Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  millie1* on Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:58 pm

Please note all - the Police are seizing animals on behalf of the RSPCA, they take and remain the possessors of the animals but some of us know that they have washed their hands of them as soon as they leave the premises.

Please read the attached which is Section 18 from the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It was proven in Court in 2013 (even admitted by the RSPCA Barrister) that the Police were indeed the possessors.

If you are in this position and are not able to find you animals go directly to the Chief Constable of the forse that took the animals and send him a copy of the Act (section - youd waste a fortune in post otherwise) If he does not respond to you within 1 week (given him the deadline) take it straight to the IPCC - Independant Police Complaints Commission!

The critical passages are Subsections 5 and 8. It categorically states that the Police do not lose possession!!!!! (devils in the detail!)

Section 18 Powers in relation to animals in distress
(1)If an inspector or a constable reasonably believes that a protected animal is suffering, he may take, or arrange for the taking of, such steps as appear to him to be immediately necessary to alleviate the animal's suffering.
(2)Subsection (1) does not authorise destruction of an animal.
(3)If a veterinary surgeon certifies that the condition of a protected animal is such that it should in its own interests be destroyed, an inspector or a constable may—
(a)destroy the animal where it is or take it to another place and destroy it there, or
(b)arrange for the doing of any of the things mentioned in paragraph (a).
(4)An inspector or a constable may act under subsection (3) without the certificate of a veterinary surgeon if it appears to him—
(a)that the condition of the animal is such that there is no reasonable alternative to destroying it, and
(b)that the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to wait for a veterinary surgeon.
(5)An inspector or a constable may take a protected animal into possession if a veterinary surgeon certifies—
(a)that it is suffering, or
(b)that it is likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change.
(6)An inspector or a constable may act under subsection (5) without the certificate of a veterinary surgeon if it appears to him—
(a)that the animal is suffering or that it is likely to do so if its circumstances do not change, and
(b)that the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to wait for a veterinary surgeon.
(7)The power conferred by subsection (5) includes power to take into possession dependent offspring of an animal taken into possession under that subsection.
(8)Where an animal is taken into possession under subsection (5), an inspector or a constable may—
(a)remove it, or arrange for it to be removed, to a place of safety;
(b)care for it, or arrange for it to be cared for—
(i)on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into possession, or
(ii)at such other place as he thinks fit;
(c)mark it, or arrange for it to be marked, for identification purposes.
(9)A person acting under subsection (Cool(b)(i), or under an arrangement under that provision, may make use of any equipment on the premises.
(10)A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3) or (5) with respect to the animal.
(11)If a person exercises a power under this section otherwise than with the knowledge of a person who is responsible for the animal concerned, he must, as soon as reasonably practicable after exercising the power, take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to bring the exercise of the power to the notice of such a person.
(12)A person commits an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of power conferred by this section.
(13)A magistrates' court may, on application by a person who incurs expenses in acting under this section, order that he be reimbursed by such person as it thinks fit.
(14)A person affected by a decision under subsection (13) may appeal against the decision to the Crown Court
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:04 pm

Where Inspector or Constable is mentioned, is this Police Inspector or RSPCA Inspector?
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

The Act defines as: -

Post  millie1* on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:07 pm

The only people desgnated by the Law to 'police' it are The Police Forse (Constable) or the Govt body concerned - DEFRA (Inspector). It is in the Act somewhere I will find it and Post.

The RSPCA are not and have never been designated inspectors under this law. (Thats why they need the police!)
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Section 51 Animal Welfare Act 2006

Post  millie1* on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:11 pm

Inspectors........

RSPCA have NEVER been given this......Police or DEFRA only - SHG can confirm.

