Archive for December, 2014

RSPCA WA Travesty at law, killing innocent animals.

December 24, 2014

To the Magistrates Court, the Minister in charge of Animal welfare and Mr. Robert Delaine CEO of the Department of Agriculture.


I bring to your attention the law and guidelines found in the animal welfare act of 2002 WA, and make note that every section listed has been breached in the case of Mrs Marianna May, with the knowledge of the CEO of DAFWA.


From a common-law perspective the case in question has ventured so far from the legislative requirements and the concept of Natural justice, it fails in every respect to be considered a legal interaction at law.


  1. Inspectors empowered under the Animal welfare Act of 2002, acting for DAFWA under the provisions “used for the purposes of the department” attended and removed one animal from Mrs May sighting health issues.
  2. The Inspectors at the time, gave directions to Mrs May, but did not go as far as making official orders as required by the ACT (Animal welfare Act 2002)
  3. Mrs May took all steps necessary to comply with those (unofficial) orders.
  4. The Inspectors did not seek an urgent warrant, yet attended with a general warrant approximately 1 week later. (Undermining any urgency in this matter)
  5. The Inspectors did not serve the warrant on Mrs May as is expected at law, returning at a later date to serve the warrant.
  6. The warrant served was for an alternate address to the property at which they seized most of Mrs May’s animals.
  7. 139 animals were seized; most of the animals were in good health and were rescued animals, those with existing health issues were under veterinarian care, all the animals had shelter, food and water as required under the Act.
  8. The Inspectors at the time refused to take advice from Mrs May or her Veterinarians as to ongoing treatment of some of the animals, resulting in the deaths of many.
  9. Under the legislation, animals seized must be returned after 4 months if no valid charges have been paid against the owner, Mrs May.
  10. On the last day, a prosecution notice was lodged in the Magistrates court, but it was not a valid prosecution notice.
  11. The lodgements not only breached procedural and prosecution guidelines, not only was it in disarray, the name of the complainant was the RSPCA WA, who has no right at law to start a private prosecution under Western Australian law.
  12. The Inspector who filed the notices on behalf of the RSPCA not only ignored the procedural guidelines, he was fired by the RSPCA shortly after, for questioning their actions.
  13. From that date onward the animals were being kept illegally, and ought to have been returned to their owner, as expected under the Act.
  14. Making matters worse, the Inspectors handed the animals over into the care of the RSPCA on behalf of the minister, who did not care for the animals in a manner expected under the Act, resulting in many of the animals dying and others becoming sick.
  15. The Inspectors ought to have taken action against the RSPCA as is their mandate as inspectors doing the work of the Department of Agriculture.
  16. Freedom of information clearly shows the CEO was not only aware of these facts, but that he was already questioning the RSPCA and his Inspectors over these issues.
  17. By this stage the RSPCA WA were demanding costs from Mrs May exceeding $50,000 per month, even though they were holding the animals illegally.
  18. I make note at this stage the RSPCA had refused advice from the CEO, which expects Inspectors to lodge an application for forfeiture of the animals to the crown under the Act, I put to the court, that this was because the RSPCA had no right to do so at law.
  19. The invalid prosecution notice was not dropped until around January 2014, some 14 months after the seizure of the animals, at which time the animals had still not been returned to their rightful owner.
  20. New charges were laid by the then Chief Inspector, Amanda Swift, but again these charges were again invalid as they had not complied with the prosecution and procedural guidelines expected of employees of the DAFWA.
  21. The new charges also did not have the permission of the state solicitor’s office.
  22. The new charges related to only 14 animals, that were not in perfect health, their condition at this stage could not be due to the actions of Mrs may, and even if they were sick from the day of seizure, the animals were rescues and under appropriate veterinarian care.
  23. The RSPCA WA shelter mate records appear to be in disarray, making identification impossible.
  24. I will skip to the present situation, most of the animals are now dead, all charges have been dropped by way of a private treaty between the RSPCA, the current Chief Inspector and Mrs may, a treaty which Mrs May believes she has been tricked into signing, of the 139 animals seized, only 42 are currently healthy enough to leave the RSPCA supposed care (this figure includes animals born after seizure), and according to official records, up to 21 animals may not even be Mrs Mays.
  25. Mrs May has had to borrow in excess of $200,000 during this travesty at law to fund legal representation denying her natural Justice, and the RSPCA are purported to have wasted over $1.6 million dollars of tax payer funds and or public donations, breaching their contractual obligations to the State.



