Reform the RSPCA

WHILE it is good news that the RSPCA is likely to cease private prosecutions against those involved in hunting, it still falls far short of what is required.

The RSPCA is a prolific prosecuting body, yet many cases it brings fail the basic parameters for private prosecutions set by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The RSPCA is unique, both as a ‘charity’ and as a ‘prosecuting authority’ in that it has a criminal record!

R v RSPCA (1984) — conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and two convictions under The Dangerous Wild Animals Act. And there may be more criminal convictions ‘ hidden’ from the public.

Other charities, such as the Royal Society for The Protection Of Birds ( RSPB), have accepted that combining the roles of ‘investigative authority’ and prosecutor creates a conflict of interest.

The RSPCA should follow the example of the RSPB and submit papers to the properly constituted authority, the CPS.

The RSPCA’s Scottish ‘cousin’, the SSPCA, also submits papers to the Procurator fiscal and is not a prosecuting body.

Private prosecutions by the RSPCA cost the taxpayer far more than they cost the RSPCA in (mis) use of police time and facilities, courts and staff, and legal-aided defence costs.

Moreover, the RSPCA has access to the police national computer, and its staff have key-codes to access police custody suites and conduct interviews (often without police officers present). Since those RSPCA staff are not police officers, one has to question why they are given such powers?

Also, the Charity Commissioners should consider removing the ‘investigative powers’ employed by the RSPCA.

This action would enable the RSPCA to save money by reducing staffing in its legal department and special operations unit and channelling funds to its raison d’etre — animal welfare.

H. BISHOP, Sleaford, Lincs.