the heifer's pen was buried deep in the mud -
there was a dead rat floating in a small amount
of water at the bottom.
The ponies had no shelter other than that
provided by a sparse hedgerow. There was no
grazing available in the field and no evidence
of hay being provided. The field was also full
of potential hazards such as bricks and wire.
One pony had an obvious disfigurement to
its left hind leg, which the man stated was
an injury it had had as a foal. He said that a
vet had assessed the foal at the time and had
recommended euthanasia, however he said
he had disagreed with the vet and had treated
the pony himself.
An independent vet confirmed the animals
were suffering or likely to suffer. The RSPCA
offered to find new homes for some of the
animals, but the owner refused. Police seized
the animals and passed them into RSPCA care
- at a cost of £110,000 to the Society.
Treatment and recovery
The vast majority of the dogs required dental
treatment and some were struggling to eat as
a result of dental disease. Some had mammary
Investigating officer:
RSPCA Inspector Sandy Pawlowski
Defendant:
Male 74, retired
Offences:
Animal Welfare Act 2006 s4 and s9
Pleas:
Guilty
Total convictions:
Six
Sentence:
Disqualified from keeping animals and birds
for life; 14 weeks' imprisonment suspended
for one year; deprivation order in relation
to additional animals acquired; £1,200 costs.
Prosecuted by:
Harris Cuffaro & Nichols Solicitors
Dogs were found in cramped cages.
tumours, which needed to be removed. Many
of the dogs had skin conditions and fur loss. In
most cases the hair has fully grown back.
The dogs were all very nervous, some
completely incapable of moving because they
were so fearful. Inspector Pawlowski remarked:
"The turnaround in these dogs' behaviour has
been remarkable, many are learning to walk on
a lead and to play. One dog received special
training because he was so scared he couldn't
do anything but cower and shake, but will now
approach and wag his tail."
In denial
The man seemed unable to refuse taking
on more and more animals. He appeared
to believe that he was "rescuing" them and
"saving them from being put to sleep". He had
continued to assert that there was nothing
wrong with them. He also claimed they had
all been seen by a vet, something that later
proved to be untrue.
The defendant had gone on to acquire in the
region of 30 additional animals before the case
had concluded. The court made a deprivation
order in respect of the newly acquired animals.
45