Gabby Clezy New Ceo RNZSPCA replacing Andrea Midgen
Good afternoon Gabby
I am a former police prosecutor and former Private Investigator and have through events become involved in what I call corrupt practices of the RNZSPCA .
On this web site you will find the history of my involvement and the incidents which gave me cause for concern . I note that in the news release https://www.spca.nz/news-and-events/news-article/newceogabby you took on the role as CEO from 5 September
I also note that you are currently Trustee of the Waitemata Community Law Centre and Mentor University of Auckland Business School Women’s Mentoring Programme. I hope that this means that you know a thing or two about company structure and incorporated societies .
I note that the opening statement in the press release makes a very vital misrepresentation it states “The appointment marks the first incoming CEO since the charity’s national amalgamation in 2017, and the first appointment in the role in over seven years.”
I take issue with the word amalgamation . There was an amalgamation of assets but other than that the various entities which existed 7 years go were not amalgamated but rather dissolved .
A good place to start is with the constitution of the RNZSPCA see here as you will see on the final three pages there were nearly 40 branches and 7 member societies . Each had their own board constitution, these organisations were never ” amalgamated ” for more explanation please see my complaint to the minister with regards to revision of the suitability of the RNZSPCA to hold approved status under the animal welfare act see here
When the One SPCA formed former members of the branches and member societies were assured that they could become members of the new incorporated society . The new rules require applications to be made annually and each year the membership lases and requires renewal .
This brings up the question as to who holds the reins how many people are now in control of the organisation which used to be a national organisation supported by many members through its branches and member societies if all the members cease to exist who decides who can be a member ?
My complaint to the minister has resulted in MPI directing the investigation back to the RNZSPCA and it appears to me that Andrea who was in a position to provide answers may have left a gap and questions unanswered .
The Audit Report in itself raises a number of questions and the response by MPI illustrates the fact that there appears to be no accountability to the public by way of OIA . The following is my further oia to MPI and raises issues in particular with the Wallace Glover matter which has been very badly managed and will prove to be evidence of corrupt practices on the part of RNZSPCA if it is condoned.
my new OIA is as follows
Thank you for your response OIA 22-0654 I note the audit report raises some issues which bring about a further request under the OIA copy to ministers for MPI
First of all there is no key to abbreviations and we need to know what the various abbreviations are short for please provide a key to the audit report which explains the abbreviations
I note that the audit is for the Royal New Zealand Society for the Protection of Companion Animals (RNZSPCA).
The approved organisation is Royal New Zealand Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RNZSPCA)
If we cannot get the name right how can we ever sort out the issue that the RNZSPCA claims to have amalgamated its branches and member societies when in reality they have ceased to exist and a large membership has been replaced by a small group of persons who have total control of the organisation and the associated statutory powers
Please provide any documents which have been provided with regards to the restructure of the RNZSPCA
Could you please provide copies of the documentation which was referred to for the audit and provided for this audit I note that the Performance and Technical Standards for Inspectors and Auxiliary Officers 2021 released during the audit which would suggest that the new standards were assessed and that the audit has been on the perception relating to policy as opposed to reality in compliance and practice
Surrender
“Persons in charge of animals are given 24 hours to consider surrendering an animal and many elect to keep it.” Against a back drop of threats of prosecution and lack of any transparency this gives a very good opportunity for inspectors to obtain high value animals which do not necessarily find their way back to the SPCA. There is a need for proper recording of dogs seized and body worn cameras should be reviewed to ensure that there is no coercion .
This was highlighted in the Wallace Glover prosecution, it is a massive incentive for any one being visited by the SPCA to hand over animals on demand or suffer their fate . Their dogs were disposed of before charges were filed and also puppies were unlawfully disposed of and MPIs reaction is to say get a lawyer.
Please advise what policies provide for the protection of the public against an inspector making up an allegation and using the threat of prosecution to coerce surrender of an animal .
What provision is ther for e overseeing the manner in which these surrenders are being conducted ? should there be a review process by the senior inspector ? an appeal process ?
OIA
The SPCA is not subject to the OIA and proof of the lack of compliance with the MOU is the fact that our request for information resulted in being advised that the MPI did not hold the information yet the MOU states “
MPI’s nominated lead will consult with SPCA’s nominated lead in responding to requests under the Official Information Act 1982 that concern information about SPCA. “
With respect to that clause I ask that my OIA is revisited and any information requested which is not in the hands of the MPI is obtained from the SPCA through compliance with that clause.
Please advise by way of OIA if with respect to my request that the prescribed consultation occurred or not and if not why not.
Prosecution .
It would appear that the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines are being ignored and while there are policies and MOU’s no one is actively being held accountable to the requirements of these documents and there is no consequence for totally ignoring the requirements.
As such the public have no protection at all and as can be seen in the Wallace Glover case these private prosecutions have been passed off to the court as being crown prosecution this effectively means that the organisation with a few people on its membership and holding legislative power also has the ability to use crown solicitors and the crowns name contrary to statutory requirements of the criminal procedure act .
Please advise if the MPI Lawyer has been asked to review the ability of the SPCA to secure crown solicitors and represent the prosecution as a crown prosecution ? this aspect directly related to accountability to the public and the rule of law. This is at all time a private prosecution and unless taken on through the proper channels as a crown prosecution it does not qualify as a crown prosecution .
Currently there is no requirement for the SPCA board to be involved in the consent for prosecution, this appears to fragment the statutory powers away from the organisation and totally leave the inspectors in the hands and control of those who also function as revenue generators within the charity .
Taking High value dogs is more lucrative than baking cup cakes and the door to corruption is wide open without accountability to an outside body.
Search warrants
The audit states 2.7.4.1 Search Warrant Procedure “outlines the grounds for applying for a search warrant, please ensure that a copy of this is provided . It must be remembered at all times that his is a private organisation which employs persons as inspectors who appear not to have any independent oversight or accountability .
In sharp contrast with this I was a police officer and then a private Investigator as a private investigator I had no legislative powers only a lot of accountability , SPCA inspectors have coercive powers and apparently no real oversight or accountability and are believed by the court due to the position they hold.
Private investigators have high accountability to the private security licencing authority Please advise if oversight of animal welfare inspectors to a similar statutory body has been considered and if not why not .
Exhibits
The dogs which were taken in the Wallace Glover matter are prime evidence of lack of evidential chain of evidence. The Body worn cameras show the inspectors declining to scan the microchips of the dogs and taking unidentified dogs into custody . some seized dogs were later claimed to be un microchipped and were microchipped at the SPCA . these dogs were all microchipped why were they re microchipped or was it not the same dog and why did some dogs go to the pound for two weeks before being seen by a vet when the claim was that the animal was taken because it was ill .
By way of OIA could you please advise if the auditor Mr Burke was aware of this case and why these factors have not bene included into the audit as this should be basis for recommendations at the very least if we cannot learn from the past the same doors to corruption will remain open
Monty greets his captor this champion pup was given a body score of 3/9 and was seized because he was tied to the fence because he was being groomed for a show when the SPCA arrived
Request to the Ministers Based on the evidence below:-
I request a full investigation as to the suitability for a private organisation to hold coercive public law enforcement powers.
The evidence suggests that the structure and management of the new SPCA is not suitable in the interest of the public for it to hold the law enforcement powers of Section 121
Please noteI have provided a summary and the full
evidence is attached with active hyperlinks
In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this request at the link below and dispersing it to media and interested persons
Official Information Act request and request for review of compliance of the SPCA Section 123 (1) (a)
To the Minister of MPI
Request to the Minister Based on the evidence below:-
I request a full investigation as to the suitability for a private organisation to hold coercive public law enforcement powers.
The evidence suggests that the structure and management of the new SPCA is not suitable in the interest of the public for it to hold the law enforcement powers of Section 121
I have provided a summary with the full text below
Please note that evidence is attached through active hyperlinks
Summary
The RNZSPCA has undergone transformation and has a different composition and constitution to the organisation which was given the transitional approved organisation status under the Animal Welfare Act.
This document examines the criteria for an approved organisations and seeks an investigation due to the closure of regional centres and conduct of inspectors.
We draw on two examples the closure of Waipukerau and the prosecution of Volkerson Kennels
Change of structure the objects of constitution have changed from preventing cruelty to animals to giving animals a better life.
The membership has changed from a wide base of members selecting their representatives to a small group of persons who annually review membership applications for the current financial year.
The assets were held by local committees run by volunteers now all the assets are vested in a corporate body which sees volunteers as superfluous.
The business structure has grown to include many other ventures including investment and insurance. The equity has grown in 3 years by $40 million, yet centres which run at a loss are being closed down and sold up depriving communities of readily available Animal Welfare Services.
The persons involved in the organisation and its subsidiaries are predominantly accountants many share a common background and the current chairman and the first One SPCA chairman are involved in multiple common private business ventures.
The member society, Auckland SPCA has taken over the RNZSPCA and disposed of the smaller centres by tactics which may not stand scrutiny.
The CEO is a jill of all trades and appears to act independently of the Board.
Locals have been disenfranchised and all former members are now no longer members except for the honorary members who don’t get updates.
The organisation which differs vastly from its historical structure trades on the reputation of the old incorporation.
This private enterprise is not subject to the Official Information Act and lacks transparency.
MPI has oversight of the legislation and has documentation in place which appear not to be updated in the agreed time frames and the RNZSPCA is not held accountable to the breaches of the rules.
The author of the Animal Welfare Act noted in a submission to parliament in 2013 “There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of Animal Welfare Law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia.”
Senator Malcolm Roberts in 2021 noted “Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.”
This was a full year after I had assisted in filing a complaint with the police with regards to the theft of pedigree German Shepherd Dogs by the SPCA . Barbara the owner is now 83 and had been breeding Champion German Shepherds since the 1960s. Her kennel was the Number 1 Champion kennel in 2017.
This matter which has just been determined in the court is a travesty of justice winning included
39 visits to the kennels alleging that there were too many dogs.
Coercing the handover of 5 dogs.
Ordering them to build new kennels but seizing 15 dogs before the kennels were completed within the time frame specified.
Failing to follow procedures for alleged noncompliance with Section 130 notices which had not expired.
Failing to record Microchip numbers.
Failing to properly diagnose the dogs on site.
Use of a SAFE activist vet to select and remove dogs.
Using a coercive interview to encourage surrender of the dogs induced by no charges confidentiality and being left enough dogs to breed from.
Tampering with evidence and scenes.
Using a fake search warrant and cloning their computer and taking diaries and personal notes collated for their defence for Disposal Hearings.
Disposing of the dogs before charges were even filed.
Filing charges over a year after having seized the dogs.
Failing to give the dogs proper care and refusing to allow the defendants vets to give an independent assessment.
Failing to comply with the technical standards.
Using the Crown Solicitors as Pro Bono counsel who represented the prosecution as a Crown Prosecution resulting in the decision reading the Queen V .
Withholding evidence and vital witnesses.
Changing the prosecutor from Auckland SPCA to RNZSPCA.
Breaching the Bill of Rights, Criminal Procedure Act noncompliance with the Solicitor Generals’ Guidelines and the technical procedures.
And much more
The lack of compliance with the law, the procedures and standards have brought into question is the criteria which must be complied with.
Section 123 allows for the Minister to revoke approved status if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the organisation no longer meets any 1 or more of the criteria set out in Section 122; or
(b) the organisation has failed to comply with any condition imposed under Section 122(2); or
(c) the organisation has failed to comply with any condition imposed under Section 122(5).
Based on the evidence collated Section 122 (1) (a)-(e) are not complied with due to
That despite its constitution the purpose of the organisation appears to be financial rather than in the interest of animals .
The management of the organisation is not from members up but from Directors down , i.e. the power is always with the Directors they pick and choose the membership not the other way round as has been customary for incorporated societies.
The financial arrangement are that profit appears to be more significant than animals.
There is no transparency or accountability to the public or even to MPI.
The Board does not appear to be involved and the functions have been delegated to an employee the CEO.
The organisation aligns itself with Activist and Animal Rights Group and appears to offer their inspectorate services to outside organisations. There has been infiltration of the organisation by persons from activist groups such as SAFE.
Inspectors appear to be working without supervision of the Board.
The inspectors make up the rules and do not act in an ethical legally defendable manner and use unscrupulous means to win in court. This is evidenced by their evidence in court compared to the Body Worn Camera footage which we have uploaded for transparency.
Text and Evidence
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 is administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
The Minister is defined in Section 2 as the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act.
It appears uncertain therefore which one of the Ministers administers the Animal Welfare Act and has the legal powers under Section 122 and 123 (1) (a).
I am therefore addressing this to the following Ministers
Through amendments to the constitution the objects/purpose of the society has changed and the powers of the board has been extended .There now appears to be few ,if any common grounds between the 1995 constitution which was in effect in 1999 and the constitution which has recently been adopted.
Another massive difference is that in 2017 there were 7 member societies and some 38 branches, now it appears that there is a closed membership with a few unidentifiable persons in total control of the assets and powers.
Previously each of those member societies and each branch was a separate legal entity with its own membership and assets.
Originally the member societies and branches were each able to vote for a member of the RNZSPCA National Council. Governance in an apparent democratic manner whereby the members had a voice through their elected members.
Confusingly all of the separate legal entities used the term SPCA, and bequests meant for a branch or member society were often mistakenly left to the Auckland SPCA who held the trademark “SPCA” and were able to claim all bequests and therefore became disproportionately wealthy.
In 2016 there was a drive for One SPCA, this was headed by Andrea Midgen the CEO of the Auckland SPCA and Gordon Trainer the Chairman who was a former Ernst and Young accountant.
By various means, some compliant with the legislation and constitutions, others not so, the RNZSPCA acquired all the property and assets of its former constituent members and branches.
The RNZSPCA itself was swallowed up by the Auckland SPCA and all those who remained with the RNZSPCA were compelled to hand over their assets and were dissolved by Andrea Midgen CEO of the RNZSPCA see here
The members were assured that they would be members of the RNZSPCA but after a year or so no approach was made to the former branch members or members of the member societies and these people have not been members since, this was reflected in the constitution at point 6.1.c.
Assurances made at the meetings to get branches/member societies to relinquish their Centres and assets was on the pretext that they would get financial support from RNZSPCA and some of the wealthier Societies to ensure a distribution of national income. Instead, they are being closed down and liquidated.
One honorary member noted the CEO as stating that the Society did not need members and volunteers were too much trouble.
Effectively the SPCA has gone from a volunteer organisation whose sole focus was animal welfare to a privately run society with many business arms such as
Retail partner with petdepot.co.nz 30% shareholder through SPCA SOCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED a subsidiary of The Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated
SPCA Investments Limited owned entirely by The RNZSPCA and has the assets of the former Auckland SPCA Trust transferred into it. The trust itself had a name change to the SPCA Trust see original deed here even though the name was changed, nothing else is recorded in the Trust Deed as having been changed and it therefore makes it uncertain as to who the beneficiaries are.
In 2021 the Charities Register showed the Trust having a distributed $34 million into the SPCA subsidiary company see accounts here and the constitution of the SPCA investment limited here and whose directors are
Gordon TRAINER the inaugural Chairman who’s Linked in profile records his background and involvement with the SPCA
1988 – 2005 Tax Partner Tax Partner Ernst & Young
2003 – 2009 Treasurer Auckland SPCA
2012 – Jun 2013 Board Member and Chair of Audit and Finance Committee RNZSPCA May
2009 – Oct 2017 Chairman SPCA Auckland ·
May 2016 – Present Board Member SPCA New Zealand
David Patrick BRODERICK current Chairman also a banking man who shares close business relationships with Trainer including but not limited to
Mark Wynon VICKERMAN Barrister and member of the Auckland SPCA Trust with Bob Kerridge Don Bendall.