The community expectations would be that both the Minister and the CEO of DAFWA would uphold not only community values in relation to animal welfare concerns, but also those hard fought legislative reforms brought in to protect both the animals and those who care for them, here are a few reminders;


  1. The RSPCA have no powers of prosecution in WA at law.
  2. Inspectors awarded powers under the Animal Welfare Act are people “employed” in the general sense of “Using the services of” by DAFWA (
  3. Those Inspectors in this capacity MUST follow DAFWA’s policy and procedural guidelines.
  4. Inspectors under the Act MUST also have the approval of the solicitor general before they can file a prosecution in any Western Australian court.
  5. Animals seized under the Act are held on behalf of the crown, so are therefore under the protection of the minister.
  6. Inspectors awarded powers under the Act, MUST prohibit cruelty to, and other inhumane or improper treatment of, animals.
  7. The Animal welfare Act 2002 WA is written to reflect the community’s expectation that people who are in charge of animals will ensure that they are properly treated and cared for.
  8. The terms of appointment of a general inspector are to be determined by the CEO and set out in the instrument of appointment. (S33(3)
  9. An inspector who seizes an animal is to ensure that it is properly treated and cared for (S 42)
  10. If a body corporate commits an offence under this Act every person who was an officer of the body or establishment at the time the offence was committed, also commits the offence. (S80)
  11. The CEO may take such action as the CEO considers appropriate generally to protect and promote the welfare, safety and health of animals. (S89)




  • Even though the RSPCA have no right to file any prosecution notices in the Western Australian courts, they have been, even though both the minister and the CEO are aware of these illegal actions, over 50 past prosecutions appear to have been invalid as a result.
  • Inspectors empowered under the Animal welfare Act, do not have the ability to initiate prosecutions without the approval of the solicitor general, but the Minister and the CEO have allowed this to happen.
  • Inspectors empowered under the Act that are employed by the RSPCA, by way of their powers act on behalf of DAFWA, not the RSPCA, therefore MUST follow prosecution and procedural guidelines.
  • Inspectors acting for the CEO, MUST ensure they protect and promote the welfare, safety and health of animals, and this has not been the case.





The Minister is in charge of the Act, the CEO is an arm of the minister, I would like to bring to attention a massive injustice that has resulted by the actions/inactions of the Ceo, Mr. Robert Delaine, and call on the Minister to make amends as is his responsibility to his electorate.


There have been several breaches of every aspect of the animal welfare act by Inspectors, the CEO, and the RSPCA in WA.


Marianna May worked with local veterinarians to rescue injured, abused and feral animals under the watch of the local government, who are also empowered under the Act without cause for concern.


General Inspectors under the animal welfare act, attended Mrs Mays property in or about December 17tn 2012 and seized one Rabbit they believed to be injured, asking Mrs May to make changes to the way animals were kept on her property.


The Rabbit which ought to have been returned at law, has not been, even though the return has been questioned by the CEO.


Mrs May complied with the Inspectors directions at all times, actions that would not have supported the issue of charges under the Act.


The Inspectors returned days later under a general warrant, (addressed for the wrong property).


The Inspectors did not apply for an urgent warrant, so therefore did not believe the animals were in danger.


The Inspectors then seized every animal on site, amounting to 139 animals, including birds, rabbits, cats, ducks and a dog, even though most were in good health and were being provided with food, shelter, water and veterinary support as required under the act, and sick animals were under the treatment of professional veterinarians.


