Whitehaven news report of Cumbria rescue

Pictures of the RSPCA water rescue team working in Cumbria in the Whitehaven News illustrate just how physical the work of the inspectors and animal welfare officers is.

Some people might think all of the rescue effort should be concentrated on helping human beings, but by providing trained people who know enough not to become casualties themselves they're making it less likely that pet owners will try to return to retrieve their animals and need to be rescued by the emergency services.

Building bridges with other charities?

There's a discussion on Petstreet about one member's experiences after winning a day shadowing an RSPCA Inspector. Also, see her fuller diary of the day. It's very interesting to see how we appear from "outside", in particular how difficult it is for other people to understand how the RSPCA's somewhat chaotic structure grew as the result of the decisions of local branches over a timespan of more than a century.

In our case we have a clinic, but no animal home purely because the branch committee of 50 years ago identified a welfare need for low cost pet care and negotiated a deal with Cambridge University to get cut-price treatments in return of use of the clinic for training new vets.

In the case of Stubbington Ark in Hampshire, the branch committee presumably decided they wanted a shelter and raised funds for one. HQ animal homes tend to be more strategically placed in that HQ will realise that there´s a problem with finding placements for animals in a particular region and build a home to fill that need.

Cambridge branch uses a combination of care at private boarding kennels, fostering by individuals and transfers to Block Fen which is our closest HQ funded shelter. The advantage of using private kennels is that (if we have the money!) we can increase the number of available spaces "overnight" rather than having a building with fixed limits. The disadvantage is that private kennels are not usually geared towards rehabilitating animals with behaviour problems etc.

Where there's a long-established HQ run home there is a tendency for the local branch to wither away because all the public interest — donations, volunteers etc. — tends to come to the home rather than the branch. In the long run that tends to mean that the branch can't afford to supplement the places provided by the home with fostering or spaces in boarding kennels. I suspect that having an active branch also improves relationships with other charities because they're more likely to meet us day to day. I certainly don´t get the degree of antagonism the Maidstone inspector seemed to find and we regularly come to arrangements with the local ferret rescue, Cats Protection, Blue Cross etc. if we have facilities & they don't or vice versa.

I´m afraid at the end it does come down to money. We've never yet been in a position where we were telling our inspectors to put down healthy animals, but a year ago we were very close to the point where we'd have had to. This is why it's so vital that we make a success of our new shop.

Comparison

Some figures from the Home Office performance report on Cambridgeshire police make an interesting comparison:

* Police Officers: 1,379
* Police Staff: 892
* Community Support Officers: 197
* Other Staff: 25
* Special Constables: 210

Budget 2007/08: £116.0 million

Cambridgeshire alone has an annual income that roughly matches the resources the RSPCA has to fund all its national services (Inspectorate, animal homes, campaigns, scientific etc.). Next time you hear that someone phoned the RSPCA and "no-one was available to come out that day," please remember those figures. It isn't that "no-one cares".

RSPCA Prosecutions

I came across the RSPCA's evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' inquiry into the draft Animal Welfare Bill and I think it's worth quoting some of the detailed explanation of how the RSPCA Inspectorate and the Prosecutions Department go about investigating cruelty complaints. 

The passage into law of the Animal Welfare Act doesn't significantly change the way this works, although it has made it possible to intervene earlier where animals are being kept in unsuitable conditions. The transcript of the oral evidence puts it into one huge paragraph, so I've spaced it out to make it a bit more readable. 

If you page through the whole of the original source, you'll see some explanation of the Society's branch structure in relation to the Inspectorate (scroll down to find it), and some statistics on conviction rates which are relevant to the File on 4 allegations:

Mr Flower (RSPCA Superintendant Prosecutions dept.): Yes. All of the prosecutions launched by the RSPCA are as a private prosecutor. If the Bill becomes law that position will not change. We will still be a private prosecutor. You are probably aware that, although the Crown Prosecution Service was set up in 1985, the law specifically provided and allowed the preservation of the rights for private prosecutions to continue, and we are a private prosecutor. 