Benjamin D’arcy PALMER another former Ernst and Young man and former Board Member of the Auckland SPCA Trust see linked in profile former Director of the Auckland SPCA Board member, Deputy Chairman, Audit and Risk Committee Chairman External Reporting Advisory Panel
Gordon Trainer and Andrea Midgen have been the visible driving force for the One SPCA but in this analysis it appears accountants have now taken charge of the RNZSPCA where in the past it was run by volunteers and people with genuine concern for animals .
The latest constitution of the RNZSPCA which came into effect 31 Dec 2021 still refers to the member societies and branches, despite the fact that they were dissolved in January 2020 see here , this shows that the AGM last year did not fully inform its members of the status of the member societies and branches and in amending the constitution failed to consider the change of structure .
CEO who appears to do all the filing with the Incorporated Society Registrar sought Dissolution on behalf of the member societies and branches who through various and not so transparent means had transferred their assets to the RNZSPCA.
As a result of dissolution , the only members of the RNZSPCA are full members and honorary life members.
Andrea Midgen as CEO has acted in what appears to me to be a gross conflict of interest in having placed herself on the Executive of many branches and placed some in “administration “ to encourage dissolution and having placed societies in administration took control away from their respective members.
She is also named as an Officer with Broderick and Trainer on another Trust operated by The SPCA The WB Sheath Foundation a Trust set up in 1994 the deed is here
Like Gordon Trainer, she was formerly Auckland SPCA and the evidence is that the wealthiest SPCA swallowed up the smaller ones and is disenfranchising provincial animal welfare efforts and took over control of the Umbrella group .
At a meeting of the Central Hawkes Bay SPCA recently, locals expressed their concerns that the assets which they fundraised for, volunteered for, are now being sold off by The RNZSPCA with no formal agreement in place to provide services to that community .The services and assets that the locals have worked hard to build up, are undemocratically removed.
This meeting by the SPCA was fronted by two SPCA employees and nothing has been heard from the Board and there appears to be no resolution of the Board or consultation with the Board and the concerned people of Waipukerau
Effectively the communities are being asset stripped though a non-transparent undemocratic process and leaving the area devoid of services.
Central HB SPCA was established in 1989 and built, operated and fundraised for, by the community. Communities like theirs will now be left without services and an investigation needs to be conducted on how that is working out in other parts of the country.
It was of note that this former branch which had a significant number of members now had no members at all on the RNZSPCA and had therefore no voice.
Membership
The new constitution is of concern ,since the dissolution of the branches and member societies, there are only two groups of members honorary and full members.
According to the Rule 7.5. the duration of membership for Full Members Is the period of the Financial Year (or any part of the Financial Year during which the person becomes a Full Member).
7.6. Each Full Member of SPCA must annually renew his or her membership with SPCA,
The financial year concluded on 30th June, it effectively means that on 1 July, the only members which exist are the honorary members and since the AGM is set to take place 6 months after the commencement of the new financial year there cannot be a Board unless the Board is comprised of honorary members.
This raises the question as to how new members are accepted and if they are accepted who accepts them ?
Honorary members who I have spoken to all advise me that they never hear from the SPCA and although they are entitled to attend the AGMS, they are not notified either of the meeting coming up or been provided with the minutes.
It follows that if a group of persons have made themselves Honorary Members, then they will enjoy perpetual succession and have total control, the organisation at the exclusion of others as members need to be approved.
The all-inclusive member driven organisation of the past is now potentially a selected club of a select few, without any oversight from a wide base of concerned persons .
The total equity of the RNZSPCA according to the 2021 Charities Annual Return is $112,405,000 up from $ 72,925,000 year ending 30 June 2018 source
While the equity has risen by a $40 million in 3 years, the Waipukerau SPCA which handed its assets over on the belief that they would be supported, is being liquidated because it had operational costs of $7,000.
To many it would appear that the RNZSPCA is about $ and not about services to animals.
The RNZSPCA still has the same name, legal powers it has vastly increased assets, but the governance, transparency and accountability have changed dramatically.
The RNZSPCA trades on the reputation of the past and has replaced the salt of the earth volunteers fighting for animals with accountants who specialise in investments and cost cutting measures.
MPI
MPI has oversight of the legislation it has MOUs in place with the SPCA but it would appear from correspondence that they have little control or oversight of the approved organisations. Note again that the MOU is not signed by the Board but by Andrea Midgen CEO.
Approved organisations came into being through the 1999 Animal Welfare Act.
Neil Wells who was the former Head of the Auckland SPCA drafted the Animal Welfare Act.
History shows that he was frustrated by the election process of officers and a democratic process meant that there was no certainty of remaining at the helm of an organisation. This is recorded in press clippings
Wells drafted the legislation to facilitate his own undeclared business plan that is why this Act is so favourable to approved organisations see his business plan here .
With his own business venture in mind, he became an “independent “advisor to the select committee and when the Act became law, he applied for approved status under Section 122 in what this application
New Zealand became a world first in giving private organisation legislative powers compare this to the British SPCA where their act limits the power of private organisations and increases oversight of their conduct.
The application for Mr Wells private Approved organisation was made in the name of a fictional entity , there was no signed Trust Deed , and the Trust which formed 6 years later and posed as the approved organisation , had never been incorporated.
The application was made in the name of an alleged legal entity and was regarded as such by MPI and the Minister on the basis of assurances which were never fulfilled
Evidence also shows that MPI is totally confused between what a charity is and what a legal person is .
Legal persons are either born or created through statute and by registering as a body corporate .
The “ applicant “ The Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)was not registered under any legislation and obtained a back dated trust deed in 2006 consisting of persons who had never met , held assets or passed a resolution .
The fact that AWINZ was not a legal entity and had no legal existence in that name is conclusively proved by the fact that Neil Wells said so in his minutes of the first ever recorded meeting in 2006 three weeks after the incorporation of another trust with the identical name.
The other trust was incorporated at a time when the online register was in its infancy and AWINZ could not be located on it
By registering the identical name and being successful it was proved conclusively through section 12 and 15 of the charitable trust Act , that no other legal entity by that name existed
MPI had not checked the existence of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand( AWINZ) and had not properly advised the Minister.
Even after the lack of legal existence of the “approved organisation “ was brought to their attention AWINZ was allowed to continue to administer animal welfare law for a further 4 years despite the proof in paragraph 5 that it did not exist .
An unregistered Trust cannot own property and cannot sue or be sued. It follows that it cannot then hold public law enforcement powers . Evidence of this is in Family trusts which own property the name is not that of the trust but of the members which comprise it .
This is evidence of MPIs lack of ability to supervise the provisions of the legislation and confirmed in current day events by the replies from MPI to my complaint of 8 June 2022 received from them on 29 June and 19 July and confirms that MPI has no control or direct supervision over the approved organisation .
In short, the RNZSPCA of old with is assets and reputation has been acquired by a select group of people who now have control of private law enforcement powers while disenfranchising the very people who have built up that reputation and wealth
The MOU
The MOU signed by Andrea Midgen CEO with MPI raises other issues.
The MOU requires prosecution to be carried out subject to the prosecution guide lines in the Volkerson prosecution( which I will cover later ) it appears that this document was almost entirely disregarded even to the extent that this private prosecution transformed in to a Crown Prosecution without any acceptance by the Solicitor General under section 187 and was recorded by the judge as if it was a crown prosecution .
Therefore a small group of individuals without government over sight can act as if they as a government entity .
Wells, the author of the legislation wrote this to parliament in his submissions in 2013 ” There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of Animal Welfare Law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia Indeed, it is the private nature, lack of public accountability, and meagre funding that has resulted in such inadequate performance of the SPCA as enforcers and prosecutors, according to commentators.”
While the MOU Point 11.2. provides for consultation on OIA request, the SPCA is not subject to OIA’ and the questions raised are invariably left unanswered. As evidenced in this reply
The Legislation
I am not a lawyer, but my working knowledge with the Animal Welfare Act raises questions of conflicts with the Bill of Rights . We must remember that the Act was drafted by someone who intended to to use it for his own business plan and therefore enforcement favoured the approved organisation and not the public .
Serious issues arise with section 13 of the act this means that if an Inspector charges you with an offence on subjective grounds, you have 7 days to file a defence.
Section 136 A allows for the disposal of your animals to be disposed of if proceedings have been commenced but not yet determined: or have not yet been commenced but are intended to be commenced within a reasonable period.
In the case of Volkerson disposal was completed even before charges were formulated or advised what they were suspect of having committed
In view of section 13 they were deprived of this defence and lost their dogs on the allegations which were proved on a civil level and not related to charges.
The dogs were disposed of to the Auckland SPCA which also meant that when the charges were known the owner of the dog was not able to locate the dogs and get independent verification if the dogs referred to were her dogs . She was also denied the right to seek an independent vet’s assessment.
Section 127 allows an Inspector to enter any property ( not a house or marae) to inspect an animal , this Section was totally abused in the case of Volkerson with 39 inspections over a 2 year period .
This contrasts with the UK legislation where the Inspector must apply to a justice of the peace for the right to go on to the property to search for dogs
In New Zealand it is a free for all and on the evidence of the events at Volkerson the rights were abused and even involved inspectors searching for dogs owned by Volkerson at a boarding kennel where some were temporarily boarded. Source summary of facts
All those matters appear to conflict with the rights under the Bill of Rights Section 127 and 136A conflict with Search and Seizure section 12 .and Section 136A and 13 also have implications on section 25 Bill of Rights Minimum Standards of Criminal Procedure.
The conflict with the Bill of Rights is one issue but the other is that the persons who are exercising the powers under this legislation are doing so without any apparent supervision and apparently for profit.
Criteria
The criteria for an approved Organization is set down in Section 122 Animal welfare act and the Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that
one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal.
The SPCA used to be about preventing cruelty now it is about providing animals with a better life. The two are not the same ._ see the wording of the constitution .
This no doubt reflects the changes in the legislation as quoted from Wells “The original Act of 1999 was a radical departure from conventional anti-cruelty laws which New Zealand and most Western countries had relied on for over 100 years. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 introduced the first animal welfare legislation which established a statutory duty of care and placed statutory obligations for a standard of care based on the Five Freedoms — freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress”
The Volkerson prosecution takes this one step further to include the subjective opinion that ther animals could suffer due to the owner having too many dogs
This subjective enforcement means that no one is safe , it is the opinion of the inspector, and the animal is taken for being too fat too thin, not groomed properly not having a fluffy toy or being frightened when its space is invaded by strangers .
Parents will know that a child could have a treated skin irritation which looks bad but is not painful. And many would have picked up children from their cots when the babies nappy has had a full blow out, if someone else had been there it would have been reported” her child was lying in a cot covered with faeces”.
The enforcement at Volkerson was all subjective and based on a snapshot in time To have a dog on a short leash temporarily is legal, to have them there for days or weeks is a different matter. Time is relevant and time was not reported. See the judges comment about the dog which could not lie down then look at the body camera footage about 10 min in
As for the dogs reported to be slipping in Faeces. Take some dogs in a kennel which are about to be cleaned and introduce strangers with poles the panicked dogs, will run around. This is normal behaviour for a dog which feels threatened and in running about will not look where it is going. This is then reported that the dogs did not display normal behaviour and slipped in faeces.
This does not mean the dog was abused or suffering it means the dog was reacting to a large influx of uniformed people on their patch.
When the One SPCA was formed it gave the assurances as stated on its web site “In November 2017, SPCA centres around the country unified to become a single entity. The key reasons for this change were to better provide a consistently high standard of care and service for the animals, no matter where they are, and to ensure that all SPCA centres are supported through the sharing of resources and skills. “
Centres are now being closed because they are not lucrative, as is the case of the Waipukerau centre. Wells in 2013 reported that there were 47 centres now we are down to 33 and the volunteers who gave the organisation credibility have been disenfranchised.
Regions are left vulnerable and reliant on the locals to set up another voluntary organisation due to the nearest SPCA being over 60 Kilometres away.
Actions speak louder than words and it appears that with $35 million in assets a community is asset striped, and volunteers and residents disenfranchised.
With the lack of support of ordinary members, the local community and a local executive is now not able to have oversight of what is occurring in their district the purpose must be more than words on a document
A Press release from 2017 show that the intention of the one SPCA as Quoted by Andrea Midgen “We will be able to create a stronger SPCA Inspectorate and we will have one strategy and one voice.” “Ms Midgen said the move to one SPCA is not about creating a centrally-controlled organisation, or closing any SPCA centres.”
we have a vast increase in inspector numbers and the 45 centres in 2017 have been reduced to 33 ,
The accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation.
Accountability arrangements, The RNZSPCA is now a private super organisation with an undisclosed number of members, We have not found one person whohas been accepted as a member of the new SPCA and suspect that there are just a few people who are “the Incorporated Society” they hold the power and control exclusively and without public involvement.
The organisation is Money focused; Money is a priority over Animal Welfare as indicated by the number of accountants in control the board .
Jane Holland Partner in the Commercial Property Department Bell Gully
Due to lack of oversight of the inspectorate, there appears to be a general disregard of the Rule of Law and the Bill of Rights this was illustrated throughout the recent prosecution of Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace (Volkerson ) as raised in my complaint to MPI which hasnow been sent on to the SPCA to investigate themselves.
Is this not a gross conflict of interest by the SPCA ?
And are they going to admit to their own noncompliance with the Bill of Rights and the Animal Welfare Act ?
Does this not prove that there is no independent oversight of a private organisation with public law enforcement powers ?
The Inspectors themselves appeared to be working unsupervised. In the case of Volkerson the Inspectors were under the supervision of a Chief Inspector Greg Reid who has also left the SPCA, all were employed by the Auckland SPCA and used Auckland SPCA resources. The dogs were disposed of to the Auckland SPCA.
There is no evidence of the RNZSPCA ever being involved or consulted other than Chief Inspector Tracy Phillips who acted credibly and saw the return of 5 dogs which had been unlawfully taken in 2019 . She advised that she had no knowledge or involvement of this prosecution and left soon after.
Anita Killeen, a former Director of the Auckland SPCA and a lawyer set up a Pro Bono Panel in 2017 and it appears that this Pro Bono Panel kicked into action but not as described in the law talk “
“We are very grateful to have a significant commitment of Pro Bono litigation support from Kayes Fletcher Walker, the Office of the Manukau Crown Solicitor. The firm support the work of the Pro Bono Panel in a number of ways including by acting as instructing solicitor, by providing legal opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met, as well as appearing in court to assist Panel members on cases. The Pro Bono work that Kayes Fletcher Walker provides is a significant factor in the ongoing success of the Panel initiative and contributes to ensuring the consistency and high quality of SPCA Auckland’s prosecution files.”
It is clear that the Crown Solicitors role was to
support panel members
acting as instructing solicitor
providing legal opinions as to whether the test for a prosecution is met
appearing in court to assist Panel members
Instead, the Crown Solicitor’s Office had the Crown Solicitor herself appear and intitule the Private Prosecution as a Crown Prosecution even representing evidence as Crown Prosecution.
See correspondence with the Crown Solicitor as below
The issue of a Crown representation for a private organisation has also been brought to the attention of the Attorney General we have yet to hear back from him
An OIA with regards to Crown Solicitors representing private clients is here and defends the use of the Crown Solicitors representing the SPCA.
As they say the evidence is in the cake and what came out of the hearing before a former Crown Law Judge was that she intituled her decision as The Queen V , showing that she was successfully misled by the lawyers that this was a crown prosecution .
Even in 2013 Wells submitted to Parliament that there was a lack of public accountability ,the change between now and then is that the structure has changed dramatically and the funding from Government has increased to over $2 million per annum. If there was little accountability then there is even less now.
Wells pointed out “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of Criminal Law (Animal Welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability. “ …. ‘And Judge Garland in R v Balfour said that “the SPCA was effectively standing in the shoes of the Government.” The concern is that in a government prosecution there are accountability provisions. With the RNZSPCA there is no accountability and as we see in the Volkerson prosecution .
Without oversight of the Inspectors the Volkerson kennels had 39 official SPCA visits between 28. July 2017 – 16.1 December 2019, dogs were officially taken on just 2 of those occasions.5 Dogs were unlawfully seized through 2019, 5 dogs were surrendered under coercion and there I s evidence of dogs being taken and brought back . In other words it was a free for all .
As demonstrated in this response for Official Information the SPCA is not covered by OIA and the information we sought was not available from MPI and was not disclosed as part of the pretrial disclosure.
Financial arrangements, with over one hundred million equity, the organisation is winding up small communities’ assets and placing them in funds which are managed by the former Chairman and the current Chairman who are business associates in Investment and Development companies.
In the Volkerson prosecution ,High value dogs were targeted for seizure some of these imported blood lines were valued at over $250,000 each these dogs were Champions in 2017.
There is no evidence that the dogs seized were brought into the Auckland SPCA or if they were switched out in transit.
These dogs were selected by the Inspectors based on their pedigree. There was no abuse of these dogs and the vet reports show the lengths they went to find neglect or abuse, it is reflected in the prolific x raying of the dogs including pregnant ones and Greg Reid’s comments that their angle was “intentionally breeding from dogs with known genetic disorders” something which was not reflected in the ultimate charges which only related to the date on which the dogs were seized.
The pedigree papers were obtained for these dogs and the Dog Control Officer was sent to the kennels before the raid to ensure that the dogs were microchipped and identifiable. Yet when the dogs were seized Inspectors Plowright and Davis are recorded on the SPCA body worn cameras as saying that they will not be recording microchip numbers the body worn camera footage is available here the vet asks at 11.44.57 “do you want to check chips at this point” and both Davis and Plowright say “No “
This is crucial as without verifying the dogs from time of seizure there is no assurance that the same dogs have been referred to throughout.
This is chain of evidence and is vital in a prosecution to prevent one dog being swapped out for another.
This also brings up Privacy Act issues with regards to the sharing of information of the Waikato Dog Control with a private organisation.
The body worn camera footage shows that the Inspectors on arrival had already decided to take dogs and right at the beginning their language proves that the selection process is not about animals suffering.
The seized dogs became part of an extensive fundraising campaign which was helped along with specifically timed television exposure and a nationwide leaflet drop this from an email to the kennel club about using TVNZ to give It publicity “This will while being a civil matter create a ‘public exposure’ which will probably coincide with Carolyn’s story being aired. “ This aired on 7 Sharp 1 May 2018 and there was even a dedicated web site spca puppy farm rescue and http://www.spca.nz/urgentappeal.
The SPCA fund raised specifically on the Volkerson prosecution but has not disclosed how much was raised in this campaign and how this was used. The Crown Solicitor was a Pro Bono Panel member and no accounts have been produced but it was reportedly their best fundraiser ever.
There is no transparency as to the income of the RNZSPCA as it now has a closed membership and no accountability for the funds raised by way of donations and bequests.
Nationwide there are complaints and concerns that neglected and abused mongrels are not getting any attention . Meanwhile pedigree champions are seized due to their blood line.
Management of the Organisation
Management appears to be solely in the hands of the CEO who is a Jill of all Trades fundraising, winding up the various member societies see here and appears to be $ driven with the various campaigns that she runs for funds, she acts like a Board member and there appears to be no Board control over the Inspectors.
Evidence would suggest that she sits on the board and acts with unbridled delegation of their authority
There Is no proper oversight of the Inspectors, this is shown by the way that the inspectors were able to come in and take an animal which had only weeks before won Champion Awards.
The prosecution of Volkerson was filed in the name of fictional organisation Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals ( Auckland) and no consent was given by any board for prosecutions this video confirms that the prosecution by the Auckland SPCA was supervised by Greg Reid a Chief Inspector for the Auckland SPCA ( He has now left ) and the decisions were his.
In this video REID states that he is happy for the women to retain the other dogs but despite this the RNZSPCA nearly five years later and without returning to the property (except in 2019 to return unlawfully seized dogs), has directed their lawyers to ban the ladies from owning or controlling dogs for 9 years.
We must question how the RNZSPCA a separate legal entity to the Auckland SPCA became the Prosecutor. The lack of accountability and the ability to circumvent legal requirements is an abuse of process by this private organisation .
It appears that the Board has little input or oversight of the running of the organisation which has been delegated to a CEO Andrea Midgen see her linked in profile reveals that she was CEO SPCA Auckland until 2017 when she became CEO RNZSPCA.
Andrea Midgen appears to lack understanding of the legislative framework under which the organisation/s must act, and that each organisation is a separate legal entity, as the CEO she appears to be working without supervision or control of the Board, and works in a delegated manner holding all the power as one person and is therefore the only apparent person in control of the organisation.
The Interests of the Public
It is important to realise that the RNZSPCA is unique in that it is the only private organisation which had coercive law enforcement powers. Refer to Neil Wells submission in 2013, the RNZSPCA over saw 47 local SPCA now it lists just 33 with more listed to close.
Correspondence with MPI shows that they lack oversight and control of the SPCA and if the Board is not in control, who is providing oversight ?
The agreement for funding refers to the supervision of an Inspector who has long since left . Her position has been taken by Alan Wilson a former MAF(now MPI ) employee
Many of the SPCA inspectors have come from MPI and similarly SPCA staff have found their way to MPI e.g., Jen Radich
As Wells points out 17 “In the unlikely event that the SPCA becomes insolvent or for any other reason is no longer able to meet the criteria of an approved organisation the Minister has no alternative plan.” The people who have taken over the RNZSPCA have acquired a gold mine with coercive public law enforcement powers and little or no oversight.
Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability. Hence the RNZSPCA is ripe for corruption. This equation can be broken by any or all of the following
Removing the monopoly of the RNZSPCA and aligning the legislation with the British act which will enable all welfare organisations to take action in the case of abuse
Removing discretion where inspectors cannot act and prosecute without the matter going to review by MPI lawyers to ensure consistency of approach in the welfare sector
Accountability – to ensure that complaints are independently investigated .
It is important to note that the charges for the women were all related to the day that the dogs were taken, in fact only to the very short period the inspectors observed the dogs. We must therefore, ask the why it took over a year before they were charged and why was there so much pressure put on them to surrender the dogs supported with offers of forgoing the costs of keeping them.
This brings up a very serious issue that a breeder visited by the RNZSPCA would be silly not to hand over their prized animals in exchange for anonymity.
The power of the inspectors trading on the perceived reputation of the RNZSPCA is such that such an offer is a powerful incentive to hand over your animals .
The first approach was in 2017 in all over the years the SPCA took % dogs by coercion 15 dogs through a targeted raid 15 puppies which were born in captivity 6 dogs through an alleged barking dog complaint 2018 to coincide with the disposal hearing and 5 more dogs unlawfully in 2019
In the transcript Plowright states page 251 line 26 “So we take the ones with the problems, that’s their top bloodline, the one with the ear – no, please let me finish. They’re left with so many breeding bitches, they’ve probably got 20 breeding bitches all capable of producing 10, 12 puppies in a litter and a couple of litters a year. So yes, affecting their breeding stock, absolute rubbish, absolute rubbish.
For having dogs stolen from them Barbara and Janine suffered 5 years of court action Barbara paid out to lawyers who failed to represent her and took the money and ran, we suspect due to the pressure put on them to force this elderly lady to plead guilty
The emphasis was totally on having too many animals see the interview when there is no legislation which allows for dogs to be taken under those circumstances
An example of this is shown in the interview page 6 the Inspector states” Just to put it out there as well, like I mentioned the, one of our main things is the, the best interest for the dogs and yeah, we’d like you to consider surrendering ownership of the dogs and what that would show is workability with what we’re doing. And if you decided to do that, you don’t have to decide now, but I would look at wiping the, the charges from seizure date to the date of surrender if you were to do that”
Additionally through Director of the Auckland SPCA Anita Killeen, a Pro Bono Prosecution Panel was set up, see here and here page 62
It was the Crown Solicitor Natalie Walker, Partner, Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland who took on the prosecution of Volkerson first in the name of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ( Auckland) the disposal was done to the Auckland SPCA and the final prosecution was done on behalf of the RNZSPCA, note the switch of legal entity .
There Is no evidence that any Board ever became involved and there Is no evidence of the lawyers being instructed by anyone other than the unsupervised inspectors who have left and have other businesses some involving dogs.
The MOU which existed between the RNZSPCA and MPI refers to the prosecution policy which includes the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines however there is no further requirement of Government over sight and in this Volkerson prosecution every rule including the legislative requirements under the Animal Welfare Act and the Criminal Procedure Act were breached and for good measure the Bill of Rights was totally ignored.
The functions and powers of the organisation are not such that the organisation could face a conflict of interest if it were to have both those functions and powers and the functions and powers of an approved organisation.
The Volkerson prosecution brought out massive conflicts of interest including collusion with other organisations, this in itself is a Privacy breach on the part of the SPCA and of the New Zealand Kennel Club and Waikato District Council Dog Control.
I refence a lettersee here from the SPCA to the NZ Kennel Club which shows collusion and willingness to use the Inspectorate powers for outside organisations. This offer made by inspector Reid “do you want me to lay a formal complaint against a member?.
Further collusion with the NZ Kennel Club is in sharing information with them which had the Volkerson Kennels struck off the NZ Kennel Club register well before the court action , the correspondence here shows that on 20 April 2018 They had not made up their mind about the charges yet, eventually the charges only related to the day the dogs were seized see this inspector REID states in his letter see here to the NZ Kennel Club they were trying to formulate charges regarding the “intentionally breeding from dogs with known genetic disorders” obviously even x rays of the pregnant bitchers did not produce evidence for this .. This brings up the issue of disposal and compliance with Section 130 (1) ( b)
The NZ Kennel Club provided Becky Murphy to examine the dogs she just happens to have a business of artificial insemination of dogs and improving breeds.
Additionally a Vet involved in seizing dogs from a Champion dog breeder in 2017 was a SAFE activist see here. I note that from the body worn cameras the vet involved, Jess Beer, could diagnose ear problems from a great distance.
The Chief Legal Officer Brett Lahman is also a former head of SAFE have these activist groups infiltrated the RNZSPCA to raise a conflict of interest?
One of the puppies whelped to a dog seized in October 2017 was given to the local Dog Control Officer see here who in return passes on an alleged barking dog complaint to the SPCA ( as confirmed by sworn evidence in court ) to ensure that dogs which are compliant under the Dog Control Act are seized for allegedly breaching the Animal Welfare Act.
He is a hunter and happened to be the person who was seen in possession of the leash and a rope recovered on the dog which was hog tied in the hay barn.
He has never explained why he was in the hay barn with the dog walking free as captured by the body worn camera footage and why he left the barn when a dog was tied in such a state and was only found some 10 minutes later when the Inspectors came in through the other end. see here the full version is here see 13:00 to 13:02
the second article shows that this Dog Control Officer who trains guard dogs/ bite dogs helped select the Volkerson dogs which were man work and obedience trained and suitable as guard dogs.
While the ladies were charged for having dogs on short leashes temporarily ,the somewhat hypocritical Inspector and Dog Control Officer both specialise in bite dogs and advocate the choke chains as seen in the face book pictures see here and the header on his face book page says it all https://www.facebook.com/DeterDetectDefend/
The reputation of the RNZSPCA is such that the hearsay evidence of an Inspector is accepted and the people they accuse are regarded as liars by the court. In this case we are using the best evidence that is the body worn camera footage to contradict their evidence but this should have been done by their governance body before it went to court.
The same Dog Control Officer kept 4 dogs in the Council Pounds for two weeks. The charges have been proved to the court by the Inspectors who forgot that by implicating the dogs’ owners were actually admitting that the SPCA has animals in its own custody and does nothing for the dogs which are allegedly ill . This is proved by the vet reports of these dogs. See evidence ZetaParisAstroMafia
The RNZSPCA who have progressed this prosecution must therefore be likewise prosecuted for failing to ensure that the Physical health and behavioural health were met between 13th October 2017 and 27 October 2017 when they were first seen by a Vet and had been left in their muddy condition for 2 weeks. This is proved though prima facie evidence and failing to charge the RNZSPCA will put them above the law.
Then there is also the matter of the Bitch which whelped in the back of a van in a crate with her 7 new born puppies and gave birth to another puppy classified as Dead on Arrival. Also the numbers of puppies born to the two bitches fluctuate, this proves failing to account and as the Face Book post shows one was given to a Dog Control Officer in circumstances which can be regarded as bribery.
There is also inconsistencies in the microchip numbers and no records were ever produced to show what kennel numbers relate to what dog or when a dog was received by the SPCA. Business records were missing from the trial these are normally relied on for continuity of evidence .
The pups were disposed of under Section 136 by the Crown Prosecutors who acted in this Private Prosecution and disposed of the pups without lawful process. The pups were not seized and were never seen by the owner and disposed of without charges which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The RNZSPCA allegedly instructed the Crown Solicitors and therefore were not compliant with the law.
The employment contracts or arrangements between the organisation and the organisation’s inspectors and auxiliary officers are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
The organisation represented by its Board has the approved organisation powers, the organisation recommends to the Minister persons to be appointed as Inspectors .
We have no idea how this is done and if this task is delegated to the CEO and what vetting procedures are in place.
The Inspectors appear to work without supervision Plowright worked under the supervision of Greg Reid the Auckland SPCA Inspector.
The RNZSPCA Chief Inspector in 2019 had no idea of anything to do with this matter but assisted in returning five dogs unlawfully taken by the same Inspectors.