51Inspectors
(1)In this Act, “inspector”, in the context of any provision, means a person appointed to be an inspector for the purposes of that provision by—
(a)the appropriate national authority, or
(b)a local authority.
(2)In appointing a person to be an inspector for purposes of this Act, a local authority shall have regard to guidance issued by the appropriate national authority.
(3)The appropriate national authority may, in connection with guidance under subsection (2), draw up a list of persons whom the authority considers suitable for appointment by a local authority to be an inspector for purposes of this Act.
(4)A person may be included in a list under subsection (3) as suitable for appointment as an inspector for all the purposes of this Act or only for such one or more of those purposes as may be specified in the list.
(5)An inspector shall not be liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of his functions under this Act if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and that there were reasonable grounds for doing it.
(6)Relief from liability of an inspector under subsection (5) shall not affect any liability of any other person in respect of the inspector's act.
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:13 pm

millie1* wrote:
The RSPCA are not and have never been designated inspectors under this law.  (Thats why they need the police!)
I did wonder as RSPCA Inspectors are civilians and not law enforcement.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:15 pm

Very useful info millie, thank you for posting it.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Use this to force access.......

Post  millie1* on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:21 pm

This is an extract from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (still standing) Note it refers to ACCESS. The Police have your animals by Law, the RSPCA may be looking after them (in some cases!) But the evidence is the Police's responsibility and you can use this act to force it - even if you have to have a police escort!!!!!

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Section 21 Access and copying.
(1)A constable who seizes anything in the exercise of a power conferred by any enactment, including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act, shall, if so requested by a person showing himself—
(a)to be the occupier of premises on which it was seized; or
(b)to have had custody or control of it immediately before the seizure,
provide that person with a record of what he seized.
(2)The officer shall provide the record within a reasonable time from the making of the request for it.
(3)Subject to subsection (Cool below, if a request for permission to be granted access to anything which—
(a)has been seized by a constable; and
(b)is retained by the police for the purpose of investigating an offence,
is made to the officer in charge of the investigation by a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was so seized or by someone acting on behalf of such a person, the officer shall allow the person who made the request access to it under the supervision of a constable.
(4)Subject to subsection (Cool below, if a request for a photograph or copy of any such thing is made to the officer in charge of the investigation by a person who had custody or control of the thing immediately before it was so seized, or by someone acting on behalf of such a person, the officer shall—
(a)allow the person who made the request access to it under the supervision of a constable for the purpose of photographing or copying it; or
(b)photograph or copy it, or cause it to be photographed or copied.
(5)A constable may also photograph or copy, or have photographed or copied, anything which he has power to seize, without a request being made under subsection (4) above.
(6)Where anything is photographed or copied under subsection (4)(b) above, the photograph or copy shall be supplied to the person who made the request.
(7)The photograph or copy shall be so supplied within a reasonable time from the making of the request.
(8)There is no duty under this section to grant access to, or to supply a photograph or copy of, anything if the officer in charge of the investigation for the purposes of which it was seized has reasonable grounds for believing that to do so would prejudice—
(a)that investigation;
(b)the investigation of an offence other than the offence for the purposes of investigating which the thing was seized; or
(c)any criminal proceedings which may be brought as a result of—
(i)the investigation of which he is in charge; or
(ii)any such investigation as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above.
[F1(9)The references to a constable in subsections (1), (2), (3)(a) and (5) include a person authorised under section 16(2) to accompany a constable executing a warrant.F1]
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Inspectors?

Post  Trilby Bee on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:44 pm

They are all 'Inspectors' and upwards in the RSPCA...that is the rank at which they start. That is the lowest rank. It is to glorify their own status, whereas to be an 'Inspector' in the Police you have to display a bit of brain, maybe not a huge amount, and get promoted. It is just another way in which the RSPCA tries to terrify people, the title...plus the uniform...plus reading you your 'rights', not that you have any with that band of thugs. The WHW do not have ranks as such, they are all called 'Field Officers' and wear a green uniform. They cannot be mistaken for police, but I rather think it's so they can blend in when they hide in the bushes. I thought Police HAD to be there when animals 'seized' otherwise surely it is common theft (on top of trespassing)? And they are denying being present when millie's were taken?
avatar
Trilby Bee

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

Back to top Go down

Missing Horses

Post  millie1* on Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:02 pm

Yes from the intitial emails from the police they say they were never there.....civilian witnesses say otherwise!

The police have come back again saying they werent seized so where the f..k are they??? There was a lorry to take them away and there are no horses left in the yard?

avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

MISSING HORSES

Post  Trilby Bee on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:50 am

Are the witnesses prepared to confirm what they saw? Will they speak out if necessary? Have the police put in writing that they were not there...in an email?
avatar
Trilby Bee

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

Back to top Go down

Email proof

Post  millie1* on Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:51 am

YEs there is email proof that they say they were not called out

Dont know about the witnesses
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:33 pm

I`ve looked at millies statement a few times..