The person that signed the warrant and the seizure notices may not have been an inspector appointed under the Act.


Under the Act, animals are to be returned unless valid charges are laid within 4 months; no such charges were brought to bear by an inspector with in those time limits.


The animals were not returned to their rescuer, who at law was and remains the right full owner.


The RSPCA filed charges against Mrs May in the last hour, with no valid right at law to so file a prosecution under WA law.


The Inspectors, who seized the animals, handed them over into the care of the RSPCA.


The Inspectors were aware that the RSPCA did not provide adequate care for the animals held on behalf of the Crown, the CEO also questioned the killing of animals as the RSPCA shelter mate records did not confirm to provide any reasons at law for their euthanasia.


Animals born into captivity and those animals caged for near two years is an offence under the Act, animals killed in the care of the RSPCA have already been questioned by the department, yet no action was taken to ensure the best interests of those that remained, and no charges have been laid against the RSPCA by the departments general inspectors.


The CEO became aware of all of these facts in or about March 2013.


(The CEO did not intervene, he did not stop the invalid prosecution, he did not demand his inspectors adhered to the law, he did not demand his inspectors ensure the best interests of the animals through adherence to the departments procedural and prosecution guidelines)


The Inspectors did not file charges against Mrs May in time, they did not apply for forfeiture in a timely manner and they did not adhere to the department’s policy and procedural guidelines.


In or about February 2013 the RSPCA dropped their charges against Mrs May, and new charges were laid by Inspector Swift, who was not the organiser of the initial seizure, these charges were reduced from 139 to 16, and applied only to animals not in perfect health as a result of their rescue, not the actions of Mrs May.


Inspector Swift also refused to adhere to the department’s policy and procedural guidelines rendering the second prosecution invalid at law.


Inspector swift then filed for forfeiture in or around July 2013, after the state administration tribunal had demanded she did not take such an action in the States Magistrates court.


The animals held by the RSPCA were not held in accordance with section 42, and the Inspectors did not protect them as required under the Act


Only 42 animals were in any state to be released after charges against Mrs May were dropped and of those up to 21 do not appear by shelter mate records to be animals originally seized from Mrs May, questioning their ability to care for animals on behalf of the Minister.


Mrs May has endured direct legal costs of well over $200,000 as a result, denying her Natural Justice under common law.


The RSPCA WA has incurred costs of around $1.6 million dollars, and abuse of the contractual obligations with DAFWA.


The RSPCA have now entered into a private partnership with officers employed by the crown to drop all charges against Mrs May in return for her silence.


The Inspector “Chief Inspector Swift” has made it clear in the State Administration Tribunal that she is unable to guarantee the lives of any of the illegally held animals, even though several reputable Perth No Kill shelters have offered to take any remaining animals if so required.


The CEO and the minister are responsible for this debacle, the lives of the animals and the damages to Mrs may.


The Inspectors involved have breached the department’s guidelines and the RSPCA have breached the law and the fundamental ideals found in the animal welfare Act and ought to be charged with cruelty offences.


Mrs May has every right to expect natural justice in all things, which will require the urgent and long overdue intervention of the minister.


Mark Aldridge


Animal Welfare Advocate.


08 82847482 / 0403379500


DO THE RSPCA actually care for animals?

