Rspca Guilty Of Negligence

[Steve]

My link

The RSPCA has been ordered to pay a couple more than $1.4 million damages after one of its inspectors negligently shot dead 131 pure bred Murray Grey cattle.

A judge of Victoria's County Court earlier ruled that the cattle - 126 cows, two bulls and three calves - were shot by an RSPCA inspector with "indecent haste".

Judge John Bowman found that the herd, shot on a farm outside Warrnambool in 2003, was put down without consultation of its owners, James Holdsworth and Heather Ellison. They sued the RSPCA for damages after the inspector Jason Nicholls dispatched the cattle in the presence of colleague Mark Roberts following a complaint about starving animals.

Mr Holdsworth and Ms Ellison argued the herd were not in a condition that required destruction while the RSPCA denied negligence. In his 258-page decision in August, Judge Bowman said that the "whole operation conducted by Nicholls on behalf of the (RSPCA) ... seems to have been conducted with what could be described as indecent haste."

After adjourning the case for argument about the amount of damages, Judge Bowman recently issued judgment, describing the proceedings - which began more than 10 years ago - as "extremely vexed and relentlessly contested".

"At times, some issues were contested almost to the point of the absurd," he said.

Mr Holdsworth and Ms Ellison were represented by Stratton Langslow and Peter Berman with the RSPCA by Dan Christie.

Ms Ellison had described the cattle as her "pride and joy" while Judge Bowman accepted her evidence that the cattle - he accepted that the calves were of commercial value only - were to form the essential foundation of a stud enterprise.Judge Bowman fixed damages at $1.45 million, being $1.24 million lost profit for the stud enterprise and $175,000 for lost profit for an artificial insemination business.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/court-finds-rspca-inspector-negligent-in-shooting-of-131-pure-bred-cattle-20150526-gh9yia.html#ixzz4ANNGV2Cq

Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

[Little Gifts]

Could set an interesting legal precedent.

I don't get the RSPCA. We hear about all these cases of hoarders and puppy farms and how things were borderline and no charges were laid. Everyone knows things could go either way for the animals yet they err on the side of caution and things continue unchanged and the animals continue to suffer, making them less suitable for rehoming in the future if they are seized. On the other hand you have this case where so many animals are determined unsaveable and have to be immediately shot to save them from a more horrid death. Where is the balance between these two situations? I had something similar happen to me with them. I rang and spoke to an inspector (I think in Orange or Bathurst) for my older sister after she was bankrupted and removed from her farm. They had to leave a whole heap of sheep due to lamb on the property who couldn't be moved and they were not legally allowed to return to the property to check on them. The maremma who stayed with them had also been removed by the ranger. So I called asking for assistance on my sister's behalf to see if the RSPCA could assist in legally monitoring these in limbo stock (the org who bankrupted them was not interested in the stock and obviously my sister was hoping/trying to have the eviction overturned and return to the farm). A senior RSPCA told me that if my sister and her husband were still responsible for them and if they did not adequately care for the sheep they could and would be charged with neglect. She was quite threatening and not at all helpful. Not what I was expecting.