's allegations against us.
"At the original trial they claimed that our much loved family pet Baron was emaciated and dehydrated. He was not."

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/councillor-cleared-cruelty-pet-labrador/article-525482-detail/article.html

RSPCA NEUTERED CAT HAS KITTENS !

CAT ADOPTED FROM RSPCA HAS LITTER

A few months back we rocked up to the RSPCA rescue centre and adopted not 1 but 2 cats, Lucy and Maya.

The adoption fee is £60 each, which includes, vacinations and most importantly, neutering, this involves, according to the leaflet the removal of the reproductive organs.

Anyway, 7am this morning, my daughter Taer runs upstairs to our bedroom freaking out saying theres something wrong with Lucy.

Fearing the worst, like she might be dead or something. Leeann goes down to her room and a few seconds later screams for me.

Shit I thought, Lucy died on Taers bed and shes gonna be traumatised for life! Running down to her room, I am faced with a sight that I will never forget.

Lucy, overnight, in Taers bed while she was sleeping gave birth to 3 kittens.

How the hell does a neutered cat have babies?

Anyway, her duvet is covered in blood and fluid from the birth but snuggled in amonst the toys are 2 of the most beautiful kittens I have ever seen an a extremely contented but tired mother.

http://mikelok.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!AC646C9A8FD5B6F!4566.entry

RSPCA NEUTERED CAT HAS KITTENS !

CAT ADOPTED FROM RSPCA HAS LITTER

A few months back we rocked up to the RSPCA rescue centre and adopted not 1 but 2 cats, Lucy and Maya.

The adoption fee is £60 each, which includes, vacinations and most importantly, neutering, this involves, according to the leaflet the removal of the reproductive organs.

Anyway, 7am this morning, my daughter Taer runs upstairs to our bedroom freaking out saying theres something wrong with Lucy.

Fearing the worst, like she might be dead or something. Leeann goes down to her room and a few seconds later screams for me.

Shit I thought, Lucy died on Taers bed and shes gonna be traumatised for life! Running down to her room, I am faced with a sight that I will never forget.

Lucy, overnight, in Taers bed while she was sleeping gave birth to 3 kittens.

How the hell does a neutered cat have babies?

Anyway, her duvet is covered in blood and fluid from the birth but snuggled in amonst the toys are 2 of the most beautiful kittens I have ever seen an a extremely contented but tired mother.

http://mikelok.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!AC646C9A8FD5B6F!4566.entry

RSPCA PROSECUTION

RSPCA Prosecution and Conviction Figures, Obtained via Mr Charles Hendry MP, reveal that:

(a) the number of Defendants who appeal Magistrates' convictions is more than 26 times greater in RSPCA prosecutions than those progressed by the CPS; and

(b) the number of subsequent successful appeals at Crown Court is well over two times greater in RSPCA prosecutions than those progressed by the CPS.

These figures cause great concern, and their implications, in terms of financial costs, waste of human resources, court time and human misery, are appalling. It is a great pity that the RSPCA refused to make these figures public years ago so that the position could have been corrected.

Each case over and above the CPS norm absorbs court time and resources that are at a premium. It ties up members of the legal profession and expert witnesses, both defence and prosecution, all of whom have to be paid for, ultimately from public funds, whether via the legal aid budget, wasted RSPCA donations, awards from central funds or those few individuals who go so far as to sell their houses and everything they own to fund their defence.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4101318.htm

RSPCA PROSECUTION

RSPCA Prosecution and Conviction Figures, Obtained via Mr Charles Hendry MP, reveal that:

(a) the number of Defendants who appeal Magistrates' convictions is more than 26 times greater in RSPCA prosecutions than those progressed by the CPS; and

(b) the number of subsequent successful appeals at Crown Court is well over two times greater in RSPCA prosecutions than those progressed by the CPS.

These figures cause great concern, and their implications, in terms of financial costs, waste of human resources, court time and human misery, are appalling. It is a great pity that the RSPCA refused to make these figures public years ago so that the position could have been corrected.

Each case over and above the CPS norm absorbs court time and resources that are at a premium. It ties up members of the legal profession and expert witnesses, both defence and prosecution, all of whom have to be paid for, ultimately from public funds, whether via the legal aid budget, wasted RSPCA donations, awards from central funds or those few individuals who go so far as to sell their houses and everything they own to fund their defence.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/52/4101318.htm

JUDGE CRITICAL OF RSPCA ORDERS THEM TO PAY DEFENDANTS COSTS

Judge critical of RSPCA in case of innocent couple
A judge has criticised the RSPCA for its handling of the prosecution of a Norwich couple accused of causing unnecessary suffering to their 24-year-old horse.
Gina and Martin Griffin appeared in court but district judge Philip Browning found them innocent, and said the "case could have been dealt with in a better and certainly more sympathetic way".
He ordered the RSPCA to pay the Griffins' costs.
The RSPCA claimed the horse, Florry, was too thin. But when the Griffins tried to explain that the horse had laminitis and was on restricted grazing, as recommended by their vet, the court was told the RSPCA inspector and vet refused to discuss the case with them. The court heard that Mrs Griffin bought Florry as a three-year-old, but because of injury, the horse was never ridden, living as a companion to her other horses.
The RSPCA seized Florry on 2 October 2006, despite her vet Charlotte Mayers' insistence that the horse was well cared for.
In a statement to the court, Mrs Griffin claimed the RSPCA inspector had an "aggressive attitude".
"I felt extremely distressed and anxious," said Mrs Griffin, who has kept horses for 30 years and has her BHSAI.
Florry was also diagnosed with Cushing's disease while in the RSPCA's care. Cushing's can cause muscle wastage and the Griffins feel this was responsible in part for Florry's lack of condition. Florry is due to be returned to the Griffins.
A spokesman for the RSPCA said: "An independent vet examined the horse and said it was suffering, that is why the RSPCA decided to bring this prosecution."
Anne Kasica, a spokesman for the Self Help Group (SHG), an organisation set up in 1990 to help people who feel they are being unfairly targeted by the RSPCA, said the Griffins' case was typical of many.
"The RSPCA's aims are to promote kindness and stop cruelty to animals," said Mrs Kasica. "How can it be kind to take a horse away from the loving home she had lived in for two decades?"
Self Help Group. Tel: 08700 726689 http://www.the-shg.org/

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/178608.html