By Catherine Baksi 4 November 2021
specialist law firm and animal rights charity may have been engaged in 'systemic fraud' and 'perverting the course of justice', by bringing abusive and unfounded private prosecutions, a judge has said.
The honorary recorder of Manchester, Judge Nicholas Dean QC, this week stayed proceedings against Alex-Kaye Carrigan and Elisha Brown, who were separately charged with unlawfully selling pets, stating that the prosecutions were an abuse of the court’s process.
In a damning ruling, the judge said the prosecutions brought by the charity Animal Protection Services (APS) and Liverpool law firm Parry & Welch, had been brought and pursued 'with no evidential basis' and 'for wholly improper reasons and purposes'. The charity and law firm had used a 'perverse interpretation' of the law to bring charges in cases where 'no one could properly conclude that there were realistic prospects for conviction'.
The decisions to charge Carrigan and Brown, said the judge, 'were profoundly flawed, so flawed that it requires me to consider why the decisions were taken'.
Sitting at Manchester Crown Court, Judge Dean concluded that the prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants 'regardless' of whether they had committed any offence, and to recover 'grossly exaggerated' fees.
The judge said that the evidence in both cases consisted of 'near identical' two-page witness statements made by an employee of APS, which he said 'must have been copied and pasted from other statements', and short documentary exhibits downloaded from the internet.
Parry & Welch claimed £12,769 costs for the two cases from central funds. Their costs schedule included £502.50 for a two-hour review of one case, and £290 for a one-hour conference between the solicitor and witness. Judge Dean branded the costs schedules 'works of almost pure fiction'.
The court heard that the charity has brought between 80 and 100 private prosecutions this year alleging similar offences, and that many of the cases had been conducted by Parry & Welch. Most had remained in the magistrate’s court where the judge said defendants, some without legal representation, may have pleaded guilty.
Where defendants elected trial in the Crown court, Parry & Welch were instructed to withdraw proceedings.
In the cases of Carrigan and Brown, Judge Dean declined to allow the prosecutions to be withdrawn. He said the withdrawal of proceedings in the Crown court 'provides clear evidence' that the proceedings were brought for 'improper motives'.
The judge said the charity and firm sought to withdraw the prosecutions 'to try to achieve swift recovery of fees' and to 'avoid judicial scrutiny of their decisions and actions'.
He accused APS and Parry & Welch of 'serious misconduct', which he said was an 'affront to the conscience of the criminal justice system'.
The judge referred an earlier ruling in which a judge at Preston Crown Court had stayed a prosecution brought by APS, using a different law firm, due to the 'improper financial motive' for bring the case. 'The concern I have is that APS, sometimes in conjunction with Messrs. Parry and Welch, may have been involved in systematic fraud and in perverting the course of public justice.'
He said individuals may have pleaded guilty to offences as a consequence of being misled by APS and Parry & Welch, or due a lack of scrutiny of their actions.
Issues raised in the cases required 'a full and holistic investigation'. The judge said he would be sending his ruling to the attorney general, Greater Manchester Police, the Charities Commission and to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
James Parry, a partner at Parry & Welch declined to comment.
Jacob Lloyd, director of APS, told the Gazette that the charity 'strongly denies any allegation that it has been involved in a fraud' and is considering an appeal. Lloyd said the charity is also considering a civil claim against Parry & Welch.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/charitys-private-prosecution-perverting-the-course-of-public-justice/5110429.article
Criminal past of shamed charity boss.
Catherine Baksi | Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor
Wednesday November 10 2021, 12.01am, The Times
Lawyers involved in a case brought in September claimed that the charity and its lawyers have made hundreds of thousands of pounds from public funds by bringing private prosecutions against animal breede
The head of an animal charity that was lambasted by a judge for bringing unfair private prosecutions changed his name after being convicted of a criminal offence, The Times can reveal.
Lawyers involved in a case brought in September by Animal Protection Services, which is run by Jacob Lloyd, claimed that the charity and its lawyers, Parry & Welch, have made hundreds of thousands of pounds from public funds by bringing private prosecutions against animal breeders.
That case collapsed after lawyers for the defendant convinced the judge that the private prosecution was “an affront to the criminal justice system”.
It preceded a ruling last week at Manchester crown court, where Judge Nicholas Dean QC accused the charity and Parry & Welch, known as Paws, of pursuing a private prosecution that had “no evidential basis” and for “wholly improper reasons”.
Lloyd and James Parry, a partner at Paws, have denied any wrongdoing.
Lloyd has acknowledged that he changed his name from Jake Knight after being convicted. He said that he did not do so as a result of the conviction, but “for my own reasons”.
Lloyd said the conviction related to “rescuing animals years ago”.
This article was amended on November 11, 2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/criminal-past-shamed-charity-boss-t7ctk97xf
Related articles
Judge attacks animal charity for pursuing pet cruelty charges
Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor | Catherine Baksi
Claws out for private prosecutionsThe ‘misconduct’ of Animal Protection Services has led to calls for protection
Catherine Baksi
Thursday November 25 2021, 12.01am, The Times
Last year the RSPCA secured 633 convictions involving 320 people, with a conviction rate of 90 per cent
Last year a Commons committee told government ministers that more effective safeguards were needed to ensure the fairness of private prosecutions.
Experts now say that a failure to heed that warning has allowed individuals and organisations — driven by private interests — to continue misusing the right to bring private prosecutions, wasting taxpayers’ money and causing distress to those charged in the process.
This month, a judge at Manchester crown court ruled that scores of dog owners and breeders may have after being unfairly prosecuted by the charity Animal Protection Services (APS) and its law firm Parry & Welch Solicitors.
Judge Nicholas Dean QC said that the firm and charity may have fraudulently received taxpayers’ money to bring private prosecutions in up to 100 cases over the past year. The judge concluded that the prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants “regardless” of whether they had committed any offence and to recover “grossly exaggerated” fees.
He suggested that Jacob Lloyd, the “prominent animal rights activist” and the director of APS, was on a “personal crusade” and that the law firm “closely identify in their outlook” with the charity’s objectives.
ADVERTISEMENT
Referring the case to the attorney-general, police, Charity Commission and Solicitors Regulation Authority for further investigation of the “egregious misconduct”, Dean said that the two “may have been involved in systematic fraud and in perverting the course of public justice”.
APS and Parry & Welch denied any wrongdoing. APS told The Times that it was considering an appeal, while the law firm declined to comment further.
In the wake of the Post Office’s wrongful prosecution for fraud of hundreds of sub-postmasters, MPs on the justice committee said that private prosecutions should be subject to the same standards as public prosecutions.
Accepting that private prosecutions play an important role, particularly given the funding constraints on the police and prosecution agencies, the committee said that concerns over prosecutions brought by the Post Office and the RSPCA suggest that “it is not sufficient to rely on the courts alone to identify and remedy problematic prosecutorial practices”.
To avoid the development of a parallel system where the public interest, accountability and transparency are secondary to private interests, the committee’s report called for a binding code of standards, enforced by a regulator. It recommended that all defendants against whom private prosecutions are brought should be notified by the court of their right to have cases reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
The report also recommended that organisations that conduct frequent private prosecutions should be subject to inspections. Where one is found to be misusing the power, the right ought to be removed, or consent from the attorney-general or the director of public prosecutions must be granted before initiating cases.
In March the government agreed to review the funding arrangements for private prosecutions and to establish a central register to keep track of all those brought in England and Wales. But so far no changes have been implemented and, although there is evidence that the number of private prosecutions is growing, there is no reliable data recording the volume of cases.
Sir Bob Neill, the chairman of the justice committee, says that the APS cases “reinforce the need for stronger safeguards to prevent the abuse of private prosecutions” and that the government must implement the recommendations suggested last year.
Carrie Gilgun, a partner at Forbes Solicitors in Preston who acted for defendants prosecuted by APS, says that private prosecutors should have to satisfy the same evidential and public interest tests as the CPS to prevent cases without merit going to court. She blames magistrates for not sufficiently scrutinising applications before allowing cases to proceed and says that in a single day one magistrates’ court issued summonses for nearly 30 cases.
Christopher Howitt, a barrister at Three Stone, agrees that more protections are needed. “One problem with private prosecutions is that judicial scrutiny doesn’t kick in until the crown court, so you could technically have someone trying to take a punt in the magistrates’ court.”
Howitt says that, in principle, the high cost of bringing private prosecutions guards against “cowboys and opportunists”. Gilgun, however, argues that the fact that a private prosecutor can benefit financially by bringing a case to court, regardless of its merits, increases the risk of fraud.
The RSPCA has brought prosecutions since 1824, and criticism of its conduct was raised in 2014 in the Wooler report and two years later by the environment, food and rural affairs committee for its failure fully to implement the earlier recommendations.
Last year the RSPCA secured 633 convictions involving 320 people, with a conviction rate of 90 per cent. John Goodwin of Cohen Cramer Solicitors says that there should be greater regulation of the charity’s prosecutions, which he argues result in too many animal owners being criminalised.
At its own request, the RSPCA is discussing a transfer of its role as a prosecutor with the attorney-general’s office and the CPS. Although the charity continues to prosecute cases based on animal welfare legislation.
In 2019 the Private Prosecutors’ Association produced a voluntary code of practice. Its chairwoman, Annabel Kerley, a chartered accountant and a partner at StoneTurn, says that curtailing the right to bring private prosecutions would reduce the “ability of victims to access justice and potentially send the wrong message to would-be criminals”.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “We will consider this judgment and have already accepted recommendations to limit the costs private prosecutors can recover.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/claws-out-for-private-prosecutions-smdnnwh3l?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_121&utm_medium=email&utm_content=121_16350819&CMP=TNLEmail_6186412_16350819_121
All Rights Reserved Forum for Animal welfare Information and Reform