ONLY DAYS AFTER THEY TOOK NO ACTION AGAINST A MAN WHO ADMITTED KICKING DOG TO DEATH
Michael Barnes and wife Diane were found guilty last Friday of allowing Ginger, a 10-year-old tom cat, to be subjected to unnecessary suffering.
The couple, both 63, adopted the stray cat five years ago, shortly after their former black cat Sammy died.
But last summer they passed off a rare flesh-eating skin disease that developed into cancer as a "scab", and the animal had to be put down.
After being found guilty at Croydon Magistrates' Court Mr Barnes remained defiant, calling the £1,430 in fines and compensation imposed by magistrates "daylight robbery".
He maintains that he and his wife "never hurt the cat on purpose".
"We love animals and we took in that stray because it sort of adopted us and wanted to be fed," he said.
"I can't believe we're being punished for looking after an animal that wasn't ours to start with, out of the goodness of our hearts.
"We genuinely thought the problem with its face was a scab from fighting other cats.
"There's no way either me or my wife would willfully try to harm an animal. We've had pets all our lives and we've never had any problems before."
It was the first time either Mr Barnes or his wife had ever been in court.
"It's been the most degrading and humiliating experience ever and it has really affected our health," former surveyor Mr Barnes said.
"The courts and the RSPCA have done us a great injustice. They are just out to get every penny they can.
"I'm disgusted that our good name has been muddied over something we never intended to do."
The couple are now banned from keeping animals for five years.
Although Mr Barnes is protesting their innocence, RSPCA inspector Lynn Marshall says it was the "worst case" of animal cruelty she has ever seen.
She visited their home in Gascoigne Road on July 22 last year after a concerned member of the public reported "a cat with a hole in its face".
When sentencing them, chairman of the bench Ray Stibbards said: "The vet should have been seen earlier when treatment should have been given. It should have been obvious."
The couple were each fined £150 for the offence, ordered to pay £550 compensation to the RSPCA and a £15 victim surcharge.
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/courts/New-Addington-couple-prosecuted-cat-hole-s-face/article-996926-detail/article.html
Monday, 18 May 2009
RSPCA FAIL TO PROSECUTE MAN WHO KICKED DOG TO DEATH, WHILST THEY PROSECUTE PENSIONERS WHOSE ANIMALS HAVE FLEAS, HYPOCRITES.
A man who kicked his fiancee's tiny Yorkshire terrier to death has escaped prosecution because the RSPCA decided the dog did not suffer.
Norman Llewellyn who kicked Phoebe a Yorkshire terrier to death but is pictured with his former fiancee Julie Blyth.
Norman Llewellyn killed the animal with a single kick during an angry row with his fiancee, Julie Blyth, at her home Cirencester, Glos.
Despite Mr Llewellyn, 52, from Hertfordshire, admitting criminal damage he accepted a caution for causing suffering to Phoebe the dog, which was a gift to his fiancee.
He was also facing possible RSPCA prosecution but the animal charity decided not to charge him with ill treatment because the dog died instantly and did not suffer.
Beverley Carpenter, Ms Blyth's sister, criticised the decision.
"The RSPCA told us they could not do any more about it," she said.
"We think it is disgusting. My sister is devastated about it. It seems no-one wants to know - and we are upset he has got away with it.
"What sort of message does it send out to people?"
The RSPCA defended its decision.
Spokeswoman Judith Haw said: "The RSPCA is deeply troubled by the violent death of this pet dog and investigated immediately once alerted by the police.
"A forensic veterinary surgeon carried out a post-mortem which concluded that the dog died instantly and did not suffer.
"Evidence of suffering is necessary for cruelty to be proven in the courts and as an expert ruled that suffering did not occur, animal welfare offences could not be considered."
She added: "The Society fully understands and shares the public's concern and frustration but of course we can only act within the law.
"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it."
A Gloucestershire police spokeswoman said they decided not to prosecute him because he showed remorse and had no previous convictions.
She added: "An independent investigation in relation to animal welfare was carried out by the RSPCA, fully supported by Gloucestershire Constabulary.
"The conclusion of this examination was that the dog died instantly and did not suffer, therefore no animal welfare offences could be considered."
Norman Llewellyn killed the animal with a single kick during an angry row with his fiancee, Julie Blyth, at her home Cirencester, Glos.
Despite Mr Llewellyn, 52, from Hertfordshire, admitting criminal damage he accepted a caution for causing suffering to Phoebe the dog, which was a gift to his fiancee.
He was also facing possible RSPCA prosecution but the animal charity decided not to charge him with ill treatment because the dog died instantly and did not suffer.
Beverley Carpenter, Ms Blyth's sister, criticised the decision.
"The RSPCA told us they could not do any more about it," she said.
"We think it is disgusting. My sister is devastated about it. It seems no-one wants to know - and we are upset he has got away with it.
"What sort of message does it send out to people?"
The RSPCA defended its decision.
Spokeswoman Judith Haw said: "The RSPCA is deeply troubled by the violent death of this pet dog and investigated immediately once alerted by the police.