Please note all - the Police are seizing animals on behalf of the RSPCA, they take and remain the possessors of the animals but some of us know that they have washed their hands of them as soon as they leave the premises.

Then if you look at 8b .. `Care for it or arrange for it to be cared for`

I suspect the Police will say that they have arranged for the animal to be cared for when they hand the animal over.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Care/Possession

Post  millie1* on Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:36 pm

Admin that is true they can pass over care to the RSPCA but they cannot give them possession - ie the police are still responsible for the evidence seized! Therefore they should have knowledge of the whereabouts of that evidence at all times and also allow defendants access under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Likewise as possessors theyshould be present at ALL trials and hearings.
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Authorised to kill an animal.

Post  Trilby Bee on Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Just tried to send this from Kindle but seems not to have gone...what worries me more than somewhat is this; something I noticed when I went thro the AWA a while back, and which I now notice again. When I first saw it, I thought I was misreading something. Does Section 3 suggest that a police officer, armed only with a truncheon and possibly a Swiss Army knife, is allowed to kill a horse? or a dog, or for that matter any one of God's creatures? Surely any attempt to kill a Shire Horse with a truncheon would in itself be an act of cruelty (so a section 4) as it would be prolonged suffering.
My neighbour's child was at school and there was a sickly looking fox in the grounds which an RSPCA uniform attempted to shoot (not sure what with). Apparently he made a pretty poor job and the poor creature was running round in agony for ages. Not sure how it was eventually despatched. Maybe it wasn't.

If the police cannot remember taking two horses, I have to ask myself if they would remember killing one? Rolling Eyes
avatar
Trilby Bee

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:46 pm

millie1* wrote:Admin that is true they can pass over care to the RSPCA but they cannot give them possession - ie the police are still responsible for the evidence seized!  Therefore they should have knowledge of the whereabouts of that evidence at all times and also allow defendants access under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.  Likewise as possessors theyshould be present at ALL trials and hearings.
Ah .. I see what you mean on that score.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:05 pm

Trilby Bee wrote:Just tried to send this from Kindle but seems not to have gone...what worries me more than somewhat is this; something I noticed when I went thro the AWA a while back, and which I now notice again. When I first saw it, I thought I was misreading something. Does Section 3 suggest that a police officer, armed only with a truncheon and possibly a Swiss Army knife, is allowed to kill a horse? or a dog, or for that matter any one of God's creatures? Surely any attempt to kill a Shire Horse with a truncheon would in itself be an act of cruelty (so a section 4) as it would be prolonged suffering.
My neighbour's child was at school and there was a sickly looking fox in the grounds which an RSPCA uniform attempted to shoot (not sure what with). Apparently he made a pretty poor job and the poor creature was running round in agony for ages. Not sure how it was eventually despatched. Maybe it wasn't.

If the police cannot remember taking two horses, I have to ask myself if they would remember killing one? Rolling Eyes
They can only use captive bolts T unless he has a firearms license but wouldn`t want to fire one of them weapons in a built up area.
If you have exhausted all other avenues it is actually legal put an animal out of it`s misery by any means you have hand. Basically anything bigger than a deer would have to be dealt with by a vet, firearms holder or similar.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Ref licence to kill

Post  millie1* on Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:32 pm

To review RSPCA killing procedures - google the German Shepherd Rescue - they RSPCA brutally and hapazadly killed several shepherds some time ago.

Not so familiar with Section 3 but Police have a list of local marksmen (usually those who partake in shooting sports) and they request their urgent assistance - at least thats what an old farrier of mine used to do for them with Deer.

Admin - perhaps you can find and post the information relating to a charge by the RSPCA against a police officer who having found a run over (literally squashed) cat, dying in agony, clubbed it over the head to prevent further suffering - he was cleared on appeal I think - how ridiculous, ok the method wasnt nice but the animal was in agony and scared to death anyway, so a quick despatch with a single blow or wait for a vet/marksman........what would you do.

