The dangers of one SPCA

The SPCA  is  voting on the One SPCA concept this week this is their power point

One SPCA Regional Meetings Master All Centres

Neil Wells has worked  hard over the years to change the structure of the  SPCA ,

in  a job application he proudly states

Undertaking a constitutional reform of the SPCA as National President of the Royal New Zealand SPCA by drawing 45 independent SPCAs into a national society, and as National Director by establishing the first National Office in Auckland.

this was just prior to  drafting the animal welfare act and in the act provided only for  the RNZSPCA to have  the ability to   employ inspectors . His intent appeared to be  that he would be training the inspectors  and  thus have control over enforcement and provide himself with $$$$ .

That was phase one  they are now  working on Phase 2

Over the past few years he has been   amalgamating  SPCAs and when he became chair man of te Kuiti  he set about changing the name of the  SPCA  see  The significance of a name change Te Kuiti RNZSPCA or King Country SPCA.

Central King Country SPCA and the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA fact or fiction

Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA committee resigns

In the brief time that Wells was chairman of the Te Kuiti SPCA he purchased a building . this property has now been sold  at an apparent loss .

the interesting thing is that  he purchased it from his neighbours  Wells lives at 1308  and the previous owners of the building live at 1338 

 

see title documents here Comprehensive Title and Transaction Report

The previous owners were  Sstjnr Limited  owned by Steven Henry RICKARDS and Sarah Edith RICKARDS 

We have to question how it was sold as the local  Te Kuiti branch appears not  to have had any involvement. No meeting of the members was called when the chair walked out , the  RNZSPCA simply walked in and took over

Why is it so dangerous for  the spca  to have control.

Look at the legislation which Neil wells advised on and drafted.

the concern of  the  attorney general  with the  first bill was that it infringed on the bill of rights see here 

the  new legislation  now states

13Strict liability

(1)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.

(1A)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12 committed after the commencement of this subsection, evidence that a relevant code of welfare was in existence at the time of the alleged offence and that a relevant minimum standard established by that code was not complied with is rebuttable evidence that the person charged with the offence failed to comply with, or contravened, the provision of this Act to which the offence relates.

(2)Subject to subsection (3), it is a defence in any prosecution for an offence against section 12 if the defendant proves—

(a)that, in relation to the animal to which the prosecution relates, the defendant took,—

(i)in the case of an offence against section 12(a), all reasonable steps to comply with section 10; or

(ii)in the case of an offence against section 12(b), all reasonable steps to comply with section 11; or

(iii)in the case of an offence against section 12(c), all reasonable steps not to commit a breach of section 12(c); or

(b)that the act or omission constituting the offence took place in circumstances of stress or emergency, and was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life; or

(c)that there was in existence at the time of the alleged offence a relevant code of welfare and that the minimum standards established by the code of welfare were in all respects equalled or exceeded.

(3)Except with the leave of the court, subsection (2) does not apply unless, within 7 days after the service of the summons, or within such further time as the court may allow, the defendant has delivered to the prosecutor a written notice—

(a)stating that the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2); and

(b)specifying—

(i)where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(a), the reasonable steps that the defendant will claim to have taken; or

(ii)where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(b), the circumstances of stress or emergency, and the reasons why the act or omission was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life; or

(iii)where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(c), the relevant code of welfare that was in existence at the time of the alleged offence, and the facts that show that the minimum standards established by that code of welfare were in all respects equalled or exceeded.

Section 13(1A): inserted, on 19 December 2002, by section 4 of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 53).

This means  that an inspector can make   allegations based on their opinion   and   unless you  file a defence within 7 days  you   are  guilty  

No other legislation in New Zealand has such a draconian   provision  ,  this is legislation written   to  provide $$$$$$$$

 

 

Leave a Reply