The latest in the Feeding Frenzy vs SPCA saga

This, according to the letter, was done based on procedural grounds.

The SPCA’s legal representative, Carla Klaasen, has challenged parts of the letter released by the prosecutor. Referring to the letter, Klaasen provided the following:

1. The District Court prosecutor does not dispute the validity of the warrant granted by the magistrate on February 12, 2020.
2. The warrant authorised the SPCA to “seize such animals and take into your (the society’s) custody if it is reasonably necessary to prevent cruelty to or suffering of such animals”.
3. The warrant further authorises the society to deal with such animals according to the law.

ALSO READ: FNB helps elderly customers to register electronically for vaccination

She then referred to the Animal Protection Act: Regulation 468, issued in terms of section 10(1)(b) of Act 71 of 1962, that specifically deals with the seizure of animals by an officer of the society.

4. In terms of the aforesaid regulation the society:

4.1. May if authorised thereto in writing under the hand of the magistrate of a district, in that district, if it appears that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an animal found in that district needs immediate care or if it is reasonably necessary to prevent cruelty to or suffering of such an animal, seize such animal and take it into the custody of the society (Section 2(1)).

4.2. Must report such seizure within 24 hours to a police officer on duty at the police station situated nearest to where the animal was found (Section 2(2)).

ALSO READ: MEC for education tables budget speech

4.3. Must, if the animal is NOT seized in terms of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, and the name and address of the owner of the animals are known to the society, forthwith give notice of the seizure to the owner in the manner best suited under the circumstances (Section 3(1)(a)).

4.4. Shall, when an animal taken into the custody of the society has not been claimed within seven days of the notice to the owner, deal with the animal in its discretion; provided that the society may destroy the animal, irrespective of the condition of the animal, if the animal cannot be disposed of otherwise.

Klaasen continued, stating that it was their instruction that the society had complied with all of the above requirements, in that:

“The society seized the animals in terms of a valid warrant authorised by Magistrate Van der Merwe on February 12 last year, the validity of which was confirmed by the District Court prosecutor.

“The society reported the seizure on February 13, 2020, at 19:50 at the Nelspruit SAPS, reference number: OB1606.

“As the animals were not seized in terms of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, and the name and address of the owner was known to the society, a seizure notice was delivered to the owner on February 13, 2020.

ALSO READ: Elize’s fight against stage 4 cancer sadly ends

“The owner of the animals did not claim the animals within seven days of delivery of the seizure notice and the society, accordingly, dealt with the animals in their discretion.

“The society is still considering their options regarding the criminal charges that were withdrawn against the owner on April 22, 2021.”

Barnard’s lawyer, Jaice Terblance, had not responded to Lowvelder‘s queries for Feeding Frenzy’s comment.