And how many people, seeing an injured rabbit or pheasant on the road, actually deliberately run it over to put it out of its misery - should they all be prosecuted too?
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:32 pm

millie1* wrote:To review RSPCA killing procedures - google the German Shepherd Rescue - they RSPCA brutally and hapazadly killed several shepherds some time ago.

Not so familiar with Section 3 but Police have a list of local marksmen (usually those who partake in shooting sports) and they request their urgent assistance - at least thats what an old farrier of mine used to do for them with Deer.

Admin - perhaps you can find and post the information relating to a charge by the RSPCA against a police officer who having found a run over (literally squashed) cat, dying in agony, clubbed it over the head to prevent further suffering - he was cleared on appeal I think - how ridiculous, ok the method wasnt nice but the animal was in agony and scared to death anyway, so a quick despatch with a single blow or wait for a vet/marksman........what would you do.

And how many people, seeing an injured rabbit or pheasant on the road, actually deliberately run it over to put it out of its misery - should they all be prosecuted too?
I`ll try and look it up and post it tomorrow.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  misty02 on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:41 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

misty02

Posts : 111
Join date : 2013-06-16

Back to top Go down

Cat

Post  Trilby Bee on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:51 pm

Saw this some time ago...D Telegraph I think. I think the cat was almost flattened but still alive (just). But...AWA 2006 implies, I think, that only a police officer is allowed to do this, does not suggest that anyone else can. I can't help thinking there are many sections of AWA 2006 which need to be rephrased for clarity of understanding.

And yes, the GSD story was a disgrace. Again.
avatar
Trilby Bee

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  misty02 on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:13 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note he shot it twice 'the first didn't penetrate the birds skin'. HOW DID HE KNOW!!!
Panic attack my arse  Evil or Very Mad 

misty02

Posts : 111
Join date : 2013-06-16

Back to top Go down

RSPCA CAUSES DEATH OF RHEA

Post  Trilby Bee on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:22 pm

They really can't do anything right, can they!! Why don't they contact EXPERTS... there are people who breed ostriches and other gig birds who would quite likely have had a success. Sure RSPCA are 'trained' (sniggers) for about six weeks and that's it.  This happened a while ago, and there was an ostrich on the run not long ago and someone caught it, but not the RSPCA I don't think.
avatar
Trilby Bee

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  misty02 on Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:40 pm

The bird had been there a while and not caused any problems. Can't help but wonder as these are quite expensive birds if their sudden concern for it was motivated by how much they had been offered by the bird lover who had other rheas.

misty02

Posts : 111
Join date : 2013-06-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Admin on Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:27 pm

Trilby Bee wrote:Saw this some time ago...D Telegraph I think. I think the cat was almost flattened but still alive (just). But...AWA 2006 implies, I think, that only a police officer is allowed to do this, does not suggest that anyone else can. I can't help thinking there are many sections of AWA 2006 which need to be rephrased for clarity of understanding.

And yes, the GSD story was a disgrace. Again.
Anyone can T, provided that the animals death is as swift and humane as it can possibly be. As stated in the officers case you would be committing a crime if you didn`t act on it in one way or another.
The RSPCA thought they could make a quick buck out of the case but he had exhausted all the options open to him except one .. the one he took.
There was a case a few years ago (I might have mentioned this before) involving a man out shooting. He had seen a Badger dragging both back legs behind it leaving a small blood trail. At the time he had two choices .. shoot it and put it out of it`s misery or leave it to go off and die a horrendously painful death. He chose to shoot it but unfortunately was seen by a dog walker who phoned the RSPCA. A court case ensued and when in the box the RSPCA barrister asked the chap if he was a qualified vet. He stated he wasn`t and the barrister then asked him how he was qualified to judge that the badger would survive it`s injuries .. or not. The court found him guilty and he lost everything, home, job and family.
In some cases you`re damned if you do and you`re damned if you don`t.
avatar
Admin

Posts : 407
Join date : 2012-10-27

http://antirspca.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Authorisation to destroy

Post  millie1* on Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:53 am

T I have checked Section 3 - I think you mean Section 18 paragraph 3. Yes so long as a vet says so the police/defra can destroy the animal by whatever means they have at their disposal - one would hope that if a vet is present to actually determine the animal's condition that he might be requested to perform this duty???
avatar
millie1*

Posts : 147
Join date : 2012-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum