Skip to main content

Farming couple guilty of one of four animal cruelty charges

A FARMING couple were acquitted of three joint charges under the animal welfare legislation, but found guilty of a fourth.

(Picture by Sophie Rabey, 29051304)
(Picture by Sophie Rabey, 29051304) / Guernsey Press

Ben, 43, and Hannah Wallace, 39, of La Port, La Grande Lande, St Saviour’s, had denied them all.

The Magistrate’s Court had heard how a man living near a St Andrew’s field used by the Wallaces called the GSPCA on the evening of 21 September 2019 with concerns about the welfare of a flock of 70 sheep.

It was alleged that the couple failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the sheep were free from pain, injury, disease and thirst. Two lambs were dead in the field.

Judge Graeme McKerrell concluded that the sheep had no water and were thirsty on one of the warmest days of the year when the witness went to the field.

He found the couple guilty of that charge. With no previous convictions, they were fined £500 each.

The trial had lasted for fours days over a two-week period.

Judge McKerrell said there was overlap in some of the charges and the case came down to whether or not the couple had treated lambs for fly strike and whether the flock had been without water on the days to which the charges related.

He rejected accusations of bias and a lack of objectivity that the defendants had directed towards States veterinary officer David Chamberlain, who gave evidence for the prosecution.

Some of the things Mr Chamberlain was said to have done, such as going on people’s land without permission, and that he had not done, such as carry out post-mortem examinations, had not affected the case or his objectivity.

Acquitting the defendants on three of the charges was not to reject Mr Chamberlain’s evidence, said Judge McKerrell, but it was the case that he had not been able to make him sure on some points.

Mr and Mrs Wallace had not come across well when giving evidence, he said.

The way that Mrs Wallace had shown photos to the court to portray them as model and unimpeachable farmers in a family context had been crass and disingenuous.

Advocate Candy Fletcher said the offence had resulted from a perfect storm of misfortune.

Her clients were both of previously good character and they cared about their animals.

These proceedings had been very stressful for them and had impacted on the whole family. Character references were provided to the court.

Counsel said her clients were in the process of building a new dairy farm and this had impacted on their finances.

Judge McKerrell said while this might have been the perfect storm, the couple had a duty of care towards their animals both in law and in practice.

You need to be logged in to comment. If you had an account on our previous site, you can migrate your old account and comment profile to this site by visiting this page and entering the email address for your old account. We'll then send you an email with a link to follow to complete the process.