Medical records of those dogs reveal that these dogs had been returned with medical conditions see vet reports
Fenta Taken 21 Feb 2019 shows ear issues in the care of SPCA
Emma Taken 1 February 2019 had skin issues in the care of the SPCA
Xena Taken 24 January 2019 and returned in an obese condition
Alex Taken 1 Feb 2019 returned 19 December 2019 this dog was kept unlawfully for 11 months the documents show that even in SPCA care the dogs developed and had ear problemsThese dogs were never the subject of charges, and they were treated for things which developed while they were in SPCA care the average vet bill for these dogs was $6000 as recorded on the vet reports which records the Auckland SPCA as owner. The prosecution related to the dogs taken in October 2017 and May 2018, due to the failure to record microchip numbers of the dogs seized in October. There is no chain of evidence, and we can only speculate if the dogs seized actually made it back to the SPCA due to the evidence on the Body Worn Camera footage of the Dog Control Officer loading dogs into his van.The prosecution was totally hap-hazard and the Inspectors carried out a search warrant on Barbara’s property, this search warrant was unlawful and the instructions from their lawyers and notes were taken, and their computer cloned. Many boxes of evidence were loaded into the van but only a very short inventory of seized items was produced The document is a copy no original has been seen There is no signature of an issuing officer The date is for 2017 when it was executed in 2018 There is no evidence that the Inspectors worked for the RNZSPCA , yet they gave evidence in court that they did which does not line up with the evidence on the Body Worn Camera footage or the evidence given in the Disposal Hearing .( Perjury ) Evidence was deliberately withheld for the trial and there is evidence of the Prosecutor changing without due process. The first group of dogs were disposed of before the charges were even formulated.13 October 2017 Dogs seized 26 March 2018 Unlawful Search Warrant 1 June 2018 TV campaign 12 June 2018 Court Hearing 12 July 2018 Decision 2 November 2018 Charges filed January 2022 Court Hearing Decision 31 March 2022Sentencing 13 July 2022 nearly 5 years after the dogs were first taken Despite 5 dogs being returned by the RNZSPCA and no further “visits “after 19 December 2019 the RNZSPCA instructed counsel to seek disqualification of owning or managing dogs for 9 years.This makes no sense, if the dogs were deemed to be safe to be returned to and left in the custody of Janine and Barbara for 2 years after the seizure and after building new kennels, then what is the logic that they cannot own or care for dogs 2 ½ years later? Does this mean that if the RNZSPCA has been negligent in allowing dogs to remain in the custody of persons who they believe to be incapable of caring for them ? The Body Worn Camera footage shows the intent of taking the dogs. A document was prepared before they arrived on the Friday to seize the dogs, and the document had been pre-printed. The owner was provided with this but the Body Worn Camera showed a document which was never disclosed in discovery which was the identical list in a completed form providing much more information
The persons who may be recommended for appointment as inspectors or auxiliary officers—
will have the relevant technical expertise and experience to be able to exercise competently the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on inspectors and auxiliary officers under this Act; and
The provisions of the Animal Welfare Act have been totally ignored, and the Inspectors appear to make up the Rules to allege that Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace failed to comply.
The section 130 notice issued on the day that the dogs were taken and relate to substantive charges allege that there is a requirement
to have leashes of 2 meters and
deems wool shed flooring unsuitable for dogs
directs dogs to be able to display normal behaviour expecting them to be like house dogs and not the working dogs which they were
not to crate for more than 1 hour the 2010 Code of welfare under which this seizure was carried out makes no such provisions and the requirements were simply made up on the spot and used as a basis for prosecution the very day that they made these “ rules” up.Throughout the country, people place dogs in crates often overnight but the SPCA Inspectors direct specifically that dogs should not be in a crate for more than one hour see here This contradicts what the SPCA advocates on its own web site Additionally the SPCA approach would mean that every dog tethered outside the corner dairy on their walking leash is also subject to seizure.No evidence as given as to how long a dog had been observed in a particular place but the body worn camera footage confirms that they were in a different spot to where they had been seen the day before. Not one of the dogs which was the subject of a behavioural charge was witnessed in its normal environment in normal circumstances and the “ expert witness ‘ did her analysis for photograph provided and not by any visit to the scene The original section 13O notice requiring the building of kennels. This was complied with yet the dogs were taken due to not having proper facilities to house them, see statements by Plowright and Davis in the interview Pages 2/27 /29/33/41 and the video see here with Greg Reid who informs the ladies that they can’t have their dogs back despite the new kennels being built When the Inspector first called on the property Barbara was coerced into handing over 5 dogs because they alleged that they had too many dogs. No notice was taken of the number of helpers they had and the fact that this was a massive farm. 5 dogs were taken and from here Barbara was ripe for the picking even in the Court proceedings the refence was continually to having too many dogs. There Is no law which restricts the number of dogs they could have. Numbers increase sharply when a bitch whelps 10 puppies which need to remain with their mums for at least 4 months .Under the dog control act dogs can be tethered on the farm these were working dogs not pampered pooches, yet the Inspectors without knowing how long a dog had been in a location decided to charge the ladies as if a dog had been there for a very long time. Evidence on this Body Worn Camera footage shows that they knew that the dogs were moved regularly see video The Judge said at 231 of her decision stated that “In general, I consider the SPCA’s concerns about Volkerson Kennels were well founded. It was poorly run and there were far too many dogs that could be cared for adequately. “What was portrayed to the court was not the reality by looking at the dog Monty she states “It appears to me from the photograph I saw that this dog can barely sit down.” The video footage tells a different story and this dog who was being groomed but had this interrupted by the SPCA visit was rolling about, drinking and being quite relaxed see video 11 min in To encourage a guilty plea the inspectors prepared a manifestly false summary of facts in which they make serious allegations of the integrity of the defendants and reveal that in May 2018 they used their inspectorate powers to call at boarding kennels in Taupo where dogs were temporarily kept The summary of facts is such that the content was not proved and could not be proved in court and is directly contradicted by the body worn camera footage. The summary of facts reveals that a total of 15 puppies were born alive to two of the dogs seized the Judge’s decision disposes of just 13 of them . Vet records and inspector records do not agree on the number of puppies born to Debbie and Dani this shows lack of accountability Subject to Section 126, will be properly answerable to the organisation.All inspectors and auxiliary officers must act under the direction of the Director-General in the exercise and performance of the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on them under this Act.As shown, compliance with the legislation rules, welfare codes and supervision of the board are totally missingTher was no section 12 Criminal procedure act notice which allowed the inspector to act on behalf of the organisation and there is great doubt as to any board having instructed the crown solicitor was it the Auckland SPCA for the disposal hearing or the RNZSPCA for the trial. They cannot both be right as both are distinctly separate legal entities. The Section 130 notices if not complied with had specific procedures to adopt under the Animal welfare Act. These were ignored and instead the dogs were seized and disposed of without proper identification or chain of evidence and before charges were even filed. The Owners were not allowed to have a second opinion of their own vets, this could well be because the dogs seized, and the dogs identified at the SPCA were not the same dogs. This and the unlawful uplifting of dogs at various times all impact on credibility and oversight. Questions need to be raised as to why dogs which had a microchip were chipped on arrival at the SPCA? Was this a different dog, given the identity of the seized dog and did the seized dogs go the SPCA ?The performance and technical standards 2012 were totally ignored and procedures were not followed in particular paragraphs 212; 248; 250; 258; 261 Director-General means the chief Executive of the MinistryAs per the correspondence referred to 29 June and 19 July the Director Compliance services MPI has handed the investigation to the SPCA who by investigating themselves are grossly conflicted.
Review of suitability of the RNZSPCA to hold the powers under Section 121
Considering the above, I seek a full Ministerial investigation into the suitability of the RNZSPCA to remain an approved organisation on the criteria set out in Section 122 .
Body Worn Camera footage has been uploaded to https://vimeo.com/user178471461 these were provided by the SPCA in disclosure but not referred to in court I can also send through detailed analysis of the charges showing the evidence which was given in court and how they conflict with the evidence given, please note I was not in court and these were not prepared by me
This is a copycat crime as perpetrated in Australia and mentioned by Senator Malcolm Roberts https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ published in June 2021 “Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.”
In Ontario the SPCA lost its law enforcement powers due to lack of transparency, this appears to be the case in NZ there is little information available by way of OIA and this private organisation operated by an undisclosed number of people who could be as few as a dozen and have all the power and assets which were gathered by volunteers and residents in NZ. These assets are being sold off to be placed in various non transparent Trust while seeking ventures to tear at people’s heart strings for more donations while trading on a trusted name.
There are many small Charities set up and doing the hard work while the SPCA which has the reputation, and the funds acts in apparently unsupervised manner and by the response received it appears that MPI prefers to distance itself from all this rather than take action to ensure compliance.
Further I therefore request that an assessment is done to see if the RNZSPCA with its massively reduced membership and amended constitutions and alignment with activist groups is still suitable to hold the powers since they appear to have totally ignored the provisions of the Bill of Rights, Solicitor General Prosecution Guidelines and the very Act under which they have powers.
To assist the investigation, I request the following by way of OIA and hope that this will assist the Minister in the decision-making process.
OIA questions please provide all documents and policies relating to the following points if there are no policies, please advise the safe guards which exist to prevent abuse of powers.
The last MOU with the RNZSPCA was in 2019 when the member societies and branches existed, is there a new MOU to reflect that there is now only one organisation if so please provide one.
Is the Ministry aware of the total number of members of the RNZSPCA if so,
how many members do they have in each category and
how many people attended their last AGM ?
Does the Ministry have a copy of the last two years AGM for the RNZSPCA if so please provide these?
Please provide a copy of the latest audit of compliance with the Act.
Please provide all correspondence from the RNZSPCA to the Ministry advising/discussing their change of structure and change of constitution and how it reflects on the criteria.
What investigations have been conducted by the Ministry on the financial aspects of the RNZSPCA and the involvement of public assets and potential to misuse those assets?
Please provide all documents which relate to the apparent provision of SPCA powers to organisations such as the NZ Kennel Club and or seeking advice from outside organisations for prosecution by virtue of the statement “for example do you want me to lay a formal complaint against a member?). see here
It would appear that SAFE activists have infiltrated the RNZSPCA. What is the policy of MPI and what protection is there for the public to prevent for members of outside activist organisation holding a pivotal role in animal welfare?
What is the policy in providing seized animals to persons from outside organisation who are involved in raids and have a business which builds on that type of dog see here . and here and see here and his FaceBook page https://www.facebook.com/DeterDetectDefend/
What MOU’s exist between the RNZSPCA and other organisations which could conflict with the powers under the Animal Welfare Act?
What is the duty of the RNZSPCA to disclose MOU’s or other agreements with third parties to MPI ?
With regards to the 4 dogs kept at the pound ZetaParisAstroMafia and the dog whelping in the van what is the policy for prosecution the RNZSPCA for breaches of the Act and how are the complaints lodged?
Please provide policies regarding SPCA vets and the ability to administer drug to the animals owned by other people without consultation and x-raying pregnant bitches?
Please advise what procedures exist for ensuring that Inspectors comply with the law and how does a member of the public seek accountability and transparency for an Inspector’s actions? Our complaints to the SPCA seem to be ignored.
What provision is there for Inspectors to demand the surrender of dogs through coercion as in the forced surrender of five dogs to the Auckland SPCA 4 august 2017 and what controls are the in place to ensure that the dogs are not taken by the inspector or a valuable blood line swapped out for a less valuable blood line?
What provision is there for an inspector to use what appears to be blackmail to use the costs of the care of the dogs as a trade-off for surrender and silence? This was also done through the lawyers in exchange for a guilty plea on reduced charges.
What ability does an Inspector have to ignore the legislative requirements e.g., 143 AWA application for an enforcement order and instead taking dogs and disposing of them?
Please provide a copy of a valid search warrant and any documentation whichwill enable a person to identify if a search warrant under Section 131 is legitimate . e.g. should it have a signature of a person on it who can issue a search warrant and how do we check if that person is capable of issuing a search warrant? see warrant used here
What action was taken with regards to the invalid search warrant , a copy dated a year earlier and not signed executed and why was a full inventory not provided , this seizure captured on Body Worn Camera footage (not uploaded but available for MPI ) shows a multitude of documents including defence material seized and inventory was provided. Please provide the full policy on search warrants which existed in 2018.
What provision is there and what are the consequence of noncompliance with enforcing a Section 130 notice through seizure and not applying to the court for an enforcement order where the time frame in which to comply had not expired?
In 2019 a number of dogs were taken without documentation they were returned by Inspector Tracy Phillips. Please advise what investigations were carried out with regards to the unlawful seizures of those dogs? Did the SPCA report back to MPI or was this concealed by them?
The puppies which were born in the SPCA to Debbie and Desni were disposed of under Section 136 A Please advise who instructed the disposal of those puppies and how could the legislation have been applicable when they were neither seized not subject to prosecution, please advise how we can make a complaint and be heard as this has repeatedly been ignored?
Noncompliance to the Bill of Rights and Prosecution Guidelines : what enforcement /accountability measures exist to ensure compliance and who oversees the action to seek accountability for non-compliance ?
The RNZSPCA is a private organisation with a select membership ( as per their constitution ) They were represented by the Crown Solicitors but no Section 187 notice was filed and there is nothing to indicate that the Crown could represent the RNZSPCA and even less allege that this was entitled to intituled the Queen v . Documents were filed as the Crown and the transcript of the hearing refers to “ Crown ” no less than 20 times.
What measures are in pace to prevent this private organisation of misrepresenting itself to the court as a Crown Entity?
And what exemption exists to allow an inspector to file charges on behalf of the society without referring to Section 12 Criminal procedure act Please note that the Criminal Procedure Act came into existence in 2011 well after the 1999 Animal Welfare Act?
Re The sentencing decision again is R v there are procedures which protect both Private Prosecutions and Crown Prosecutions, it would appear that by an Inspector going straight to the Crown Solicitor both accountability processes have been avoided. Resulting in false representation that this Private organisation is a Crown Entity, this resulted in Judge Grau relying on the reputation of the SPCA and the alleged integrity of the Crown Solicitor’s Office to the detriment of the defendants. With regards to her decision
Judge Grau emphasises the number of dogs, what provision is there in the Animal Welfare Act with regards to the number of animals that a person can have if the animal is healthy?
What provision is there for an inspector to take a dog subject it to tests and x-rays to determine if the apparently healthy dog has any genetic issues?
What provisions exist for an animal’s owner to have an independent second opinion by a vet not associated with the RNZSPCA or one employed by the defendants ?
And with regards to para 22 in the Sentencing Report what obligation does an owner have to tell the SPCA the exact numbers of animals they have and where is that provision in legislation ?
In the Sentencing Decision at 70 the judge refers to the SPCA having made a comment about the transfer of ownership, please find out from the Board if this quote was sanctioned by the Board and what input the Board of the ‘RNZSPCA has had in this case?
Please provide the policies which allow the SPCA to take a complaint from Dog Control Officers where the Dog Control Officer has not attended the scene and is simply passing on a barking dog complaint?
What policies exist for the SPCA to give animals to a public service employee in return for assistance e,g, giving Heatley a puppy and his involvement in both raids ?
What provisions are there with regards to tainted scenes both the Haybarn and the gully were visited by Heatley before the SPCA inspectors arrived on the scene? In both instances they knew he had been there before them. What obligations were there on the Inspectors to advise that the scene may have been compromised through his visit?
Body Worn Camera footage and vet reports were deliberately withheld, and an expert witness Flint happened to be a fellow member of a very select association in New Zealand together with Jess Beer the SAFE activist vet. Jess is one of only eight Veterinarians with the qualification of MANZCVS Else Flint is also a member see here. What provision is there for
Withholding SPCA evidence from Trial?
Selection of a close associate as an expert witness?
Please advise the accountability provisions that were followed ,and provide evidence of the fact that in this prosecution the prosecution was out in accordance with the
Approval of the Board
Oversight of the RNZSPCA
Solicitor General’s Guidelines
The Criminal Procedure ACT
Bill of Rights
Animal Welfare Act
The RNZSPCA is not subject to the Official Information Act request, but I believe that the Ministry would obtain evidence from them as per the MOU, please provide the minutes of the meetings where the Board
decided to instruct legal council in this case
Reviewed the evidence
There were fundraising drives for this matter how much money was specifically fundraised for this through web sites, face book ?
