Pat's Note: When is somebody going to remove their royal charter?

 It gives this bunch of hooligans a respectability they do not deserve and 
indirectly damages the monarchy, probably more than the honours scandals.

Thanks to Smallholder Online for bringing it to wider attention. Well done 
Nigel Weller solicitors. I wonder if they would like to lead a class action 
over MRSA and the links to pigs? There will be plenty of liars to expose.

Press Release from Nigel Weller solicitors

RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER "CRUELTY" CASE COLLAPSES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30th December 2007

"Another episode of RSPCA 'witness rehearsa' was uncovered by defence 
Solicitor Nigel Weller at Harwich Magistrates Court on Tuesday 11 December 
2007.  As a result of the District Judge's concerns about what Mr Weller 
uncovered, another RSPCA cruelty trial collapsed.

This was a private prosecution brought by the RSPCA against a lady 
experiencing her first taste of the legal system as a result of the RSPCA's 
activities - was charged with offences of "cruelty" to her cats on the basis 
that she "failed to provide them with adequate nutrition" and "adequate 
veterinary care".

In this case, the RSPCA's vet had made two similar reports - which is often 
an indicator that something is not quite right.  The first report made no 
reference to the animals either suffering unnecessarily or that there had 
been any failure to obtain veterinary treatment or adequate food.  Following 
this report, the veterinary surgeon was given the pro-forma by the RSPCA and 
a second report followed.  In this second report, the same words in the pro 
forma appeared and it was asserted by the expert that the defendant had 
caused unnecessary suffering by failing to provide the animal with 
appropriate veterinary treatment and with adequate food.

The defence had tried to seek out, and claimed throughout the pre-trial 
procedure that they were entitled to see, documents provided to the RSPCA's 
vet.  Documents were finally disclosed as a result of court orders made 
during the trial.  One such document appeared to the court to be a 
'pro-forma' witness statement handed out by the RSPCA to its expert 
witnesses.  This document purported to give the expert witness guidance as 
to the format and possible content of her report - indeed parts of the 
witness's second report were direct quotes from this RSPCA generic 'pro 
forma'.

The District Judge was very concerned by this matter, and also by the fact 
that the defence had been forced to cross-examine to uncover it during the 
hearing in front of him.  Wording suggested by the RSPCA to its witness was 
couched in an extremely negative way.  This amounted, the court found, to 
the rehearsal of a witness and, arguably, to 'witness coaching'.  Rehearsal 
and coaching of witnesses is well known to be unlawful in this country - a 
fact recently emphasised by the Court of Appeal R v Momodou & Limani.

The RSPCA's document, for example, stated as follows:
'when you are of the opinion that the animals referred by you has suffered, 
you should qualify your opinion by explaining in layman's terms who the 
animal has suffered, e.g. 'it is my opinion, having taken into account the 
facts presented to me, the animal referred to as exhibit AB/1 has been 
caused unnecessary suffering by the person responsible for its care by them 
failing to provide the animal with veterinary treatment/adequate food', etc'

It was argued by the defence, and accepted by the court, that even the most 
honest witness could be subliminally affected by reading such a document. 
The District Judge expressed his "grave concerns" about what had happened. 
There was no suggestion made by the defence in this case that the RSPCA's 
expert witness had been dishonest, but the court decided that, in the light 
of the 'pro forma' it would no longer be safe to give any weight to the 
whole of the RSPCA's veterinary evidence.  As a result the RSPCA was forced 
to offer no evidence - which it did reluctantly and with its usual lack of 
grace.  The lady left Court, with the right result and her good character 
intact.  However, this was only after months of worry about the case.

After the case, Defence Solicitor Nigel Weller said:
'This has been yet another difficult case, in which I have had to persuade 
the court to allow cross-examination about the way in which the RSPCA has 
prepared matters for trial.  I am used to the RSPCA's steadfast refusal to 
disclose obviously relevant documents, which the defence are entitled to 
have disclosed immediately.  Putting to one side the question of 'rehearsing' 
witnesses, it is clear that any document, which a professional witness 
refers to, or relies upon, must be disclosed to the defence.

