Examination of Witnesses (Questions 913-919)
MR TONY
SUCKLING, MR
MICHAEL FLOWER
AND MR
DAVID BOWLES
14 OCTOBER 2004
Q913 Chairman: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Welcome to the final evidence session of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee's inquiry into the draft Animal
Welfare Bill. We have one witness session this morning with the
RSPCA. Gentlemen, you are welcome. You made a request to the Committee
that you should come back before us for a second time; we have
a limited amount of time this morning for your contribution and
what we would like you very much to cover are three things. Firstly,
your response if you like to concerns and key issues that have
been put to us by the witness evidence that we have received so
far, because I know you have been assiduous in attending and taking
notes about what everybody has been saying; secondly, not to go
through every single amendment you might have in mind but any
key areas you think should be drawn to the Committee's attention
as we now try to pull together the many and various views that
have been put to us, and, thirdly, I want to give you a short
opportunity to respond to some verbal evidence which the Committee
received yesterday from persons who, shall we say, took a different
view about the activities of RSPCA and its inspectors, which may
be relevant to some of the issues about prosecution which we have
discussed to date. It may well be that colleagues want, after
you have delivered your observations, to ask you some questions
but this is your public opportunity to comment on things so far.
Would you care for the record, gentlemen, to identify yourselves
and your position in the RSPCA, please?
Mr Bowles: I am the head of External
Affairs at the RSPCA.
Mr Suckling: I am Deputy Director
General.
Mr Flower: I am deputy head of
Prosecutions Department.
Q914 Chairman: Mr Suckling, are you going
to open the batting?
Mr Suckling: Yes. Thank you, Chairman,
and thank you for the opportunity to come again to the Committee.
May I extend Jackie Ballard's apologies? She is unfortunately
in America so cannot attend today. You have mentioned three issues.
I think we have a fair idea of those concerns that were expressed
earlier, and maybe one of those concerns would be, to start with,
the issue of the independence of the prosecution process within
the RSPCA. Can I start with that and then I will ask my colleagues
to contribute on other matters. It has always been the case, and
still is, that the investigating officer, the RSPCA inspector,
does not make the decision as to whether or not a case is proceeded
with. That decision is made by our Prosecutions Department, of
which Mick Flower is a chief superintendent, and so there is independence
in that respect. There is also independence between the campaigning
side of the organisation and the investigating or prosecuting
side of the organisation. We have never ever taken a prosecution
just because we happened to have a campaign that is on that issue.
Inspectors engage in investigations because they have reported
to them or see themselves issues that concern them in animal welfare.
Of course at a later stage, when we are reporting on the annual
tally of prosecutions, if you like, then it is fair and right
I think for us to comment on what has happened during a particular
year. Can I also mention as well that the independence between
the various issues that we deal with and the various work that
we do is highlighted in the structure we have: I am responsible
for the prosecutions function in the RSPCA; our director of Animal
Welfare Services is responsible for the investigating function,
and our director of Animal Welfare Promotion is responsible for
campaigns. We do not have a single director that is responsible
for more than one function. The co-ordination if it is necessary,
and the person who decides if there are any issues involved, is
the Director General. I hope that has covered the independence
issue to some extent. I do not know if Mick would like to add
anything to that?
Mr Flower: Not at the moment but
possibly later.
Q915 Chairman: Can I just say that there
is one question which I think the Committee would be grateful
for some further clarification on, because I think we gained the
impression from the first evidence that you did not want to be
seen as the role of prosecutor, and yet clearly the position of
the RSPCA, for example, in being invited by a local authority
to carry out a role of inspection puts you into a position where,
I suppose in theory, more opportunities to observe welfare issues
under the terms of the proposed Bill come before your inspectors
and, therefore, inevitably decisions as to whether to proceed
to a prosecution would present themselves. As I understand it,
it might just be helpful for you to tease out for us the nature
of your prosecuting activity at the present time, because I think
it has been made clear to us—and again you might like to
just help us so we understand what you do at the moment—that
you are able under civil powers to take out prosecutions under
the current arrangements, and that is exactly what you do. So
perhaps you might like to compare and contrast the current situation
with the prosecutory framework as outlined in the Bill, and in
brackets are you satisfied with the prosecutory framework as presently
defined?
Mr Flower: I will respond to that,
if I may, Chairman. The present situation is that the RSPCA prosecutes
as a private prosecutor. We do not claim and we do not have any
authority from local or central government to act as a prosecutor.
We act now as a private prosecutor; if the Bill becomes law we
will continue to act as a private prosecutor.
Q916 Paddy Tipping: Under what Act?
Mr Flower: Do we act as a private
prosecutor?
Q917 Paddy Tipping: No. Under the 1911
Act?
Mr Flower: 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 inappropriately
-
Chairman: Can I just stop you at that
point because I know that Mr Breed would like to raise with you
a question about appeals. You mentioned the 96% success rate but
he would like to just follow that up with a quick point on appeals.
Q918 Mr Breed: I am grateful for the
comparison between yourselves and the CPS, although I have to
say the CPS is not a particular organisation I have a great deal
of admiration for, but the evidence yesterday suggested that yes,
you get 96% convictions but you have a significantly higher number
than the CPS overturned on appeal.
Mr Flower: I do not know where
those figures come from; I am not aware that that is the case.
Certainly we do have a number of cases that go to appeal but my
anecdotal response is that we do not lose particularly many cases
on appeal either.
Q919 Chairman: As it was an issue that
was raised on the record yesterday by witnesses who did have some
critical things to say, just so we can be reassured by your anecdotal
thoughts, would you care to look back over what I might call a
representative period, the last two or three years, and have a
look at the success versus appeal rates and let the Committee
have some hard, accurate data as to what the situation is so that
we can see the facts from your side, in fairness to you?
Mr Flower: Yes, of course.
Chairman: Mr Taylor?
|