The performance and technical standards 2012 were to be reviewed two years after being signed they were signed in 2013. When were they next reviewed?
It appears that the technical standards were not reviewed until 2019 In this document it simply states “SPCA must have in place a policy and procedure for prosecutions” has a copy been provided to MPI if so please provide a copy.
The document also requires a policy to be in place for search warrants and infringement notice procedure. If you hold copies of those please provide them and advise if you can obtain copies in the interest of transparency .
In the intervening years 2013 -19 , it would appear that the 2012 technical standards were in operation
At point 212 they state Overall, the investigating or prosecuting Inspector retains responsibility for the welfare of the animal. Please advise if prosecution of Lauri Davis and Kevin Plowright has been considered for the neglect of the ill dogs ZetaParisAstroMafia which they charged the defendants with as being ill on 13 October 2017 and left for 2 weeks without vet attention in the pound unwashed and untreated ?
At point 248 the Inspector was required to liaise with the SPCA National Inspectorate and Centre Support Team please advise if this was followed and if not why not ?
Point 250 requires the Inspector to recommend to his/her SPCA Centre Committee that information’s be laid. Please advise if this was followed and which committee reviewed and approved the request?
Records Paragraph 258 requires records of an investigation to include : including animal identification and examination record; there was no on site vet examination despite a vet being present and Plowright, as shown on the body camera footage appeared to make decisions as to which dogs to seize he decides not to take microchip numbers thereby not complying with the procedures.
This paragraph was also ignored in that the fact that Police Officers and the Dog Control Officers were not recorded.
Para 261 the records are to be kept for 5 years since the first visit was on 28 July 2017, we ask the MPI to act with urgency to secure all records and provide copies of all documentation relied on by the inspectors .
This information can be provided to MPI on written request stipulating that the reason for the request is to investigate the conduct of the Inspectors.
Microchipping this is a legislative requirement on dog owners for non-working dogs, even though these were working dogs they were microchipped ( at the insistence of Heatley ) , and the microchips were confirmed by him just prior to SPCA visits . Heatley did not give evidence despite being on the list of witnesses to be called.
on whose instructions was he not called? What instructions and processes are in place for Inspectors to properly record the identification of dogs seized and if this exist why was it not followed?
Several dogs which already been microchipped were allegedly microchipped again. Why? The possibility therefore exists that this allowed for substituting one dog for another.
It would appear that over the years nothing has changed .
Last week Two ladies, Janine Glover and Barbara Wallace were sentenced because they were the victims of theft by inspectors for the SPCA .
The prosecution could not have been successful without the involvement of the Crown solicitors who represented the proceedings being a crown prosecution
The name of the prosecutor was the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ( Auckland ) no such organisation has ever existed and the name is fictional. I cannot imagine that any board approving prosecutions would allow them to be commenced in a name which is not theirs.
The disposal hearings which were complete before the charges were filed were in the name of the Auckland SPCA the judges identified the organisation to be the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland .
This organisation ceased to exist in January 2021 but the prosecution was taken by the crown solicitor as though the prosecutor had been the RNZSPCA all along, this is a totally separate legal entity .
Vital evidence was withheld and the proceedings manipulate by the crown solicitors who had been made aware of the issues surrounding the name of their alleged client
I have outlined the seriousness of the crowns involvement in the following posts to the acting crown solicitor
I am approaching you to investigate this abuse of the crown solicitor’s office in representing a fictional organisation, substituting legal entities and representing this as crown prosecution when there is no basis for this being a crown prosecution and does not qualify as a crown prosecution by any definition
The rules, policies and the laws are there to protect every one and the crown solicitors are not above the law
The crown cannot be complicit in corruption as this undermines the rule of Law
In the interest of justice I ask for an urgent investigation
I have received a response from the acting crown solicitor
This is my request to him to help resolve this serious miscarriage of justice
Thank you Gareth But I fail to see what the company or I for that matter has to do with the price of fish
Please provide me the information on which you relied I object to being named in proceedings which I was specifically excluded from and prevented from giving vital evidence on behalf of the defendants relating to the identity of the alleged prosecutor
I am pleased to see that you are capable of research and hope that the following will assist in determining if you as crown solicitor acted legally or assisted unwittingly in something sinister
The alleged prosecutor was the Auckland SPCA using an incorrect name on the charge sheet . the charge sheets as evidenced by the charges for MafiaZetaParisAstro were in the name of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals {Auckland) the disposal proceedings before Judge Blackie and Lovell Smith were for THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND (SPCA AUCKLAND)
Both the lower courts in the disposal hearings which were completed before charges were even filed showed that the dogs were disposed of the Auckland SPCA
The Auckland SPCA was dissolved in early 2021 and there was never an amalgamation of the Auckland SPCA into the RNZSPCA
The RNZSPCA gave 5 dogs back through my involvement in 2019 and found that these dogs had been taken without any due process or documentation by Plowright . Plowright also took puppies and returned them later all very un-orthodox
There were also puppies unlawfully disposed of under section 136 AWA by your office to The Auckland SPCA when those dogs were neither seized not subject to charges .see the Lovell Smith decision, this was done through Natalie Walker acting as the Crown solicitor
Then there is the issue that the crown solicitor represented this matter as a crown prosecution when it was a private prosecution even intituling one document as the Queen V . you will find if you go through the records that the RNZSPCA never instructed your office this came to your office through the Anita Killeen pro bono scheme with the Auckland SPCA . Radich had a cousin who was on the Auckland SPCA Board
Vital evidence has been withheld that is the evidence of the council dog control officer Rhys Heatley and puts this case on a par with the findings in the recent Hall matter .
I have attached a clip taken from the Body worn footage mentioned above which when viewed slowly at 4 seconds in reveals this
Heatley and a dog inside the Barn
further enhancement shows a dog alongside his right leg this dog was the dog which was allegedly euthanised and it was tied with a rope which we have pictures of Heatley holding earlier
Heatley was also at the second seizure and it had not been disclosed that he had visited the scene prior to the entourage walking in . More body camera footage which will be made publicly available will show Davis saying the dogs are really very sweet.
As a former long serving police officer I can tell you from experience that abused dogs are never sweet.
Plowright on the arrival at the second scene stands at a distance and says ” take a photo of her she is tangled ” with that the dog walks away .. did he have great eyesight? or did he know something about the condition of the dogs before his arrival .
Much was made of the condition of one dogs coat and the tipped over water bowls but he court was not told that this scene was a tainted scene due to people who had not given evidence having been there between Janine taking the dogs there in the morning and the being removed by the Inspectors.
Heatley was also essential as a witness due to allegation through hearsay that he as a dog control officer took a call on the morning and instead of carrying out his own duties he called the SPCA… why was this especially in view of him having received one of the unlawfully disposed of puppies, this has implications of bribery and corruption by a public official .
If he had carried out his duties as a dog control officer the dog control legislation would have legitimised what the inspector’s contorted to be unlawful .
I very much suspect that you were asked to do the sentencing and a lawyer must never knowingly deceive the court both Walker and Radich know exactly what is going on . Radich has fundamentally been part of the problem
You will find that instructions about disqualification does not come from the RNZSPCA. The RNZSPCA have only been involved due to the return of the dogs in 2019 . They gave dogs back and allowed Barbara and Janine to own dogs for the next three years without supervision now they allegedly ask for disqualification for 9 years , if Barbara and Janine were such a threat to dogs why leave them with some 50 dogs from 2017-2022 and then ask for them to be banned from owning them for 9 years !!. That simply does not make sense other than they have to be punished for the act of reporting this to the police
In the interview it is made clear that the dogs were taken due to numbers , there is no provision in the AWA for numbers so when the ladies refused to surrender the dogs Plowright had to be creative and after searching high and low for things they could be charged on in the end the answer was to collude with crown law .
There are so many questions like
why did the charges relate to the day on which the offences occurred but despite this charges were not filed for nearly one and a half years later
why were the ladies not told of the alleged charges at the time of being interviewed
why was the reason for seizure not disclosed to them while the body worn cameras show reasons which have never been disclosed .
Why was there a search warrant unlawfully executed and take all their private notes and
why was there a need to clone their computer .
why was Heatley in the barn when Plowright claimed he could not get access, yet he saw and was told by Davis that Heatley was in there .. Look at the video it is revealing https://vimeo.com/720993011
why did they need the pedigree papers and why were only the dogs with the imported bloodlines taken
The video also shows how the vet Jess Beer a , safe activist can diagnose animals at 20 feet just before the hay barn clip she can be seen diagnosing a dog in the distance as having an ear infection .
I would never have become involved if I did not believe in the innocence of these ladies , I actually went to the farm and saw the passion of their desire to breed champion dogs . The dogs were outstanding champions and the winter was extremely wet and boggy. They were told to build suitable kennels but before they could complete them the inspectors who were intending to take the dogs for ulterior reasons , took them not because they were being harmed but to legitimise theft and get their hands on highly valued dogs
They could not have pulled this off without the use of the crown solicitors office has been used to pervert the course of justice and did not act in accordance with their terms of office
This was a private prosecution it was never a crown prosecution and the RNZSPCA has never instructed your office … does that not matter!!!!
I hope that you can see that you have been used to front these proceedings to give it legitimacy and using your lack of knowledge as to the background to deal with the aspect that a lawyer must never knowingly deceive the court , your colleagues have not been honest with you because both of them would be deceiving the court if they had fronted the sentencing.
We have placed this in the hands of the police I had a theft complaint filed earlier in my investigations and we have now got the police following up due to the discovery of this vital footage
Another matter which we have uncovered is that the microchip numbers were not taken and there is no evidence at all that the dogs taken were identified correctly or were even dogs which came from the seizure classic identity fraud but with dogs.
Similarly dogs went to the pound I have attached the vet reports which were deliberately withheld ..MafiaZetaParisAstro I have attached evidence by link to each of the names as you can see the information came directly from the AUCKLAND SPCA .
Logic prevails that if the ladies were charged and found guilty of having sick dogs and the dogs were taken from them and held untreated in kennels for 4 weeks then the RNZSPCA must also be guilty of the same charges because due to the evidence they knew the dogs were sick but did not wash or care for them for 2 weeks . this needs to be subject of charges against the RNZSPCA but what is the bet that the RNZSPCA will say that they never seized the dogs .
I hope that you can see that this is serious Gareth and I believe that the evidence I have provided to you should result in an application to the court to have this fraud on the court and on the crown solicitors office rectified .
The ladies did not have a fair trial , it was no public or fair and vital evidence was withheld manipulated or contorted .
You may wish to have a look at the video link I posted from Malcolm Roberts https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ published in June 2021 “Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.”
In the interest of transparency I have published this email please note that it is shared with overseas groups who are interested in the corruption of SPCAs world wide , you can play your part in justice by acting to correct the wrong doing by the office which you as acting crown solicitor represent
I look forward to seeing you act in accordance with your terms of office and section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act especially the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
I hope that you see merit in liaising with the solicitor general now that you know that the terms have not been complied with and a private prosecution with no instructions has been advanced to the stage where animals have been disposed of , destroyed and the lives of two women ( and their families ) have been totally devastated though deceit .
I hope that I am not wrong in believing that you are the person to bring about justice and resolution .
Regards Grace Haden
Response received
text reads :
Given that you are neither one of the defendants nor their legal counsel, I do not intend to respond to the content of your email.
This is an open letter to Gareth Kayes who at sentencing this morning told the court that Germans shepherd dogs had been transferred into my name and disclosed personal information about me in a court matter where I had no involvement
gareth@kfw.co.nz
Good afternoon Gareth .
I believe you represented the CROWN this morning in the sentencing of Janine and Barbara in a private prosecution brought by what appears to be inspectors acting in a must unethical if not unlawful manner . the sentencing has been reported in the press at this link
I have heard that you accused me of being the new owner of the german shepherd dogs and by way of privacy act request I would like to know how you established that alleged fact or if in reality you are not too concerned with presenting fiction to the court.
It worries me that you tried to implicate me in these proceedings, I can assure you that my cat would not be happy with me adopting dogs.
Was this statement a reflection of the facts which you rely on for bringing what you have called a “crown prosecution” or were you simply trying to discredit me to the court.
By way of privacy act I would like to know the source of your information or an explanation as to why you made this alleged fact up to knowingly mislead the court
I will also be more than happy to publish your response or are you going to ignore me just as you did when I snet on the email below redirected to you when Natalie went off on study leave
It appears to me that you do not rely on facts as this was not a crown prosecution for reasons stated below.
I look forward to hearing from you but guess I should not hold my breath
Copy for the board of the RNZSPCA and crown solicitor’s office and senator Malcolm Roberts
During the formation of the One SPCA, due to lack of apparent supervision some inspectors saw an opportunity to obtain high value dogs.
This apparent “copycat” tactic has been reported on in Australia by Senator Malcom Roberts https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ published in June 2021 “Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.”
In 2017 Volkerson Kennels were the top breeders of German Shepherds, this was due to the unique imported blood lines of their dogs.
There are two main suspects Kevin Plowright and Rhys Heatley, a Waikato District Council Dog Control Officer.
I believe that these men , who have both since left their respective employment used this tactic to secure the specialist traits of these dogs to set up their own business.
Heatley through the Council, ensured that all the dogs at Volkerson were identified by their microchip numbers. Vets were called in to ensure that all microchip numbers were recorded on their farm of the dogs and all dogs identified.
They then liaised with their contacts at the New Zealand Kennel Club for the pedigrees of the dogs. We have to ask What does their pedigree have to do with things? Well Everything, apparently , when it comes to selecting a dog for your business venture.
In August 2017 Head Inspector Plowright and his associate 2nd in Charge Lauri Davis who is either ignorant or in on it, called at the farm and coerced Barbara who was then aged 78 to hand over 5 dogs on the pretext that they had too many dogs.
Since when does the SPCA have the power to do that . this was simple coercion and testing the water of compliance and getting a base line of stock dogs for the deceit which was to follow
Barbara and Janine live on a large rural property, the property does not have a restriction as to the number of dogs they can have. Too many dogs would only be an issue for the SPCA if the dogs were not being cared for. Barbara has been breeding German Shepherds since 1960 , the farm is typical of a farm with old buildings and sheds .
Plowright claimed that the areas the dogs were being kept in were not suitable and directed them to build new kennels which they did.
Before the kennels were completed he returned. He came on 12 October 2017 with Laurie Davis and Nicole, and decided to take more dogs. They made no mention of this on the day but returned the following day with a document printed with the VOLKERSON kennel name and a lot of blank spaces which Lauri Davis filled in with the dog’s names and reason they were taken.
It is clear from the Body camera footage that they were taking as many dogs as they could . The dogs were numbered 1-15 and the document seen on the Body Worn Camera has never been produced instead a blank list with just the dog’s names was left for Barbara and no reason as to why the dogs were taken .
On the 13th October 2017 they were accompanied by SPCA Vet Jess Beer who from the body worn camera footage 13;00;53 appears to be able to spot ear infections from 20 meters away – an external examination, she is a self-declared SAFE activist and an associate of the “ independent “ vet who gave evidence at the hearing and who had prepared her brief of evidence even before charges were filed and without ever having visited the scene
On 13 October Jess Beer can be heard asking if they should record microchip numbers and both Plowright and Davis respond “no no no”. and this is where the deception began .