"A forensic veterinary surgeon carried out a post-mortem which concluded that the dog died instantly and did not suffer.
"Evidence of suffering is necessary for cruelty to be proven in the courts and as an expert ruled that suffering did not occur, animal welfare offences could not be considered."
She added: "The Society fully understands and shares the public's concern and frustration but of course we can only act within the law.
"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it."
A Gloucestershire police spokeswoman said they decided not to prosecute him because he showed remorse and had no previous convictions.
She added: "An independent investigation in relation to animal welfare was carried out by the RSPCA, fully supported by Gloucestershire Constabulary.
"The conclusion of this examination was that the dog died instantly and did not suffer, therefore no animal welfare offences could be considered."
Sunday, 17 May 2009
PAEDOPHILE RSPCA INSPECTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO HAVING PORNOGRAPHIC CHILD IMAGES
A SENIOR RSPCA inspector used a work-issued computer to access child pornography on the internet, a court has been told.
The District Court has been told Kyle Terence Chaplin used his RSPCA laptop to download 137 images over an eight-month period in 2007. One of the images showed a child being raped.
The court was told Chaplin, at the time of his arrest, was also a highly placed Surf Life Saving Queensland volunteer and the holder of a "blue card" which allowed him to train and rescue children.
Lawyers for Chaplin said he resigned from his 14-year role with the RSPCA when arrested in late 2007, while police took possession of his blue card, putting an end to his voluntary life saving.
Chaplin, 42, was last week sentenced to a 12-month wholly suspended prison term, 18 months' probation and a $1000 good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to using the internet to access child pornography.
The offence, which is a crime under Federal Government laws, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail and a $66,000 fine.
Commonwealth prosecutor Rebecca Bellamy said Austrian police tipped off Australian Federal Police about the Chaplin's computer accessing child pornography on a website they had been monitoring.
Ms Bellamy said both AFP and Queensland police officers then searched Chaplin's house and seized his RSPCA-issued laptop.
The court was told forensic testing of the computer revealed as many as 215 images of pornography featuring "toddler to teenage" aged girls had been accessed.
But only 137 images of child pornography could be retrieved from the computer's hard drive and viewed.
Ms Bellamy said Chaplin told police the images must have been accidentally viewed while he used his work computer to surf the internet for adult pornography.
But the court heard police found evidence that Chaplin had not only clicked on sites to view the child pornography, he also magnified specific images to get a clearer look at the material.
Ms Bellamy said it was commonly accepted up to 89 per cent of child pornography in Australia was obtained over the internet.
Barrister Kate Greenwood, for Chaplin, said her client first accessed child pornography around the time a study was published that gave some insight into people who abused animals.
Ms Greenwood said the academic study asserted that people who abused animals were also far more likely to abuse children.
Judge John Robertson, in sentencing Chaplin, said the availability and downloading of child pornography across the globe was an increasing and horrendous problem.
"Some of the images (on Chaplin's computer) involve actual sexual (abuse) of actual children somewhere in the world," he said.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25463142-3102,00.html
The District Court has been told Kyle Terence Chaplin used his RSPCA laptop to download 137 images over an eight-month period in 2007. One of the images showed a child being raped.
The court was told Chaplin, at the time of his arrest, was also a highly placed Surf Life Saving Queensland volunteer and the holder of a "blue card" which allowed him to train and rescue children.
Lawyers for Chaplin said he resigned from his 14-year role with the RSPCA when arrested in late 2007, while police took possession of his blue card, putting an end to his voluntary life saving.
Chaplin, 42, was last week sentenced to a 12-month wholly suspended prison term, 18 months' probation and a $1000 good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to using the internet to access child pornography.
The offence, which is a crime under Federal Government laws, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail and a $66,000 fine.
Commonwealth prosecutor Rebecca Bellamy said Austrian police tipped off Australian Federal Police about the Chaplin's computer accessing child pornography on a website they had been monitoring.
Ms Bellamy said both AFP and Queensland police officers then searched Chaplin's house and seized his RSPCA-issued laptop.
The court was told forensic testing of the computer revealed as many as 215 images of pornography featuring "toddler to teenage" aged girls had been accessed.
But only 137 images of child pornography could be retrieved from the computer's hard drive and viewed.
Ms Bellamy said Chaplin told police the images must have been accidentally viewed while he used his work computer to surf the internet for adult pornography.
But the court heard police found evidence that Chaplin had not only clicked on sites to view the child pornography, he also magnified specific images to get a clearer look at the material.
Ms Bellamy said it was commonly accepted up to 89 per cent of child pornography in Australia was obtained over the internet.
Barrister Kate Greenwood, for Chaplin, said her client first accessed child pornography around the time a study was published that gave some insight into people who abused animals.
Ms Greenwood said the academic study asserted that people who abused animals were also far more likely to abuse children.
Judge John Robertson, in sentencing Chaplin, said the availability and downloading of child pornography across the globe was an increasing and horrendous problem.
"Some of the images (on Chaplin's computer) involve actual sexual (abuse) of actual children somewhere in the world," he said.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25463142-3102,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
