ANOTHER ‘CRUELTY’ CASE COLLAPSES
RSPCA v MARTIN GRIFFIN & GINA GRIFFIN
de Brauwere
It concerned Martin and Gina’s 24 year old laminitic horse Florrie, which had been a family pet for two
decades.
The case, as usual for the RSPCA, was a private prosecution for ‘cruelty’:
1) accompanied by the RSPCA’s traditional PR techniques, and spinning to local and national media;
2) presented to the court over a number of days, at great expense (to both the taxpayer and the
RSPCA’s hapless subscribers) and inconvenience to other court-users;
3) brought by the RSPCA’s unaccountable Prosecutions Department, led by barrister Sally Case,
against defendants (in this case a council worker and a salesperson) of impeccable character; and
4) where the Defendants own vet - with whom the RSPCA ‘expert’ disagreed – was advising them.
The RSPCA’s ‘expert’ in this case was Nic de Brauwere. Rather worryingly for the RSPCA, in the light of
the court’s findings against it, Mr de Brauwere is the vet in the RSPCA’s recent high-profile seizures in
Amersham. Mr de Brauwere is in charge of welfare at ‘Redwings’, the rescue centre which the RSPCA
pays to stable many of its ‘rescued’ horses. The Griffins vainly tried to tell de Brauwere that they knew the
horse was thin and that they had to keep its weight down to avoid an acute recurrence of the long-standing
laminitis. This is not only good equine practice – it followed the excellent advice obtained from their
horse’s vet, Charlotte Mayers, who knew all about the horse, but with whom it seems that de Brauwere
disagreed.
So, the RSPCA’s ‘Inspector’ John Jenkins and Mr de Brauwere thought they knew better than the Griffins’
own vet. The horse was seized from the Griffins’ field where all the other animals, everyone agreed, were
in superb condition. Three ‘cruelty’ charges eventually emerged. The animal was taken to a “place of
safety” - de Brauwere’s facility - and his clients, the RSPCA, blindly pressed on with its case. They were
undeterred by the report of Colin Vogel, the country’s pre-eminent equine specialist (who incidentally
writes the RSPCA’s own “Horse-Care Manual”). Mr Vogel was called as an expert by the defence.
Judge Philip Browning, who is not known as a firebrand, made the following findings:
(1) “Mr Vogel is a pre-eminent authority on horses who heard the evidence in the case. In his opinion,
the horse was not suffering; he said that he had heard no evidence that the horse could not eat, no
evidence that it was hungry and he said that he had heard reasonable evidence that there was a
reason to keep the animal thin.”
(2) “It seems pretty clear that Inspector Jenkins had made his mind up [to seize the animal] and that
he was unlikely to have agreed that the horse could be treated as offered by Miss Mayers, a course
which would, in my opinion have avoided all of this”
(3) “Mr de Brauwere was not minded to discuss alternative causes of the thinness with Mrs Griffin and
agreed that Mrs Griffin was offering other causes - he did, to use his words, not want to enter a
long debate and did walk away at one point.”
(4) “I go further than saying that there is doubt - I find that the horse was not suffering at all at the
time it was seized. I do not need to go on to consider causing or permitting, but I will say that
nothing I have heard in this case casts any criticism of Mr and Mrs Griffin.”
(5) “I fully understand the reaction of Mrs Griffin in a situation where she is faced with the sudden
removal of Florrie, a much loved virtual member of the family.”
(6) “Mr de Brauwere was challenged in a number of respects by Miss Mayers and Mr Stanley as well
as by the Griffins themselves. On the 2nd October, other than being thin, agreed by everyone, the
horse was apparently healthy, alert and happy as far as one can judge these things. It is significant
that the other horses were in good condition … I cannot accept the inferences I am asked to draw
by the prosecution from the thinness of the horse and state of her teeth. I consider that she was
able to eat and although she appeared to be getting thinner, her demeanour and general condition on
the 2nd October at the very least would create strong reservations about whether she was
suffering. There is no explicit evidence to that effect.”
(7) “I recognise the emotional aspect of this case and the feelings of the whole family on her removal.
For reasons which will become apparent,
I am of the view that this case could have been dealt
with in a better way, and certainly more sympathetically by Inspector Jenkins and the RSPCA.”
The SHG speculates that the RSPCA might have brought the case to highlight the 10th anniversary of the
damning report from BEVA (the British Equine Veterinary Association). BEVA’s concerns – one of many
criticisms by specialist vets. Is it possible that Sally Case, the Barrister in charge of the RSPCA’s
Prosecutions Department, and her team of highly-paid support staff and “out-house” lawyers, wanted to
emphasise the correctness of BEVA’s report?
1) “Some BEVA Council Members have voiced concern that the Society has appeared to prosecute
cases more in order to generate publicity and gain ‘scalps’ than out of genuine concern for equine
welfare.”
2) “In most cases, equine welfare cases do not present as an emergency; the cases usually involve
[alleged] neglect or malnutrition, which is by nature not acute … Recent cases have highlighted the
failure of some vets to perform full, or competent examinations, which are necessary to support the
decision to seize animals, or prosecute owners.”
Ten years ago, the BEVA report was hastened by specialist equine vets who were concerned that the
RSPCA was damaging the profession. The criticisms in RSPCA v Humphries are quite well summarised
by BEVA, and every one of these points could be made of the RSPCA again today.
The RSPCA has
learned nothing in ten years, other than better ways of causing expense, distress and misery for ordinary
decent people, like the Griffins, who look after animals properly. It has also “generated publicity” recently!
The Self-Help Group (“SHG”) was formed to, and does, help people like the Grffins. SHG’s Anne Kasica
said:
“Like BEVA ten years ago, the public have had enough. The Griffins’ case shows
the RSPCA does
not want to learn a thing from BEVA. It wants money to keep its leviathan prosecutions running.
The public, and the judiciary, are turning their backs on an RSPCA which is increasingly desperate
to justify and promote its sinister and unattractive agenda. It is not just the RSPCA’s most obvious
victims - like the Griffins, the people in the Harwich and Portsmouth cases , and the many others
referred to on SHG’s website http://the-shg.org/ - who see the RSPCA for what it is.”
Ernest Vine, also from the SHG said:
“The reporting of the recent cases shows that even the media now recognise the public don’t like
the RSPCA’s animal rights ‘take and spin’ approach. The actual results, and serious
consequences, of the RSPCA’s ridiculous cases have been escaping into the public domain. The
truth sells papers better than printing the RSPCA’s press releases, which furiously spin against
honest and decent defendants like the Griffins. The RSPCA want more donations from people to
run more cases like this. We want to save the RSPCA from animal rights extremists and its own
lawyers, who are regularly paid ten times more than defence teams. I sincerely hope the result of
the Griffins’ case will be reported with the same alacrity and prominence that the RSPCA’s
preposterous allegations against them were given. Long may judges like Gray and Browning, and
brave magistrates, like those in Portsmouth, continue to hear the cases fairly, objectively and also
without fear.”
Name Withheld ** Names removed to protect individuals who have been the subject of animal rights
harassment. Can be supplied but only to bona fide journalists.
http://the-shg.org/28th%20January%202008.pdf