They go round the farm like kids in a candy shop and miraculously select the imported blood lines while leaving other dogs which have domestic lineage. There are other charges in court eventually for dogs simply identified as two males in the cattle yard .
Time is everything you can take a dog to the corner dairy and leave it outside , it is an entirely different thing to leave it there overnight . Not one of the charges the ladies were to face took into account the temporary nature of the situation the dogs were in nor the fact that it was recorded the day earlier that these dogs were not in that location
In all 15 dogs were taken, 2 Bitches were in whelp.
From here, we do not know what happens to the dogs, as there is no list of microchips seized, no list of village numbers, no time of arrival at the SPCA and no time and date of examination by a vet.
It is very possible that dogs were swapped out and that the dogs which were seen by the vets were not the dogs seized.
This is supported by the fact that the dogs were disposed of before charges were filed and Barbara and Janine were prevented from visiting their dogs or having their vets provide a second opinion.
The vet reports show that one dog was “Sable” which is not a colour which Volkerson has also long haired dogs became short hair and vice versa.
The charges were such that they were relevant to the time of seizure so the next quest ion has to be “why did they have to wait over a year for the charges to be filed .
In fact the charges were only filed after all the disposal Hearings were out of the way. Was this is so that the dogs could not be referenced or held as evidence? I suspect that dogs were disposed of but those dogs were not the valuable blood lines which had been selected , those had long gone.
One example is a dog called Monty ,Monty was microchipped, Yet he was microchipped at the SPCA and recorded.. no doubt this was a dog which then became “ Monty”
In November 2017 Janine was interviewed , generally the issues to which the charges relate were not raised in the interview
The interview was all about coercion to surrender page 28 “I can mention there’s no course of action decided at this stage. Anything can happen from here” Lauri Davis on page 30 states “And we need you to understand, we, you know, we seized 15 dogs from your property on the 13th of October. That was purely failing to comply with instruction. There, you know, we could’ve taken a lot –“
Kevin Plowright page 37 states“We’re here because of failed compliance. It’s the only reason we’re here.”
Page 42 makes very strong suggestions of confidentiality if dogs are surrendered.
Section 130 has provisions for dealing with lack of compliance the legal provisions do not include coming in and taking them the law and the legislation was deliberately ignored.
From the interview it is very clear that the charges were dreamt up after the dogs had been seized and the expected surrender did not eventuate . The inspectors had made up their mind that the dogs were not going to come back despite the new kennels having been built and the chief inspector of the Auckland SPCA Greg Reid was bold enough to say so
There was never any notice of noncompliance and their own body worn camera footage shows the new kennels ready in November 2017, six and half weeks before the deadline of 31.12.2017. There was no non compliance and any action would have failed, they wanted the dogs and the path taken was the only one available to them some of these dogs blood lines were selling over seas for up to a million dollars
The two bitches in whelp produced some 20 puppies, the number is not known and fluctuates when looking at records as pups disappeared, were allegedly eaten and then a dog with a totally different village number showed up in the records as deceased. One pup was born in a crate, the mother had already whelped 7 puppies at VSA, in the back of a moving SPCA van. DOA at Mangere.
Pregnant bitches were x-rayed.
There were charges with regards to having not cared for sick animals; these dogs were in the Pukekohe Pound for 2 weeks before being vet examined, therefore this must mean that by default the RNZSPCA is guilty of having had the dogs in their care and not having tended to them.
By default Charges should then be brought to the RNZSPCA for having seized dogs which they claimed were ill . By having those charges proved it naturally follows by default that the RNZSPCA must also be guilty of having sick dogs in their care and not providing them with care .
These dogs which were allegedly covered in “Faeces” stained fur were in that condition when they were examined on the 27th October 2017, they were seized on the 13th October 2017. This means that if they were allegedly ill to start with, this would not have exasperated the situation and if they were in that condition on the 13th why allow this to continue ?
As a former Police Prosecutor I am very aware of the chain of evidence and I would have expected to have seen business records showing the microchip numbers of the dogs seized on the day. A chain of evidence as to where the dogs were for every second until examined by a vet. I would have wanted to see the vet make a statement ”I checked the dog’s microchip number and recorded it as and I found “ instead we don’t even know what time they were examined or when they arrived at the SPCA.
Reference is made to SPCA village numbers but there is a disjoint to the actual identification of the dogs seized
The seizure itself was a circus, there were two dogs in the hay barn, on forcing open the liftable bolt with a concrete builders block and leaving things for approximately 10 minutes (as shown on Body Worn Camera footage) a dog was found in a crate tied up in a most unnatural contrived position. Plowright had made a show of not being able to get in, but his body camera footage, exposed a brief glimpse of Rhys Heatley inside the shed having entered from the opposite end.
We have provided a chronology of events as per attached showing stills from the BWC footage . Through the gap in the doors captured on Plowright Body worn camera is a shot of Heatley inside the shed Enhancement of the shot brings out the outline of a dog walking beside him. From there Plowright whacks the door with a brick and there is considerable delay before the constrained dog is discovered
The back doors through which Heatley gained entry are left open . It’s the small details which give them away
This dog was allegedly euthanized due to the injury on her leg which in itself begs belief as amputation, tendon surgery (Prof Andrew Worth Massey University Working Dog specialist) could surely have been considered and how an area not even an abrasion became a festering wound can only be attributed to a swap out of animals or bad veterinary practice.
Most importantly, Janine and Barbara were never allowed to have a second opinion on any of the allegations and their vets were not welcome, this would no doubt have undone the whole plan and proved that the dogs which were at the SPCA were not the Prized Volkerson dogs . Independent follow up from the SPCA records and DNA testing will prove this
It was only after the interview failed to secure surrender of the dogs that they began collating evidence for charges
In January 2018 disposal proceedings began and the crown prosecutor was engaged
In March 2018, a search warrant was executed we have extensive body worn camera footage of the search and it was a free for all fishing expedition and all evidence that Janine and Barbara had collated was taken and has never seen the light of day again, the search warrant was invalid but apparently that doesn’t count highly now days nor the fact that their computer was taken, cloned and accessed their emails months later. No inventory was ever provided beyond a very short document with less than half a dozen items
In all there was an excessive number of interactions and “ visits “ Plowright was convinced that dogs were being hidden, anyone associated with the ladies had a visit and this ensured that no one supported them as their friends were all afraid that they would be targeted next. In December when Janine was visiting a friend with one dogs and her pups Plowright pulled out and started exercising his powers . Several days later the lady had a visit from dog control who had been asked to go there and pick up dogs :- she did not have any
In May 2018, 6 dogs were at the rear of the property. They had been on a training run and were resting while their kennels were being cleaned. This raid was instigated by Dog Control who through hearsay evidence of Plowright, allegedly phoned Plowright after getting a barking dog complaint from a neighbour over a kilometre away. Heatley and Plowright went in through the rear of the property from the neighbouring farm and interfered with the scene while the rest of the crew detained Janine and stopped her from going back for the dogs.
It was alleged that the dogs were left without water it is suspected and highly probable that the water was tipped out when the scene was interfered with . Plowright’s BWC shows him walking up to the dogs and he states: ” take a photo of that one, it is tangled”. With that, the dog stands up and walks away. How did Plowright know it was tangled from that distance? If he left it tangled then this is not a very SPCA thing to do again it is strangely similar to the scene in the hay barn.
The dogs were taken and Heatley can be heard to say on BWC “you’re going to stay with me for a few days” after the dogs are loaded into his vehicle on 18 May 2018 at 14:30 pm. If Heatley had done his job, the dogs would not have committed any offence under the Dog Control Act but the language of Plowright on the way to recover the dogs, just proves he was on a mission and revenge for not surrendering certainly comes to mind.
We do not have a time of the dogs arriving at the SPCA nor what time they were examined by the vet, which brings up the question as to identification of the dogs at the SPCA, why did the dogs go with Heatley and which dogs actually arrived at the SPCA and why were dogs being paraded around at the Mangatangi fire station was there a big reshuffle going on ?
The charges were filed in November 2018, after the second lot of dogs had been disposed of. Both sets of dogs were disposed of to the Auckland SPCA
The disposal applications were made by the crown solicitor herself in the name of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland (SPCA Auckland). Both judges accepted that the organisation was the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland (SPCA Auckland) registration number 222889 which is listed in the constitution of the RNZSPCA as a member society .
The registration number of the RNZSPCA is 218546 both organisations are separate legal entities and had their own respective boards .
All documents all action was undertaken in the name of the Auckland SPCA
The dogs were disposed of by the Auckland SPCA and at a time before charges were filed and the ladies were not advised of what they had been charged with, even when the charges were filed, they were not fully and fairly informed and the identity of the dogs which are specific to the charge was never proved.
The chief inspector of he RNZSPCA in 2019 become involved in returning five more dogs which had been taken By Plowright in 2019 without documentation and without supporting evidence , she claimed to have no knowledge of the proceedings and resigned not long afterwards
In the first disposal, the puppies which were neither seized nor the subject of charges were disposed of under Section 136, when there is no provision for this and they were disposed of unlawfully by the crown solicitor. This shows the lack of detail and regard for the law exercised by the crown solicitor’s office
The name of the prosecutor was then swapped out and the prosecutor became the RNZSPCA this was done without any apparent jurisdiction of he court to make this change and without consent of the board of the RNZSPCA to take on this prosecution which they had no oversight of.
Andrea Midgen the CEO of the Auckland SPCA and later the CEO of the RNZSPCA , used the scenario for its fullest fundraising potential and the kennels were labelled a puppy farm leaflets went to many households in the country and the case received much publicity which resulted in death threats to Barbara
The Waikato dog control officer , Heatley did not file any reports and more significantly we can show through his own Facebook posts that he received one of the puppies from first seizure which puts him into a situation of having been bribed in his position as a public servant
No witness statement was provided by Heatley and he was not available for cross examination. This is despite that crown solicitor stating that the statement was still to come, this is a crucial witness statement deliberately withheld.
It was not obvious until the hearing, that Heatley and Plowright had been on the property before they “discovered the dogs out the back” and Heatley needs to explain the dog in the picture in the hay barn and if a dog was tangled when he was in there, why he left the animal unattended.
In reality if the call on the second occasion had been taken by Heatley and he had dealt with it under the Dog Control Act there was no offence and no reason for removal of the dogs as no offence would have been made out , instead the ladies are being threatened with prison
Filing of charges
The charges were filed by Plowright. It appears that there was no internal oversight of the filing of the charges and Luke Radich , crown solicitor allegedly formulated the charges which were 79 in total.
In my day this was called throwing the book at someone . The prosecution guidelines were ignored as was every safeguard which the law provides
The procedures and policies for prosecution in the SPCA were not adhered to
There was no oversight from the board or management it appears that the prosecution was solely in the hands of Plowright and the now compromised crown solicitor which was acting against the direction in the terms of office where they should not be undertaking any private prosecutions
Not only was this a private prosecution but there was no authority from the board which was allegedly the prosecutor as required by section 12 Criminal procedure act.
The MOU and the technical standards were ignored and there is no evidence of the SPCA National Inspectorate being involved
There is no evidence that either the inspectors or the crown solicitors office adhered to the prosecution guidelines and the bill of right was totally ignored
As was the Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Procedure Act
This legislation has built in safe guards for private prosecutions because the crown solicitor became involved and intituled the documents with the word crown, the prosecution did not follow the path for private prosecutions .
If the charges had been through a robust oversight it begs belief as to how they came to be filed in the name of fictional entity the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Auckland )
Section 13 of the criminal procedure act states that the act must be complied with and to have a crown solicitor lending credibility, to what appears to me, to be criminal offence on the part of the inspectors, and by ignoring statutory provisions which are intended to give protection to defendants is dangerously close if not actually , perverting the course of justice and act in which the crown cannot be complicit
Trial process.
The matter was to be trial by jury, but this changed at the last moment. Barbara was not allowed a support person, I know that because it was to have been me.
This was not a public hearing and it was not fair due to the lack of compliance with the Bill of Rights and the Prosecution Guidelines and Criminal Procedure Act.
Barbara saw her solicitors for the very first time that day, she had paid for lawyers when they suddenly pulled out, it appeared to me that they had been threatened. A lot of pressure was put on Barbara, now aged 83 to enter a plea of guilty.
The crown solicitor took on the prosecution and ignored every safeguard that is there to protect defendants.
The documents were even intituled at one time the Queen V and even the exhibits for the trial were labelled crown exhibits. This is deceptive and misleading and gave the prosecution an appearance of having been through robust and accountable
The Solicitor General’s guidelines were totally ignored, so much so that the charges were filed in the name of a fictional organisation. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland).
It is quite clear that neither the Auckland SPCA or the RNZSPCA board consented to the prosecution being undertaken and there has been no independent oversight.
The book has been thrown at the ladies to make the matter complicated and overwhelm them as was the mountains of alleged evidence which then never saw the light of day.
Janine was prevented from referring to the vet reports and the body worn camera footage which would have supported her evidence.
There were two sets of evidence books the second was introduced during the hearing and differed from the original booklet provided to the defendants before the hearing
The crown solicitor totally ignored the legislative framework under which he was supposed to work and treated the matter as a crown prosecution rather than the private prosecution which it was. He changed the category three charges at the 11th hour so that they could go before a judge alone, this is because he had not filed the pre-requisite documents for a trial by jury.
Evidence was deliberately withheld in the hearing and no body camera footage which would have proved the innocence of the ladies was withheld as were the vet reports.
Not one business record was produced, so there was no chain of evidence and in the end the Judge preferred the evidence of the SPCA and the crown solicitor because she felt that there would have to be too many people in on it.
The reality is that the vets may have been totally honest with their findings, it is just that the dog they examined was not the dog which was seized.
This is a well-orchestrated scenario, it will lead to a serious miscarriage of justice if the ladies are sentenced.
Action after the hearing
When the decision was delivered I had Janine go through the body camera footage and we have found that using their own evidence we can show that that the court was consistently misled in the end it came down to the judge preferring one story rather than the other because of the reputation attributed to the prosecutor and crown law
We have compiled many discrepancies the largest one of all is the scene in the shed which with the devil being in the detail is limited to a few frames inadvertently captured By Plowright
We urgently request intervention as this can only set a precedent for the SPCA to walk up to any one and say we will give you confidentiality if you hand your animals over, otherwise we will crucify you.
We hope that you can take this seriously as the SPCA has to have accountability to the public. It may well be that the new board of the RNZSPCA is as horrified with this as we are and decide that they have been set up as well
In that case they need to urgently advise that the prosecution was never authorised in their name
Request for MPI
To that end, we seek, aside from a full investigation, all business records which will trace the dogs from the minute they were seized until they were disposed of.
An investigation as to who the prosecution agency was and establish the identification of the dogs disposed of to the “ forever homes “
This has the potential of impacting on the ability of the RNZSPCA to hold approved status and it appears that the fundamental requirement of accountability to the public has been missing as they do not even acknowledge the rights under the bill of rights
Barbara and Janine are before the court they had an excessive number of SPCA raids and their dogs were allegedly taken because they did not comply with the SPCA compliance directives under section 130 of the animal welfare act .
However instead of being charged with the appropriate offence of failing to comply ( if that was the case ) the Auckland SPCA officer chose to seize healthy dogs because in this opinion Barbara had too many dogs . ( that is not an offence under the animal welfare act )
In 2019 I had not met either lady and was approached by them , I was not going to do anything until I had been to the farm and had seen the dogs for myself , I was impressed and after hearing the interview of Janine By Kevin Plowright the inspector who had seized the animals I was convinced that these ladies needed help .