The way our inspectors work at the moment to bring about private prosecutions is this: generally we receive a large number of complaints alleging the cruel treatments of animals from the public—last year it was in the region of 105,000. 

Our inspectors investigate all of those complaints; they check on the welfare of the animals; they try and determine whether an offence may have been committed. In investigating complaints our inspectors require the co-operation of animal owners because the RSPCA inspectors have no statutory powers, so if an inspector wants to see an animal he is invited into the premises by the owner. 

If the inspector believes that an offence may have been committed because he is confronted with an animal in a very poor condition, then he will strive to take the animal to a veterinary surgeon for examination because we rely on the veterinary surgeon to provide evidence that the animal has been caused to suffer. 

If an owner is not co-operative and will not allow an inspector access or the removal of an animal, then we are obliged to enlist the assistance of the police, because the police do have certain powers under current law in relation to arrest and seizure of items of evidence, but we only need to call on the police in very limited circumstances. 

If the inspector then has evidence that there is a potential offence and the opinion of the veterinary surgeon is that the animal has suffered, the inspector will then proceed to investigate with a view to compiling a file of evidence. This will comprise witness statements, expert evidence, photographs, and the owner of the animal will be given the opportunity to be interviewed. 

The interview is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, so the accused is cautioned and advised that they have the opportunity to seek legal advice before speaking. They are also told that they have the opportunity to have their animal examined by a veterinary surgeon of their choice in order that they have the opportunity to have an alternative opinion on the state of the animal. This is all done partly to comply with statutory provision, and partly to be fair to the accused. 

Once the investigation is completed the file of evidence is sent to the Prosecutions Department. There are five staff there who assess all of the cases that arise in England and Wales. The Prosecutions Department adheres to the provisions of the code for crown prosecutors when assessing the file of evidence. There are two principal tests, as you probably know. 

One is that there must be sufficient evidence to make a conviction more likely than an acquittal if the case is prosecuted, and there must also be a public interest in prosecuting, and all of the decisions that the RSPCA makes with regard to prosecution are based on those criteria. 

Although we are probably one of the biggest private prosecutors, prosecution is a very small part of our inspectorate's work. I mentioned that last year inspectors investigated about 105,000 complaints. The number of cases submitted to Prosecutions Department was about 1,400. Of that 1,400 we prosecuted about 700-800—about 50%, so I think this demonstrates that we are not, as some people may suggest, just out to secure convictions at all cost. 

We assess cases carefully and we apply the appropriate tests before we prosecute. That is why our prosecution numbers are so low. Although we are careful with our prosecutions, we do have a very high success rate. Last year the number of convictions we secured from our prosecutions was about 96% which is a significant success rate. 

I believe another criticism that may have been levelled is the fact that there is no form of accountability as far as our prosecutions are concerned. I think the example was cited that the police investigate offences but the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to proceed and that is some sort of safeguard, but the position of the RSPCA is no different from any other non police prosecutor. There are plenty of them, from British Rail to British Waterways, TV licensing and local authorities will occasionally prosecute, but the CPS do not have responsibility for assessing cases brought by non police prosecutors. 

If a suggestion is made that RSPCA cases should go to the CPS to be assessed then that is a misleading suggestion because the CPS does not have the authority to prosecute for anyone other than the police. The position of private prosecutions was considered in 1998 by a Law Commission report and that concluded that there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure the right to bring private prosecution is not abused. Those sort of safeguards include the DPP having a right to intervene [if a prosecution has been brought inappropriately].

Ouch!

This does look sore, although I imagine they selected the most dramatic case they could find to get a good photo. Having seen it, I have a better understanding of the drama surrounding a clinic client whose dog has the condition, and which I hope and trust will very soon be sorted out.

Vaginal prolapse looks very dramatic (which is why the owner's neighbours kept making complaints to us about it in spite of the fact that she had taken the dog to our clinic).

