MENTALLY ILL LADY JAILED AS RESULT OF RSPCA PROSECUTION

THE CPS WOULDNT PROSECUTE A MENTALLY ILL DEFENDANT, BUT THE BIGOTED RSPCA WILL



PROSECUTOR CHARLOTTE MITCHELL



A WOMAN has been jailed for four weeks and banned from keeping animals for five years.

The chairman of the magistrates at Cheltenham told Margary Wright she had caused unnecessary suffering to the cats over a long period of time.

"There is no other way to deal with this than to send you to prison for four weeks."
Cheltenham Magistrates Court heard that all the cats had been seized, but that Wright was appealing in the crown court to have them returned.
Charlotte Mitchell, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said Wright's treatment of the cats had come to light after she sold three of them for £500.
"Their new owner had serious concerns about their welfare," As a result of this, Wright's home was raided by RSPCA officers and a vet, backed up by police.
Defending, Stuart Ramshaw said that at the time of the offences Wright was suffering from a great deal of stress.
"She had been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder and was suffering from panic attacks," he said.
"This arose from an earlier period when she suffered racial harassment in her neighbourhood.
He said Wright's state of mind, as outlined in the probation report, meant she was not a suitable candidate for custody.
He suggested that a ban on keeping animals would be a considerable punishment for her together with a conditional discharge.
But the bench disagreed and as well as handing down the prison sentence, chairman Mr Johnson banned Wright from keeping any animals for five years.
Speaking after sentence, RSPCA inspector Phil Mann said: "Taking a case to court is the last resort for the RSPCA but in this case we were left with no other option.
"The defendant was not willing to take our offers of help or advice, she would not allow us onto her property and she failed to comply with the law.

http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/8444356.Woman_jailed_for_causing_suffering_to_cats/

The CPS tends not to prosecute disabled people, unless the seriousness or other circumstances of the case demand it. Its code for Crown Prosecutors states: “A prosecution is less likely to be needed if [it] is likely to have a bad effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence; the defendant is elderly, or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is a real possibility that it may be repeated… Crown prosecutors must balance the desirability of diverting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public.” Despite the RSPCA’s claim that it “might not prosecute” in the case of a “defendant suffering from significant mental or physical ill health”,
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/hounded