In this case, I made numerous requests to the RSPCA's Solicitors, but not 
even the expert witness 'pro forma' was disclosed.  Indeed, this is a 
document, which I have never seen before in all of the cases I have done. 
It appears to be a generic document, which uses language that I recognise 
from experts in other cases.  As recently as 7 December 2007, the RSPCA's 
lawyers sent me a letter stating that 'we have informed the District Judge 
that the prosecution are not serving any documentation prior to the 
commencement of the trial as you have requested'."

Only cross-examination of the RSPCA's vet uncovered the documents which had 
been given to her for the purposes of her second report.  When it was 
uncovered, the District Judge rightly made very critical remarks about the 
'pro forma' and indicated that he would not be prepared to give any weight 
to the RSPCA's veterinary evidence.

I am a specialist lawyer with a good knowledge of the RSPCA and its conduct 
of private prosecutions in particular.  The RSPCA is a charity with no 
special powers, but it also has no complaints procedure or transparency. 
The handful of specialist animal welfare lawyers all know of the RSPCA's 
conflicts with authorities and the courts.  There is the infamous reported 
case of Attorney-General v RSPCA, where senior RSPCA employees were found by 
the Court of Appeal to have perverted the course of justice when 
disciplining an employee for allowing evidence to fall into the hands of 
defence lawyers, which assisted their clients' case.

My client and I cannot do anything to ensure that this awful experience does 
not happen to anyone else.  There is a real danger that when other lawyers, 
not specialising in animal welfare law, take on cases against the RSPCA and 
take the RSPCA, and the evidence it presents, at face value.  In my view, 
they should not do so."


For further information on the above matters, please contact:

Nigel Weller
Nigel Weller & Co, Solicitors
15 Market Street
Lewes, East Sussex
BN7 8NB

01273 487123



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Press Release from Nigel Weller solicitors


YOUNG KENNEL MAID ACQUITTED - RSPCA CRITICISED AGAIN AS YET ANOTHER 
 "CRUELTY" CASE COLLAPSES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30th December 2007

"A young kennel maid who worked at Castle Farm Kennels & Cattery in Wickham, 
Hampshire.  She, and her employers, were the subject of an RSPCA raid and 
private prosecution.  This sort of scenario is now providing many decent 
law-abiding people like her with their first taste of criminal proceedings.

After the usual months of distraught worry, she and her employers were 
cleared of all the allegations against them.  Putting aside the usual 
satellite issues and side-shows which a private prosecution by the RSPCA 
entails, the charity's basic allegation against her was that she had failed 
to provide a dog called "Buster" with "a nutritionally balanced diet".  This 
was said to be "contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 
1911" - it was claimed that she was guilty of "cruelty".

It is fair to say that her recent acquittal - despite the very interesting 
judgment of the court - has not yet enjoyed the same sensational and wide 
airing that the RSPCA's allegations did before and during the trial, when 
she and her co-accused employers were as innocent as they are now. 
Prejudicial, untrue and irrelevant headlines like "Dehydrated animals at 
kennels drank for minutes", appeared in the national and local press.  As 
usual, material was released to the media by the RSPCA to generate headlines 
and put pressure on the defence.

The Magistrates acquitted on the basis that the RSPCA had not even satisfied 
them of the cause of Buster's alleged "condition".   However, the court was 
highly critical of the RSPCA's investigation and its conduct of the matter. 
In particular, the judgment focussed on the way that she had been 
interviewed and on subsequent discussions between witnesses organised by the 
prosecutor.  The court allowed defence Solicitor Nigel Weller to make 
inquiries on these points at the trial - they would otherwise have been kept 
secret, as no disclosure of them was made by the RSPCA."

For further details contact:


Nigel Weller
Nigel Weller & Co, Solicitors
15 Market Street
Lewes, East Sussex
BN7 8NB

01273 487123


-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com