It resolves itself spontaneously between heats (so there's a bit of a tendency for an owner who is very pushed for cash to give a sigh of relief and hope it's gone away naturally).

It can't easily be surgically treated while the bitch is still in heat (the safest treatment is to spay her between seasons and put in some stitches to make sure the remaining vaginal tissue stays put where it ought to be).

Taxi drivers recoil in horror and won't have the bitch in their vehicles (so it's very difficult for a very low-income owner to actually get her to a vet for diagnosis and treatment).

Hardly any vets will do home-visits nowadays. We are extremely lucky that Clarendon St vets in Cambridge and Royston Veterinary Centre will do call-outs in their local area.

Animal Hoarders and others

This is Bearface, who came in from the same original place as Alphina. If you might be interested in adopting them (or any of our other animals), please email rehoming@rspca-cambridge.org.uk

Which leads into the subject of today's post, sparked off by an article on the Disability Now website. Bearface, Alphina and their eight other friends were brought in by our inspector after being signed over to the RSPCA because their previous owner couldn't cope with so many cats any longer. They were all evidently loved and cared for and there was absolutely no question of anyone being prosecuted.

The vast majority of the animals, other than injured strays, that we take in for rehoming fall into variations on the "can no longer cope" category, for a variety of legitimate reasons. Sometimes because people's circumstances have changed; often because a landlord has finally taken exception to the large number of animals being kept, and fairly frequently because the owner has mental or physical problems severe enough to cause them to be placed in some kind of institution for reasons that are not necessarily related to the fact that they have pets.

The most horrific example of this last category that's ever happened in our own area is one where a very elderly couple owned a number of dogs. The husband was suffering from severe dementia and his wife sadly had a heart attack and died with the result that he lived with his wife's remains for several weeks, unable to comprehend the situation enough to call the emergency services or feed the dogs. That clearly wasn't his fault, and the only reason our poor inspector was called in by the police was because they needed someone to deal with the surviving dogs.

When someone is suddenly taken into hospital or prison it is the responsibility of the emergency services to protect their possessions and, in the case of inanimate objects, this is simple to do by making their home secure. It clearly isn't an option to do this with living animals, which is why the police and social services will generally try to get the RSPCA to take them if it seems likely that the owner isn't going to return within a reasonable timespan. It's fairly clear from some of the Internet discussions about the RSPCA that this is sometimes interpreted as us "seizing" the animals, although from our perspective we've done nothing except respond to a request to care for animals who have been (involuntarily) abandoned by their owner.

Which leads on to the comparatively rare situations where animals are seized and their owners prosecuted. First of all, it should be said firmly that the RSPCA doesn't (and is not allowed to) simply take animals away without authorisation from the police and a veterinary surgeon's opinion. Once the animals have been removed they remain the property of the original owner until the owner signs them over to the RSPCA voluntarily or until a court makes an order about their future. This is as is should be - as a voluntary body we ought not to be in a position of being judge, jury and executioner.

The problem in the case of people who have a mental abnormality of some kind and are not willing to give up animals voluntarily is that it means there is no middle way to avoid putting them through the whole process of prosecution, including the inevitable publicity, without simply abandoning the animals to their fate. Rosalind Gregson is an absolutely classic example of someone who had to be stopped from collecting more and more animals and keeping them in abysmal conditions, but who wasn't fully responsible for her actions. Prison clearly wasn't an appropriate punishment for her, but sentencing is the decision of the court, not the RSPCA. Margaret O'Leary is a similar case.

In the States animal hoarding is beginning to be recognised as a specific form of mental illness and convicted people may be given treatment orders rather than punishment. This is clearly better, but I can't see any realistic alternative to the prosecution process unless society decides to go down the road of authorising confiscation of animals and enforced treatment of their owners without a legal oversight (or with something like a judge in chambers instead of open court). Have to say I find the idea a bit chilling - what happens to the "mad cat ladies" of this world who are eccentric but do look after their animals and keep numbers within fairly reasonable limits.