Benoni SPCA questions lack of cruelty prosecutions over past two years

The Benoni SPCA said it has not seen any of its cases against perpetrators of animal cruelty brought before the Benoni Magistrate’s Court in over two years, and neither the police nor the court seem to be able to explain why this is so.

Benoni SPCA manager Vicky Finnemore and Brakpan SPCA manager Shiven Bodasing, previously with the Benoni SPCA, said the SPCA had built up solid cases against the perpetrators of gross neglect of and abuse against animals.

These include cases of dog-fighting, starving animals and general abuse of animals.

Among the pending cases is “the house of horrors”, in which the carcasses of 30 animals and 40 neglected animals – including spiders, snakes, hedgehogs and terrapins – were confiscated from a home in Fairleads by the Benoni SPCA in November 2016.

ALSO READ:

14 Cats removed from Brentwood Park home

Finnemore and Bodasing point out that cruelty to and abuse of animals is punishable by law.

“We have not received communication from officers of the law as to whether our cases will be moved to trial or not,” said a concerned Bodasing.

“I usually have to go back to the police stations where the complaints were laid or even to court to find out what exactly is going on with our cases.”

Finnemore added that if the cases were not viewed as trial-worthy then the minimum prerequisite by the police or prosecutors would be to inform them that the evidence put forward does not warrant a conviction.

The City Times met with December Mthimunye, the senior public prosecutor (SPP) at the Benoni Magistrate’s Court, to find out what constitutes a strong enough case for a suspect to be tried in court under the Act. The following was established:

• Prosecutors are handed cases for review after a complainant opens a case at a police station.

• The prosecutor determines, according to the merits of the case, if the suspects should be tried in court. This is at the prosecutor’s discretion, according to the evidence submitted by the complainant.

• If there is enough evidence, the case moves to trial and the investigating officer (IO) delivers a summons for a court appearance to the suspect.

• Should the case not merit a trial, it is returned to the IO, who has to inform the complainant that the case will not go to trial.

When asked what constitutes a strong case for prosecution, Mthimunye stated that each case is unique and the merit of one case cannot be compared with another.

Mthimunye stressed that the prosecutors operate independently and respect the decision of the court, no matter the outcome of the case. It is not possible that no prosecutions for animal cruelty have occurred in over two years, Mthimunye said.

When asked for statistics pertaining to successful convictions of animal cruelty or abuse cases, Mthimunye was unable to answer.

He added that the IO of a case is solely responsible for all communication between the complainant and the suspect.

Capt Nomsa Sekele, spokesperson for the Benoni, said they are aware of two cases opened by the SPCA at the Benoni SAPS.

“One is currently with the senior public prosecutor for review.

ALSO READ:

 Benoni SPCA confiscates 105 animals from breeder

“With regard to the second, the investigating officer has been to the house in question on several occasions and found it to be abandoned- so the suspects could not be be reached and this was communicated to the SPCA,” Sekele said.

She reiterated that the complainant in any case has a right to know the progress of an investigation.

“The investigating officers involved have been effectively and efficiently communicating with the SPCA regarding their complaints,” she concluded.

Inspector Nadia Hansa of the National Council of SPCA’s Special Investigations Unit said although animal cruelty is not listed as a schedule one offence (offences such as rape and murder) in South Africa, internationally, animal cruelty is recognised as a precursor to other violent crimes.

Hansa categorised abuse as active-passive abuse and active abuse.

She said active abuse is seen in a more serious light in terms of the Act.

“When the abuse is active it is considered the perpetrators enjoy watching the animal suffer.

“Take dog-fighting, for example. It is organised and premeditated and the perpetrator more often than not enjoys seeing the animal being abused.

“Bestiality (the act of intercourse with an animal) is certainly linked to sexual offences such as rape, and in that regard, can be seen as linked to a schedule one offence.”

Hansa added that while the Act is sound in terms of what constitutes animal abuse and cruelty, it may need to be revised to provide for harsher sentences to be handed down to perpetrators.

Bodasing added: “Put simply, the requirement for a crime to be a schedule one is that the punishment must be imprisonment exceeding six months without the option of a fine. Therefore, animal cruelty is punishable to a period exceeding 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine. Bearing in mind that this has since been adjusted in accordance to the Adjustment of Fines Act no. 101 of 1991, the term of imprisonment is now 36 months or a fine of R60 000.”

Follow us on these platforms:

Like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter.

For news straight to your phone invite us:
WhatsApp: 079 431 1217
Instagram: benonicitytimes.co.za

For more #hyperlocal news at your fingertips, visit Boksburg Advertiser, Springs Advertiser, Brakpan Herald, African Reporter and Kathorus Mail.