Jump to content

Scotty from Marketing wants the WTO to enforce an avenue of appeal?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Nearly choked om my breakie this morning.

 

Our dear Prime Minister is appealing to the World Trade Organisation, to step up to the plate as an avenue of appeal when other nations cancel imports despite adhering to the rules in place for said goods being exported from Australia.

 

No two guesses what nation is leaving millions in value goods stuck and causing millions in losses to Australia's export Industry.

 

So why am I incredulous?

 

well none of our politicians are willing to create let alone enforce an ombudsman as an avenue of appeal when the overzealous, answerable to no one to date, rspca inspectors take your pets.

 

Its the courts only, by then of course  the court costs will send the target bankrupt or have to sell whatever they have.

 

But  Scotty wants the WTO to step up to the plate as world ombudsman?

 

I heard that a not so minor miracle has occurred in WA

 

The WA government has stripped the rspca of their powers of prosecution and handed it back to the Public Prosecutor.

 

Apparently nothing has been declared publicly .  But the person who told me, said the prosecution cases have dropped from the hundreds per year to 5.

 

Apparently it was triggered by the case of the stolen Borzoi, that the owner was vindicated, won her case and the magistrate ordered the dogs return.

Except the rspca inspector involved loaded her on a plane and sent her to SA to be adopted.

She was not charged with contempt of court, in fact the pollies pardoned her?

 

The only good outcome is she has been stood down.

 

BUT apparently it was the trigger to the status quo finally being returned to the Public Prosecutor in W.A.

 

Now we only have every other state to hopefully fall into place and strip all the other rspca state bodies from using their own solicitors instead of the Public Prosecutors in their respective states.  Which it had always been the case.

I never understood why the Public Prosecutors or the Magistrates refuse to let them, when the change meant the people being prosecuted were then subject to blackmail, "plead guilty or we will destroy you financially." 

 

 

This subject was directly addressed by Leon Mills, a retired Public Prosecutor some 11 years ago.

 

To so many's dismay his well written submission was ignored by the NSW Government?   Why? Just what is the agenda of treating the rspca like a sacred cow?

 

3rd June 2010
The Honorable Members
General Purpose Standing Committee No.5
Inquiry into the R S P C A raid on the Waterways Wildlife Park
Dear Members,
My full name is Leon Andrew Mills and I have resided in Gunnedah since 1982, I moved to Gunnedah as a result of my applying for the Police Prosecutors position for the Gunnedah Local Court Circuit. I continued in that position until my retirement in 2006. In 2008 I stood in the Local Government elections and was successful in gaining office as a Gunnedah Shire Councillor. I am still in that position today.

The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA 9RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit. My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act be done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction.