I found it strange that in this interview there was no reference to any alleged offences and I also questioned why the document which they were given when the dogs were seized made no refence to alleged offences .
It was only after this interview which I considered coercive and intent on surrender of the dogs that Plowright commenced prosecution action which included the use of search warrant which was one year out of date and or dubious origins .
I investigated and compiled a complaint for the police for the theft of dogs. But the court proceedings stalled, and we had to wait five years for their day in court .
Last year I became aware of the events in Australia https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ published in June 2021 “Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.”
This is very much what I believed had happened to Janine and Barbara. Volkerson kennels was home of many champion dogs and in 2017 Barbara was breeder of the year .
This was her downfall. She had many imported blood lines and I find it incredibly strange that the only dogs worth seizing were the imported blood lines . She faces many identical charges for other dogs which were not seized and strangely enough these are domestic blood lines and not the champions .
She and Janine face a plethora of charges, for which evidence must be produced in the court but which so far they have not seen in pre trial matters . It took a full 14 months before they were even charged and by then the dogs had been disposed of to the now dissolved Auckland SPCA .
Even more incredible they have been charged with several offences for having a dog which was ill and did not ensure that the animal received treatment to alleviate unnecessary pain or distress suffered by the animal. These dogs were so ill that when they were seized by the Auckland SPCA they were taken straight to the Papakura pound and left there for 2 full weeks before being examined by a vet .
Then there were 5 further dogs seized by inspector Plowright in 2019. These dogs were taken without documentation and were returned by then chief inspector Tracey Phillips . These dogs were sick when they were returned from the Auckland SPCA as evidenced by the animal welfare notices issued by the then inspector Mike Loulanting . Thes dogs had been in the “ care “ of the SPCA for nearly a year .
Then there was the bitch which whelped in the back of a van and her puppy died. There is incredible confusion about the number of puppies she had and these valuable dogs for which the SPCA obtained pedigree history were disposed of unlawfully and were never seen by their owners.( only dogs seized and subject to charges can be disposed of under section 136 ..these pups originally 20 in number from 2 bitches were born in captivity and have not been the subject of charges )
There is an assumption that the RNZSPCA is the same old society that was set up many years ago.
Over the years it has gained a reputation of being a trusted brand.
It is however very much like the hatchet I have in my garage it is 150 years old and has had four new handles and six new heads, but it is still the same old trusted Hatchet … or is it?
The RNZSPCA formed well over a century ago and has a new constitution new leadership structure and lacks the public oversight which it had just a few short years ago .
It is now a business run by a former Ernst and young accountant and not the volunteers of the past .
In 2017 The RNZSPCA established itself as one SPCA before that there had been many branches and member societies, each a separate legal entity . I was a member of the Hawkes Bay branch. Our membership was transferred to the RNZSPCA and former members have never seen a renewal .
The significance of this is that the power is now held by a few rather than by many .
This is a private law enforcement organisation with excessive public powers and even has the use of crown solicitors to defend their actions . Where is the transparency where is the accountability where is the integrity ?
We need a full investigation into the RNZSPCA urgently .
Under our laws only real or legal persons have the ability to sue or be sued.
It is important that is some one sues you that you know who this person is as the law would be one sided if they can attack you but you cannot defend back .
If an unknown person or a fictional person wins a court case they can used the decision against you to be enforced but you wont be able to take action against them as fictional persons are effectively invisible and cannot be sued .
Lawyers appear to be totally lax with regards to identity issues , yet it is the most fundamental fist step , the establishment of the parties to a dispute .
So in the case of the prosecution of Barbara and Janine the charges read
note that Janine is being prosecuted by the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals And Barbara is being prosecuted by the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals ( Auckland )
The Animal Welfare Act is unusual as the offences are generally Strict liability which means that when the prosecutor makes the allegation that you have done something that you did not necessarily mean to do the act of doing it makes the offence complete and there is no need for the prosecution to show that you had any intent ( mens rea) to do the act.
There are two types of Person
Real people.. that is like you and me who live and breathe and invariably have a birth certificate and eventually a death certificate.
Legal persons.. statutory persons set up through legislation such government departments and or recognized through legislation through being registered as a Crown entity , company , trust incorporated society etc.
To ascertain whether a person is a real or legal person you check on their existence and registration in the case of the RNZSPCA you can find its details here Incorporated Societies Register you will find it on page 4
search on the name Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and you will see this
as can be seen no organisation exists by that name
As we have seen Kevin Plowright and Lauri Davis produced a receipt for the first five dogs which were taken
this receipt plainly states that the owners will be transferring ownership to the SPCA ( AUCKLAND inc .. except Barbara never saw this document the signature was forged by some one unauthorized
The SPCA Auckland inc is defined in the constitution of the RNZSPCA
SPCA Auckland is a separate legal entity distinctly different to the RNZSPCA
The constitution of The RNZSPCA makes no mention of a royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or a royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals( Auckland) which are he names used by the alleged prosecutor .
Therefore the ” prosecutor ” in this instance is not a legal person and cannot sue or be sued .
The only person who is involved in the prosecution is Kevin Plowright who has handed it to the Probono Lawyers for the Auckland SPCA who happen to have a massive conflict of interest in being he crown solicitors office and who have taken this on contrary to the provisions of their terms of trade.
Kevin Plowright ceased being an inspector under the animal welfare act 21 June 2019 so for the past year the file has been in the hands of lawyers who are scrambling like crazy to cover up their oversight of not checking the legitimacy of the prosecution .
It is far easier to aggressively pursue Barbara and Janine than for the Manukau crown solicitor to admit that they stuffed up
“We are very grateful to have a significant commitment of pro bono litigation support from Kayes Fletcher Walker, the Office of the Manukau Crown Solicitor. The firm support the work of the Pro Bono Panel in a number of ways including by acting as instructing solicitor, by providing legal opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met, as well as appearing in court to assist Panel members on cases. The pro bono work that Kayes Fletcher Walker provides is a significant factor in the ongoing success of the Panel initiative and contributes to ensuring the consistency and high quality of SPCA Auckland’s prosecution files“
Well Kayes Fletcher Walker .. why did not one check to see who the legal entity was which is listed as the prosecutor and why did you seek disposal of dogs in a file intituled
The court is told that the application is being made on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland (“SPCA”}
but when Barbara and Janine take their appeal to the court intituled in exactly the same manner as the original matter the judge states
Laurie Davis’ application was supported by documents from Andrea Midgen , the document was neither sworn or certified true , a copy was sent to the court and the court totally accepted it , unbelievable !.
Kevin Plowright was an inspector under the animal welfare act . He was employed by the Auckland SPCA
This morning Janine and Barbara had to run the New media Gauntlet, News Hub which was not allowed to film in the court set up by the ladies vehicle . To say that the ladies were intimidated was an under statement they feared for their safety not because of the press themselves but because of the manner of reporting and the death threats they have had because of it
I therefore am writing to you to provide Balance to the story and hope that you can incorporate the following to create a neutral perspective and make people think.
Senator Malcolm Roberts in Queensland has raised questions the videos and transcripts are at these links these are all less than 2 months old
The SPCA is a private organisation . Next week they have cup cake day and can raise $140,000 from selling cup cakes this pales into insignificance when these pedigree dogs can raise upwards of $250,000 each
no one is above the law so why is the crown prosecuting .
If the matter had followed due process the inspector would have been fully supervised by the RNZSPCA despite working for he Auckland SPCA
The name of the prosecutor on the charges would have been a real legal person
There Is no doubt that this is a PRIVATE prosecution and there is a process for this , which has not been followed
The registrar get the charges. Any registrar getting 79 charges will refer it to a judge section 26
A judge will then asses the charges and if the evidence supports the charges ( which in this case it does not ) then summonses are issues.. which never happened
Janine and Barbara would have been fully and Fairly informed of the charges including knowing who the prosecutor is
The name of the prosecutor was only changed a few weeks ago from a fictional organisation to the RNZSPCA which was actually not involved at all in 2017 and appears not to have been involved in 2018
There would not have been a plethora of charges which often relate to the same dogs.. this is called throwing the book at people and swamping them so as to overwhelm them plus it makes it look good for a trial by public
There would have been precise evidence to support the charges and not see them charged with having a ill animal like Mafia whose picture is above
And in view of the charge you have to wonder why Mafia was uplifted on 13 October 2017 went straight to the pound and was not seen by a vet until 27 October
Also the only vet to have seen many of these dogs happens to be a SAFE activist and there was no opportunity for a second opinion
Other relevant questions are
Why was the interview in November so weighted towards surrender
Why did it take over year to file charges
Why did they need to get the pedigree papers
Why did they need vet reports .. surely the dogs were taken because of their condition so would the evidence not be on the dog on the day that it was taken or could it be that healthy dogs were tken and they had to dig deep to find evidence for court
Why did Greg Reid need to liaise with TVNZ to have a ”puppy farm” article right when they were disposing the dogs to the AUCKLAND SPCA
How could the crown solicitor possibly allow the court to dispose of a number of puppies which were neither seized nor subject to charges under section 136 A .
why 5 more dogs were taken in 2019 without documentation and why Tracy Phillips returned them when she was inspector and became aware of this and why she resigned also immediately when I sent her an open letter Open Letter to Tracy Phillips GENERAL MANAGER SPCA INSPECTORATE could it be because she has integrity and could not work with this fiasco
Barbara and Janine have had death threats , they have been subject to many raids on their farm by Both the SPCA and random others , they live in fear.
Their passion was breeding high quality dogs they fit the profile described by senator Roberts exactly
In the interest of NZ justice and fair reporting I ask that you investigate this aspect
I am publishing this open letter on Transparency NZ in the interest of transparency and justice
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Thank you for being here, Dr. Johns. Thank you. My questions are to do with the RSPCA Australia and Queensland. They’re two separate bodies. What body oversees the activities of the RSPCA Australia at either state or federal government level?
I’m sorry, I’d have to take that on notice. We’d have to look up the register and look at its details.
Transparency New Zealand up until recently had about 44 separate legal entities either branches or member societies see the constitution of the RNZSPCA
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] And, you’ll be excused if you have to take up a lot of these on notice. It surprised me when I learned about this. Why, in Queensland are RSPCA state inspectors who laid charges, also the prosecutors in the same cases? Shouldn’t they be merely a witness?
I will take that on notice, thank you.
Transparency New Zealand we take it one step further here , the inspector can prosecute and in this instance he has filed the charges and handed it on to the crown solicitors who are acting against their terms of office see Open letter to Luke Radich of Kayes Fletcher Walker and portraying the private prosecution to the courts as a crown prosecution
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Why are RSPCA Australia staff referring owners to particular vets and refusing to recognise the expertise of others?
I’ll take that on notice, thanks. Sorry, and I’ll just interrupt at this extent, we will have a look at any charity’s fitness for registration. We don’t go beyond that remit, but nevertheless, please.
Transparency New Zealand The SPCA here has its own vets and a totally non transparent process where by owners are denied access to their animals after allegations of ill health are made, they cannot even have their own evets check this out and on top of it the SPCA vets in some instances are SAFE activists
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Why would this RSPCA Australia be the recipient of fines levelled at an owner of an animal when prosecuted by a state RSPCA staff member?
I’ll take that on notice.
Transparency New Zealand We are uncertain as to where the fines go , if it was a police prosecution it would go into the public purse, remember we have the crown solicitors acting as part of the pro bobo panel , so it is a win win situation for the SPCA , in this case the dogs have already been disposed of and costs of some $14,000 have been accrued against the ladies , some of these dogs with a quick microchip swap could fetch up to a million dollars if sold overseas . Their sperm and their eggs have value to and so Becky Murphy of Dogs NZ has examined these dogs and has just bought GlenBred – Small Animal Reproduction, a division of Matamata Veterinary Service
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Aren’t RSPCA Queensland and RSPCA Australia separate bodies?
[ Dr. Johns] I’ll take that on notice.
Transparency New Zealand The various member societies and branches are all separate legal entities, a representative from each branch and member society used to be on the RNZSPCA which then elected its own board. effectively SPCA Auckland has taken over the RNZSPCA which now has a very limited membership so as to keep control
as shown in the constitution of the RNZSPCA
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] If an RSPCA Queensland inspector tells an owner of an animal to pay a large sum of money in order to get their unreasonably seized animal returned, and if not paid the animal will be killed, doesn’t that sound like extortion?
I don’t know, but I’ll take it on notice.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How many animals are put down by the Queensland RSPCA in a year?
I’ll take that on notice.
Transparency New Zealand This has happened in New Zealand and Janine and Barbara have been asked for massive sums despite losing their dogs .
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that animals held by the Queensland RSPCA are given to organisations for laboratory experimental purposes?
I’ll take that on notice.
Transparency New Zealand The reports which we have had back would indicate that these dogs have been experimented on it has been very difficult to get over sight from MPI .
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Are the RSPCA Queensland and the RSPCA Australia genuine charity or nonprofit organisations and worthy of receiving Commonwealth grants?
I’ll take that on notice.
Transparency New Zealand The two top men David Broderick & Gordon Trainer have a number of development and investment companies together
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How can the Queensland RSPCA seize valuable animals from registered breeders and then on-sell them for thousands of dollars in profit for the RSPCA?
I’ll take that on notice, thank you.
Transparency New Zealand Simple you seize a dog or intimidate some one to hand them over then you sell them . pedigree dogs with papers would get a few more $$ than a beaten up Staffy with battle scars.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] How much money does the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland receive from the Commonwealth in grants?
I’ll take that on notice. I’m sure it’s on the register, but yes.
[Senator Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. No, I don’t expect you to know these. It surprised me when we found out what we found out. Not at all surprised that you’re taking them on notice, and I appreciate that. Why would anyone donate to the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland when its practises are not very charitable? Is it time for the RSPCA Australia and RSPCA Queensland to be investigated as to its offensive practises?
I’ll take all of those matters on notice, thank you.
We are fortunate in New Zealand to have good guidelines which when followed ensure the requirement of section 27 Bill of Rights but the system falls short when there is no accountability to the Rule of law and therefore we bring this to your attention in view of your review of charges for Barbara and Janine
We believe that it is timely to remind you of your obligations , specifically to two sets of guide lines
Paragraph 15 “As prosecutors, Crown Solicitors are ministers of justice and serve the public interest. Crown Solicitors must be independent and free from compromising influences or loyalties when providing services as Crown Solicitor.”
In undertaking a prosecution for an unidentifiable organisation you have demonstrated a clear disregard for the bill of rights and it would appear that you are acting against the public interest, and terms of office
paragraph 16 “Unless granted dispensation by the Solicitor-General, for a specific case or class of cases, Crown Solicitors and lawyers in the Crown Solicitor firm may not (4) act for the prosecutor in any private prosecution.
The RNZSPCA is a private prosecutor it is an incorporated society.
The name of the prosecutor was changed by you last week without any evidence from the fictional prosecutor Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland)
The actual prosecutor for which evidence can be produced is the Auckland SPCA which was dissolved earlier this year.
