In October 2018 the SPCA took 15 dogs from Janine and Barbara , these dogs were not ill these dogs were healthy and above all these dogs were champions in their breed .
Two subsequently produced pups and despite the SPCA acknowledging that they were pregnant they x rayed them
This dog was uplifted allegedly for an ear infection and being under weight her weight the day after being seized was recorded as 30 .5 kg which according to official records is slam bang in the middle of the norms 28 – 32 kg .
this is just an example of what “under weight” means
The questions we need to ask here are
- why did it take a year and a half of investigation before charging the owners if the dogs were in a bad sate would that be conclusive evidence
- why was it days and for many two weeks before they were seen by a vet despite the SPCA charging the owners with allowing the dog to suffer
- why was the interview not about the condition of the dogs and their health and treatment ?
- why were they left with the vast majority of dogs if they were not suitable to have dogs
- why did the RNZSPCA return 5 dogs which were taken without documentation
- why were dogs taken without documentation what act section protocol allows this
- why was the surrender form for the first 5 dogs not given to its owner and why did some one forge a signature
- under what lawful basis could the RNZSPCA take healthy dogs and not inform the owners why they were taken
- why were they not allowed to see the dogs the pups and dogs
- why could their vets not provide an independent assessment
- why the discrepancy in litter numbers
- and why enforce standards well beyond the code of welfare
Questions for Luke Radich of Kayes Fletcher Walker
- this is a private prosecution then why do you emblazon your court documents with the word CROWN ?
- and why change the name to the RNZSPCA when in reality the prosecutor was not them and we can prove that it was the Auckland SPCA and there is no evidence at all that it was the RNZSPCA again is that not misleading he court ?
- why did it take nearly two years for you to correct the name and why was it not done with any proper evidence or supported by affidavits ?
- why make repeated offers for a guilty plea and why drown them with 79 charges should you not have reviewed the charges and the evidence long before now ? especially in light of the evidence and the pressure that these women are being put under to plead guilty
- Luke you know that your clients executed a fake search warrant you say your not relying on that but your clients who ever they are have all the evidence which the ladies collated to defend themselves .
- and if you had looked through the evidence then you too would wonder how a person can be charged with
and the very first time it ( an others with similar charges ) saw a vet was 27 October should you therefore not be charging the SPCA with neglecting animal which they claim were ill ?? and also be taking them on for allowing a dog to birth in the back of a moving van ? is that condoned but having a dog on a short leash warrants its disposal ?
- may I remind you of your obligations in particular 4 (a) and 4(d)
The RNZSPCA has obligations under the bill of rights
they exercised their powers under the legislation which gave them approved status
It would appear that this prosecution could be ground breaking in proving that the breach of the bill of rights would impact on its accountability to the public .. which in my interpretation of the law means compliance with the law
When the evidence is not there corrupt prosecutors tend to resort to dirty tactics and in this case it was an unlawful search warrant that took all the preparation the ladies had done for their defence not only did it leave them powerless to fight the disposal which incidentally was to the Auckland SPCA , it also meant that the corrupt SPCA could counter the points which they had observed and made notes about on their private computer in their own home
How ,as crown solicitor could you possibly sanction entry into a home with a false search warrant
And where is the dispensation from the solicitor General which you require to act in this manner are you not severely conflicted by turning a blind eye to an organisation which should comply with he law but is actively ignoring it ?
This case ,which I am sure the ladies will lose, as the corruption is so great and the playing field so un even that the cards are stacked against them . They have been totally bullied and harassed their lives have been totally destroyed and they have already had trial by press coordinated by the SPCA .
Is this prosecution really in the public interest and why have the prosecution guide lines been ignored
This is not a crown prosecution and the crown has never assumed responsibility so why are you portraying yourself to the court as the crown ?
The ladies will be totally destroyed but its not about humaneness is about dirty tactics all the way including the provision of a legal aid lawyer who has now disclosed that he is actually a member of the New Zealand Animal Law Association and is looking at abandoning his client at the 11 th hour he certainly has not done any preparation except put pressure on her to secure a guilty plea .
We need to have an outcry in New Zealand Just like the one in Australia .!