RSPCA Inspectors obtain their powers s a result of being issued an Authority under .section 4D(2) of the Act. In relation to this Inquiry it is clear that Inspectors Prowse and French have no idea of their powers. I say that on this basis, the Act is clear in relation to what an inspector can do and is set out in Division 2 of the Act. On the Friday following the taking of the Koalas a report was broadcast on the 6.30am local A B C News that Officer Prowse said the reason for taking the Koalas was that they were “stressed”. There is no power under the Act to take an animal that is stressed. It alledging distress, as referred to in Section 24H subsection (5) of the Act, there is no evidence at all that any of these animals were suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. To support what I am submitting, the Honorable Committee would note that the Officers examined the Koalas at about 10.30-11am. They gave no treatment to these Koalas from that time until after 4.30pm, why? There was nothing wrong with them, and of course we are talking about Officers that would be expected to take immediate action if an animal was suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. These two Officers had to do something and they illegally removed these Koala for the sole purpose of the T V show R S P C A Animal Rescue. To further support this submission the head of the R S P C A Mr Steve Coleman said no proceedings would be taken against Nancy Small as a result of community outrage. I completely reject this statement. As a former Police Prosecutor of 28 years both in the city and country on rare occasions there is community outrage when some proceedings are taken. I have never before heard of proceedings for a criminal matter being abandoned or not brought because of community outrage. The reason there were no proceedings brought was that there was nothing wrong with these animals.
Offences under the act are Criminal. Officers French and Prowse were supposed to be “investigating” this matter. It is interesting to note the quality of this so called investigation. No interview with Nancy Small or any other carers of these Koalas. No exhibits such as, stool samples, feed provided in the Koala enclosure, photos for identifications of each Koala, no tagging for identification. When one looks at the R S P C A Seizure Notice re this matter S N 010 16 the Officers have not even identified the Koalas to the extent of their sex. This so called investigation is absolutely pathetic and shows the quality of how RSPCA inspectors carry out their duties.
The N S W police have a branch now called the Rural Crime Unit these branches operated both in the city and country. They are staffed by sworn Police who have been fully trained in investigation techniques. Many of these Officers are fully trained Detectives. It would be my respectful submission that these officers should take over the compliance section of the R S P C A. Of course it would require extra staff and resources. It would be my suggestion that appropriate funding could be transferred from the funding the State Government gives to the R S P C A to the Police Budget.
Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves.
The subject Koalas were living in a happy well cared for environment when they were illegally removed by Inspectors French and Prowse. One of the females had a baby Koala in her pouch that Mrs Small was aware of. I have been told that the R S P C A Inspectors became aware of this fact over the 48 hours following their removal. One of the other Koalas was an elderly female that Mrs Small has described as the “Old Lady”. Mrs Small has never denied that this Koala was elderly and whilst ever in good health could live out her days in the Koala Enclosure. Both these Koalas that were supposed to being cared for by Inspectors French and Prowse are now dead so I ask this question what investigation has the RSPCA done in relation to the deaths of these Koala or am I correct in assuming that when an animal dies because of the ignorance or lack of care by that inspector no investigation takes place. This is another example as to why the Police should take over these responsibilities so that when this type of incident occurs it can be properly investigated or reviewed by an appropriate authority.
I referred earlier in this document to the fact that prior to my retirement I was the police Prosecutor for the Gunnedah Court Circuit. During the 1980’s and 1990’s and in some cases still to this day besides representing Police informants in Court Police prosecutors represent many other entities, for example, Probation and Parole, National Parks and Wildlife, D O C S, Roads and Traffic Authority and the RSPCA. Over the years until about 2000, every so often I would receive a brief from an RSPCA Inspector who would be the informant usually in more than one information. If the matter was a “not guilty” plea I would present the case on behalf of the informant. If the offence or offences were proved some costs would be sought by the Informant that would usually be for witness expenses and any fodder that may have been required to give to the animals in question. No Legal professional costs were ever sought. In addition a fact I feel is relevant is that Police Prosecutors DPP Prosecutors and Crown Prosecutors have a duty to place all the evidence before the Court. Each carries a custodial penalty of 2 years imprisonment. True there is a difference in the monetary penalty but goal is the most severe penalty for a Criminal Offence. A common assault is one where the victim suffers no serious injury. For some reason the Parliament does not view aggravated cruelty as a serious offence at law.
The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system.
It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law.
In conclusion it is my humble opinion that inspectors French and Prowse have no knowledge in respect to their obligations under the Act and it is clear they see their careers more in the field of TV and to add insult to injury when asked a question by myself about the TV show RSPCA Animal Rescue and their role in this incident when he attended Gunnedah on the 18th February last, Mr Coleman’s explanation was and I quote, “the Officers had been on another job with them and when they said they were going to Gunnedah the crew said we might just tag along” end quote. I informed him that I did not accept that explanation at all. It’s a sad situation when the head of such an organization is trying to assist the coverup.

Yours faithfully
Leon Mills
Councilor
Gunnedah Shire Council  "

 

 

Failing the decades of refusing the appointing of an appeals  ombudsman at least the return to they must hand their brief over to the public prosecutor as was the case in the past.

 

  Far fairer outcome for those targeted by this organisation.

 

So why did I choke? poor scotty wants justice, yet denied to thousands of pet owners by who? our pollies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by asal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Found on fb

 

"The WA Government has *fixed* the rspca debacle but are being a little bit tricky about it. In 2019 they took prosecution powers away from the rspca and now the Police do all animal cruelty prosecutions.
The WA Government has never officially told the public they had stripped the rspca Inspectors of their powers, surely the public have a right to know the reasons why this radical decision was made?
 
Now the rspca can only investigate, and prepare a brief, then the decision to prosecute or not is made by the Police. Consequently there have only been 5 or 6 genuine cruelty cases each year since 2019. So different to the hundreds of (vexatious and invented) cases Inspector Amanda Swift was pushing through the courts every year, prior to 2019.
 
Swift has now been retrenched, she should have been prosecuted for malfeasance (abuse of power) but as usual the government, once caught out, just swept it all under the carpet and made the necessary changes to ensure the rspca would never have prosecutorial powers again. All without telling the public that one of the largest charities in Australia had stuffed up so badly that they were kicked out - there were no consequences for the rspca though, no charges were laid on the Inspectors who abused their powers for decades.
 
Hundreds, maybe thousands of animal welfare cases were put through WA Courts prior to 2019, all of which were illegal! No attempt by the WA govt to examine and overturn those illegal prosecutions, nope, just forget about them, and move on. Nobody suffered any consequences for their illegal actions!"
 
 
 
one state finally.  how long before the other six stop the nightmare of abuses of power?
 
 
 
Edited by asal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...