In my OIA which came back yesterday there is evidence that there is no such dispensation and that a group of crown solicitors have taken it upon themselves to act on a pro bono basis or sometimes for partial fees as you put it for the SPCA
Therefore it appears that crown solicitors in representing the SPCA are not just doing this against their terms of office they are also apparently acting against the law
Of great concern is that not only are you representing a private organisation , between 2 November 2018 when the charges were filed and last week 16 July 2021 , 2 years, 8 months & 14 days you represented a fictional organisation
paragraph 17 The Crown Solicitor must comply with all directions and instructions and observe guidelines issued by the Solicitor-General from time to time including, without limitation, the following:
In the introduction the attorney General states “New Zealand is fortunate to be served by a public prosecution service that is professional, open, fair and responsible.”
This is what the court relies on when a crown solicitor stands before it and there is also an expectation that the crown solicitor is working for the rule of law not against it .
As per (c) the person who filed the charging document is Kevin Plowright of the fictional Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland)
Kevin was employed by the Auckland SPCA for some 10 years you would think he would know the name of his employer
This from the constitution of the RNZSPCA 17/6/2017
This means that The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated (registration number 222889); was under the approved organisation umbrella but the fictional Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) was not .
Not only did it not have any powers under the animal welfare act it did not exist in any manner or form.
While the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) was able to file a multitude of charges and seize animals and keep two ladies under severe stress for 3 years, 11 months, 22 days from the date of the first visit , it would not have been able to have opened a bank account or obtained a 5 dollar loan so how did it come to instruct a lawyer and why did the lawyer not check the name and the legal existence of his alleged client ?
By handing this to the Crown solicitor, it effectively entered the system through the back door and by passed the scrutiny and safeguards of section 1.
One would have hoped that the registrar would have picked up the duplicate charges, the unidentified animals and most of all the false name of the prosecutor.
The file would have been assessed by a judge in 2017 and assessed whether it is an abuse of process. 3 (b)
There was never a summons issued the charge sheets were simply mailed to the Janine and Barbara after a fund raising appeal ( despite using Anita Killeen’s Pro bono service ) and after wide spread publicity that the ladies were going to be charged
Charges were finally filed in December 2018 and the ladies appeared in court right on Christmas 1 year, 2 months, 4 days after the first dogs which they were charged with were taken
As former police Prosecutor I must question that length of time. Dogs legitimately seized would have the evidence on them then why I sit necessary to charge people over a year later after search warrants , acquiring pedigree papers etc.
The animal welfare act makes it clear that under section 127 if the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal or the need for the animal to receive treatment from a veterinarian make it necessary or desirable to remove the animal from the land, premises, or place or the vehicle, aircraft, or ship.
So why were dogs taken and placed in the pound for 2 weeks before they were seen by a vet?
The charging documents themselves “except if the prosecution is a private prosecution brought by an individual, —(i)the name of the prosecuting organisation” something that does not exist cannot be an organisation
Back to the prosecution Guide lines
THE SUPERVISION OF PROSECUTIONS
It is quite clear that the prosecution has had no supervision at all . dogs were snatched the ladies publicly humiliated and vilified and then the charges were trumped up and the book thrown at them.
We know from our communications with the chief inspector of the RNZSPCA that the prosecution did not come through the RNZSPCA and it appears to be collusion between two former inspectors Kevin Plowright who left 3 July 2019 and Greg Reid Left SPCA 21 May 2019.
Kevin Plowright passed the file to Luke Radich who despite the claim in the law society law journal that
… did not scrutinize the file at all as evidenced by the glaring errors on the charge sheet alone all serious point which need to be proved and cannot be proved.
THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE
The decision to prosecute Is based on
5.1.1 The evidence which can be adduced in Court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction – the Evidential Test; and
5.1.2 Prosecution is required in the public interest – the Public Interest Test.
The decision to prosecute was driven by the need to cover up the snatch of valuable dogs . while there is a lot of verbal evidence about Faeces and urine smells there is very little if any evidence of any arm to any dogs other than the harm which was inflicted when the SPCA officer panicked one dog when they opened its enclosure with a sledge hammer .
If the prosecution had been brought a year earlier it would have been far more credible and I cannot comprehend why the interview was not about any matters which were relevant to the subsequent charges.. I thought that was very odd. And why their associates and friends all had SPCA raids and why all their former clients were contacted. This is more about destruction of reputation than about justice.
Under the evidential test there is a requirement that an individual is identifiable .. here the prosecutor was not identifiable , in the disposal proceedings it was totally undefinable until it came to pay day and Luke Ravlich must have realised that it is impossible to collect a cost award payable to a fictional organisation and then changed the name at the cost application stage .
If this was a genuine move then why not supply affidavits and a transparent method of changing the name of the prosecutor why leave it to a week before the trial ?
Unlike the disposal proceedings which were a civil prosecution and had the standard of proof “the balance of probabilities’. This is a criminal proceeding s and the standard of proof is Beyond reasonable doubt .
It is quite clear that no one has ever scrutinised this file for evidence and while most of us think faeces and wee is disgusting dogs will roll in it.
Timing is every thing and I am sure there are a lot of mums out there who have found their babies in a cot with shit all up their back , probably doesn’t happen as much with new disposables but in my days we would see massive blow outs . if some one had come along at the wrong time the headlines would have rad .. child found in poo covered cot .
This does not mean that the child is not cared for it is just a snapshot intime.
Public interest considerations for prosecution
The ladies have already had trial by press, Barbara is well over 80 , her life has been devastated by this she has endured several operations while waiting for trail and her health has deteriorated.
If we are talking cruelty to animals then the cruelty that has been inflicted on these ladies far outweighs any perceived transgression of the law .
They appear to be suffering from Post-traumatic stress due to the excessive number of SPCA raids, they have also been subjected to people coming on to the farm and interfering with the dogs , they are not a puppy mill but have been falsely portrayed as such and in the end this is all about $$$$$$
The SPCA has been less than honest , dogs were taken without proper documentation signatures were forged, the redaction was by the SPCA we do not know who signed it no one had authority to .
This should open the door for a full investigation into the ability of the RNZSPCA to hold public law enforcement powers
Consideration should be given to the Public interest considerations against prosecution
5.9.1 Where the Court is likely to impose a very small or nominal penalty;
The ladies have already been destroyed, they will never recover from this , their precious imported blood lines have gone , they have already been lumbered with massive lawyers costs and court costs , their health has deteriorated
5.9.2 Where the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by an error of judgement or a genuine mistake.
There are in essence two incidents one in October 2017 the other in May 2018 neither showed any animal with any serous health issues and no animal was taken because of health issues, and I do have to question how you asses behaviour when the dogs raised by compassionate women are confronted with a massive team of men wielding sticks
5.9.3 Where the offence is not on any test of a serious nature, and is unlikely to be repeated;
The mere fact that the RNZSPCA returned 5 dogs unlawfully taken to the ladies and they have been left to run their farm and care for the remaining dogs is evidence that they are good animal owners
5.9.4 Where there has been a long passage of time between an offence taking place and the likely date of trial such as to give rise to undue delay or an abuse of process unless:
• the offence is serious; or
No it is not having faeces and urine in a she happens all the tiem call at any SPCA
• delay has been caused in part by the defendant; or
No the delay is not caused by them it was well over a year before they were charged
• the offence has only recently come to light; or
No this does not apply
• the complexity of the offence has resulted in a lengthy investigation
Determining whether an animal is ill should not take years to investigate
Luke I will be brining this to the attention of the solicitor general as this has been a case of extreme cruelty to humans. I hope that you would not do this to your grandmother.. If you had checked he files on day one you could have saved a lot of suffering by these ladies .
In October 2018 the SPCA took 15 dogs from Janine and Barbara , these dogs were not ill these dogs were healthy and above all these dogs were champions in their breed .
Two subsequently produced pups and despite the SPCA acknowledging that they were pregnant they x rayed them
This dog was uplifted allegedly for an ear infection and being under weight her weight the day after being seized was recorded as 30 .5 kg which according to official records is slam bang in the middle of the norms 28 – 32 kg .
this is just an example of what “under weight” means
The questions we need to ask here are
why did it take a year and a half of investigation before charging the owners if the dogs were in a bad sate would that be conclusive evidence
why was it days and for many two weeks before they were seen by a vet despite the SPCA charging the owners with allowing the dog to suffer
why was the interview not about the condition of the dogs and their health and treatment ?
why were they left with the vast majority of dogs if they were not suitable to have dogs
why did the RNZSPCA return 5 dogs which were taken without documentation
why were dogs taken without documentation what act section protocol allows this
why was the surrender form for the first 5 dogs not given to its owner and why did some one forge a signature
under what lawful basis could the RNZSPCA take healthy dogs and not inform the owners why they were taken
why were they not allowed to see the dogs the pups and dogs
why could their vets not provide an independent assessment
why the discrepancy in litter numbers
and why enforce standards well beyond the code of welfare
Questions for Luke Radich of Kayes Fletcher Walker
this is a private prosecution then why do you emblazon your court documents with the word CROWN ?
and why change the name to the RNZSPCA when in reality the prosecutor was not them and we can prove that it was the Auckland SPCA and there is no evidence at all that it was the RNZSPCA again is that not misleading he court ?
why did it take nearly two years for you to correct the name and why was it not done with any proper evidence or supported by affidavits ?
why make repeated offers for a guilty plea and why drown them with 79 charges should you not have reviewed the charges and the evidence long before now ? especially in light of the evidence and the pressure that these women are being put under to plead guilty
Luke you know that your clients executed a fake search warrant you say your not relying on that but your clients who ever they are have all the evidence which the ladies collated to defend themselves .
and if you had looked through the evidence then you too would wonder how a person can be charged with
and the very first time it ( an others with similar charges ) saw a vet was 27 October should you therefore not be charging the SPCA with neglecting animal which they claim were ill ?? and also be taking them on for allowing a dog to birth in the back of a moving van ? is that condoned but having a dog on a short leash warrants its disposal ?
may I remind you of your obligations in particular 4 (a) and 4(d)
The RNZSPCA has obligations under the bill of rights
they exercised their powers under the legislation which gave them approved status
It would appear that this prosecution could be ground breaking in proving that the breach of the bill of rights would impact on its accountability to the public .. which in my interpretation of the law means compliance with the law
When the evidence is not there corrupt prosecutors tend to resort to dirty tactics and in this case it was an unlawful search warrant that took all the preparation the ladies had done for their defence not only did it leave them powerless to fight the disposal which incidentally was to the Auckland SPCA , it also meant that the corrupt SPCA could counter the points which they had observed and made notes about on their private computer in their own home
How ,as crown solicitor could you possibly sanction entry into a home with a false search warrant
And where is the dispensation from the solicitor General which you require to act in this manner are you not severely conflicted by turning a blind eye to an organisation which should comply with he law but is actively ignoring it ?
This case ,which I am sure the ladies will lose, as the corruption is so great and the playing field so un even that the cards are stacked against them . They have been totally bullied and harassed their lives have been totally destroyed and they have already had trial by press coordinated by the SPCA .
Is this prosecution really in the public interest and why have the prosecution guide lines been ignored
This is not a crown prosecution and the crown has never assumed responsibility so why are you portraying yourself to the court as the crown ?
The ladies will be totally destroyed but its not about humaneness is about dirty tactics all the way including the provision of a legal aid lawyer who has now disclosed that he is actually a member of the New Zealand Animal Law Association and is looking at abandoning his client at the 11 th hour he certainly has not done any preparation except put pressure on her to secure a guilty plea .
We need to have an outcry in New Zealand Just like the one in Australia .!
Please keep the stories rolling in the SPCA should not have coercive law enforcement powers they are abusing the ones they have and the power is now in the control of a select few . it is not the voluntary organization of old
In this podcast two guests join us to a discuss our modern-day RSPCA. What might surprise you is that this isn’t a heart-warming story.
The Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, known as the RSPCA, dates to 1871 when a public meeting was held in Victoria in response to the ill treatment of horses. The QLD RSPCA was formed in 1883. The RSPCA is a household name and many consider it a beacon of respect and care for animals.
Today, the RSPCA has capitalised on its branding of animal welfare with producers and brand owners being able to use the RSPCA logo to reflect their shared vision for animal welfare. Today we can buy RSPCA approved meat in our supermarkets. Typically, we don’t question the integrity of the claimed “animal welfare” standards as we take for granted that this iconic brand is squeaky clean.
Several QLD constituents contacted my office recently with extraordinary stories about how the RSPCA were conducting themselves. Since asking questions at Senate Estimates about the RSPCA, their methods and the legitimacy of their not-for-profit status, we’ve been flooded with more calls and emails. Their stories share many similar themes and the overall message is that there is something rotten in the state of the RSPCA.
The concerns being raised are varied.
The RSPCA’s charity status means that they are not-for-profit and enjoy a tax-free status. Looking closely at the recent annual report it shows revenue was $58 million and included in that is a $4 million Federal Govt grant. The hefty surplus of $8.7 million is what prompted Senate Estimates questions of the Commissioner for Charities and Not-For-Profits. My questions were about whether the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status? We’re waiting for that answer as no-one could provide one on the day.
The RSPCA appears to be leveraging its charity branding to become heavily commercial. I have already mentioned the RSPCA approved meat and today RSPCA pet shops are being set up in the suburbs. On the face of it there is no problem. It is when we understand how the RSPCA is conducting itself under its Inspectorate powers, that we see the problem.
The RSPCA’s Inspectorate of RSPCA QLD, has power to investigate and confiscate animals that are poorly treated. That is the heart of what we expect from them. What we don’t expect is seizure of animals based on lies. We have dozens of examples where Inspectorate officers have entered properties and confiscated with no prior notification or investigation. All this is based on an anonymous tip off that is never disclosed to the property owners. The warrants JPs sign sometimes use photographs of animals in poor conditions, which do not match the animals to be seized. This is only the beginning. Some pet owners have then seen their animals online for sale within days. This is the problem when the RSPCA have a commercial arm alongside their charitable arm when they can confiscate and sell based on misuse of powers and lies. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Many pet shop owners, registered breeders, private pet owners, animal rescuers and veterinarians have experienced the full force of the RSPCA’s misuse of power. Many have spoken out against this strong arm approach and suffered the consequences. Pet shop businesses have been sabotaged when the RSPCA advises their suppliers to blacklist them based on false accusations of animal cruelty. Veterinarians who have spoken out against this behaviour have also suffered from the RSPCA spreading false accusations regarding their standards of animal care. Business have been decimated through this belligerent behaviour.
My two guests, who both own pet stores, join us to share their experiences with the RSPCA. Their stories are confronting.
Leichelle and Nicole’s stories are extraordinary and not what we expect of a charity that is supposed to champion care and respect for animals. This unconscionable conduct is exploiting its charitable and tax-free status to create a multi-million dollar business. Its strong-arm approach is clearly outside of acceptable conduct under both the Acts.
The RSPCA have become a law unto themselves, issuing warrants based on lies, not going through due process to investigate before seizing animals, extorting money out of people for housing their stolen animals and then annihilating local private businesses through negative media and malicious lies. It’s quite a rap sheet for the warm and fuzzy RSPCA we all grew up with.
This belligerent and intimidatory behaviour must stop. Their exploitation business model must be stopped.
I am calling for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity. I urge everyone to take your complaints to the ACCC and to the Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission for investigation. Everyone who donates to the RSPCA, think again. Any RSPCA employees, past or present, are invited to call my office and share their stories.
This behaviour has gone under the radar for too long. We need to bring the RSPCA back to the animal welfare organisation it is supposed to be.