Please keep the stories rolling in the SPCA should not have coercive law enforcement powers they are abusing the ones they have and the power is now in the control of a select few . it is not the voluntary organization of old
Senator Malcolm Roberts calls for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity.
In this podcast two guests join us to a discuss our modern-day RSPCA. What might surprise you is that this isn’t a heart-warming story.
The Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, known as the RSPCA, dates to 1871 when a public meeting was held in Victoria in response to the ill treatment of horses. The QLD RSPCA was formed in 1883. The RSPCA is a household name and many consider it a beacon of respect and care for animals.
Today, the RSPCA has capitalised on its branding of animal welfare with producers and brand owners being able to use the RSPCA logo to reflect their shared vision for animal welfare. Today we can buy RSPCA approved meat in our supermarkets. Typically, we don’t question the integrity of the claimed “animal welfare” standards as we take for granted that this iconic brand is squeaky clean.
Several QLD constituents contacted my office recently with extraordinary stories about how the RSPCA were conducting themselves. Since asking questions at Senate Estimates about the RSPCA, their methods and the legitimacy of their not-for-profit status, we’ve been flooded with more calls and emails. Their stories share many similar themes and the overall message is that there is something rotten in the state of the RSPCA.
The concerns being raised are varied.
The RSPCA’s charity status means that they are not-for-profit and enjoy a tax-free status. Looking closely at the recent annual report it shows revenue was $58 million and included in that is a $4 million Federal Govt grant. The hefty surplus of $8.7 million is what prompted Senate Estimates questions of the Commissioner for Charities and Not-For-Profits. My questions were about whether the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status? We’re waiting for that answer as no-one could provide one on the day.
The RSPCA appears to be leveraging its charity branding to become heavily commercial. I have already mentioned the RSPCA approved meat and today RSPCA pet shops are being set up in the suburbs. On the face of it there is no problem. It is when we understand how the RSPCA is conducting itself under its Inspectorate powers, that we see the problem.
The RSPCA’s Inspectorate of RSPCA QLD, has power to investigate and confiscate animals that are poorly treated. That is the heart of what we expect from them. What we don’t expect is seizure of animals based on lies. We have dozens of examples where Inspectorate officers have entered properties and confiscated with no prior notification or investigation. All this is based on an anonymous tip off that is never disclosed to the property owners. The warrants JPs sign sometimes use photographs of animals in poor conditions, which do not match the animals to be seized. This is only the beginning. Some pet owners have then seen their animals online for sale within days. This is the problem when the RSPCA have a commercial arm alongside their charitable arm when they can confiscate and sell based on misuse of powers and lies. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Many pet shop owners, registered breeders, private pet owners, animal rescuers and veterinarians have experienced the full force of the RSPCA’s misuse of power. Many have spoken out against this strong arm approach and suffered the consequences. Pet shop businesses have been sabotaged when the RSPCA advises their suppliers to blacklist them based on false accusations of animal cruelty. Veterinarians who have spoken out against this behaviour have also suffered from the RSPCA spreading false accusations regarding their standards of animal care. Business have been decimated through this belligerent behaviour.
My two guests, who both own pet stores, join us to share their experiences with the RSPCA. Their stories are confronting.
Leichelle and Nicole’s stories are extraordinary and not what we expect of a charity that is supposed to champion care and respect for animals. This unconscionable conduct is exploiting its charitable and tax-free status to create a multi-million dollar business. Its strong-arm approach is clearly outside of acceptable conduct under both the Acts.
The RSPCA have become a law unto themselves, issuing warrants based on lies, not going through due process to investigate before seizing animals, extorting money out of people for housing their stolen animals and then annihilating local private businesses through negative media and malicious lies. It’s quite a rap sheet for the warm and fuzzy RSPCA we all grew up with.
This belligerent and intimidatory behaviour must stop. Their exploitation business model must be stopped.
I am calling for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity. I urge everyone to take your complaints to the ACCC and to the Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission for investigation. Everyone who donates to the RSPCA, think again. Any RSPCA employees, past or present, are invited to call my office and share their stories.
This behaviour has gone under the radar for too long. We need to bring the RSPCA back to the animal welfare organisation it is supposed to be.
Leave a Reply