Lord of the Flies
We wish to tell you of the acquittal of our client at Peterborough Magistrates Court after a 2 day trial.
The Prosecution of our client by the RSPCA despite taking her much loved family pet to the vets, has raised some concerns at Nigel Weller and Co.
The Prosecution involved our clients much loved dog, leaving her property and suffering a terrible injury. The dog returned to our clients care, whereby the injury was seen, bandaged, medication provided and taken to the vets. All of the above is the correct procedure for any dog owner to take. At the vets our client did not have a direct consultation with a veterinary surgeon, and was asked to leave her dog at the vets. Later our client made the tough decision to put her beloved dog to sleep.
Our client was very sad at the loss of her dog, but thought no more of it, until the attendance of an RSPCA Inspector at her property. Our client was interviewed and gave a full account of her actions and what was said and done at the veterinary surgery, our client from the outset denied what was written in the Clinical notes. Prior to our client having an interview the RSPCA (without our clients consent) had attend the crematorium where our clients dog was being kept, removed the dog and sent it for post mortem. it raises serious questions of the Crematorium and the actions of the RSPCA. Quite remarkably, given our clients very clear answers in interview, the RSPCA decided to prosecute.
At the trial, expert evidence was called by the Prosecution and by the Defence. Our Client gave a clear and credible account whilst giving evidence at Court. large parts of the veterinary evidence centered on the lack of flies in the wound or stomach of our clients dog. The RSPCA's case was that the dog must have been kept indoors or that a bandage had been applied in the days leading up to the dog being taken to the vets. That our client must have been aware of the injury to the dog. The Defence submission was that their were plenty of other reasons why there might not have been flies present, which unsurprisingly were not contained within the Prosecutions experts statement. Importantly nobody from the veterinary practice was called to give evidence, a significant oversight by the Prosecution.
The District Judge heard all the evidence, and without retiring to consider a verdict, launched straight into his decision. The District Judge remarked that he was surprised that nobody from the veterinary surgery had been called to give evidence, that the prosecution had not presented any evidence in relation to the second charge our client faced and that the Judge had doubts regarding what was actually being said and done at the veterinary surgery. Owing to these doubts, the Judge rightly acquitted our client.