December 11, 2014

RSPCA do they care for animalsMarianna May V RSPCA WA Brief overview

“Question for all the RSPCA board members”

  1. Marianna May had been taking in stray, sick and injured animals for over a decade, vet receipts alone indicate that she had invested tens of thousands of her own money in their proper treatment and rehabilitation.
  2. The RSPCA visited and found only 1 sick animal on their first visit, none of the animals were sick as a result of Marianna’s actions
  3. The RSPCA returned around 1 week later and seized all of her animals, most were healthy and those that were not were under vet care.
  4. The RSPCA then released media statements saying they were over stocked, in other words they did not have the facility’s to take this many animals. (over their quota)
  5. The Inspector in charge of the raid did not have a correct warrant for the property and also had refused to adhere to the states “Procedural and prosecution guidelines”.
  6. No notices were given, no instructions to lower the number of animals or seek vet treatment or any of the procedural guidelines were applied.
  7. The treating vets (of Marianna’s seized animals) contacted the RSPCA as the animals medications were not taken on the day of the raid, the RSPCA refused to speak with the vets and or allow them to check up on their patients.
  8. Shelter records make clear some of these animals suffered as a result.
  9. The State Administration tribunal all but ordered the return of the animals, because charges had not been pressed in time, the RSPCA then pressed hurried charges that were not only improper, but were also in the name of the RSPCA, which is not allowed under WA law.
  10. The Department of Agriculture (DAFWA) questioned the RSPCA and inspector Amanda Swifts actions, they were not happy with the standard of the prosecution, the ignorance of procedural guidelines and the reasoning behind the destruction of healthy animals belonging to Mrs. May.
  11. The prosecution however was allowed to proceed, even though it was invalid at law, Mrs May as a consequence spent tens of thousands of borrowed money fighting the charges.
  12. DAFWA had questioned why a forfeiture application had not been made; the RSPCA also chose to ignore this question.
  13. After 14 months, the animals had not been returned to Mrs May, many had been killed and the RSPCA had not advised Mrs May as required under the Animal welfare Act 2002.
  14. The RSPCA WA were by now demanding damages in the vicinity of $800,000, it was in or about March 2013 15 months later, that the original charges were dropped, and new charges were laid.
  15. The new charges were in the name of Amanda Swift in line with the legislation, but again ignored DAFWA policy in regards to “Prosecution and procedural guidelines, and neither of the prosecutions went before the state solicitor’s office for scrutiny, as required at law.
  16. By mid-2014 the cost to the RSPCA of this debacle had reached around $1.2 to 1.6 million dollars, the costs to Mrs May of a financial manner had exceeded $200,000 which will result in the loss of a home.
  17. In or about July 2014 the RSPCA filed a civil matter for forfeiture of the animals, something that ought to have been done within a couple of months from the seizure.
  18. In or about November 2014 (2 years after the first raid) the RSPCA WA entered into an agreement with Mrs May to drop all charges and costs in return for both her silence and the release of the animals into a shelter environment.
  19. This agreement which is also without legal foundation included the usual clause for Mays silence, and for independent vet checks to access the condition of the animals.
  20. During these negotiations (Terms of the agreement) several no kill shelters offered to take and rehabilitate Mrs Mays animals, the RSPCA refused the inclusion of any shelters except for “Cat Haven”.
  21. Cat Haven are unable to take that many animals, and Mrs May being aware of this fact, is refusing to comply with the contract, as she at all times believed the animals would end up in safe hands, you see, her only wish is to ensure the safety of the animals, that without her intervention would have died years ago. (I would have thought the RSPCA WA would back her position)
  22. The Vets have confirmed two things that undermine the RSPCA’s actions even further, that several of the animals are so sick they are suffering, and ought to have already been put down, several born in custody of the RSPCA have adverse behavioural issues, and FOI documents from DAFWA make clear healthy animals have also been killed, making Mrs Mays past actions more acceptable than those of the RSPCA WA throughout this ordeal from the stand point of genuine animal welfare.
  23. I write to ask this simple question, why can’t the animals be released into safe homes, when a case like this has been allowed to proceed at such a huge expense to the community, when the only driver for Mrs May is the safe release of the animals?
  24. Mrs Mays only mistake was loving animals, maybe in your eyes too many, Mrs Mays only driver is their safe release, and she has paid a huge cost to try and save them, so why are the RSPCA against their future safety?

Mark Aldridge, Community advocate and animal lover.