Dogs at Little Rascals, Brant Broughton, found with mites, infections, and behavioural concerns by RSPCA, Nottingham Magistrates’ Court trial of business breeding directors accused of causing unnecessary suffering to dogs hears

Ear mites, severe eye inflammation, dental disease, and “concerning and unusual” behaviour were among the issues noted in dogs at a breeding business raided by the RSPCA, a court has heard.

Amy Allen, 41, of Jericho Road, Balderton; Bridgett Dickens, 61, of The Clays, Brant Broughton; Peter Dickens, 65, of Yeadley, Ashbourne; and Edward Swindells, 48, of The Clays, Brant Broughton, are on trial at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court, each facing multiple charges of causing unnecessary suffering to dogs and breaching their duty to ensure their welfare.

This is through failing to provide veterinary attention for skin, eye, ear, and dental conditions, failing to address the emotional and behavioural needs of the dogs, failing to provide an adequate diet for the dogs, and failing to provide adequate housing/bedding for the dogs.

Each charge relates to between four and 84 dogs in the defendants’ care at ‘Little Rascals’ and ‘Puppies at Home’, which operated from kennels at The Dairies farm in Brant Broughton.

Today, (June 3) the court heard evidence from RSPCA special operations unit inspector Vikki Dawe, who led the operation alongside her colleague Inspector Jason Bowles, who gave evidence yesterday.

A total of 374 dogs were found on the property when, on November 13, 2018, a warrant was carried out by police after intelligence — 37 videos and 111 images — was supplied to the RSPCA in July that year.

The intelligence also warned the RSPCA that things would look acceptable at first glance, but they needed to examine each dog individually to see the issues.

This proved true when the team arrived on the site in November, Ms Dawe explained, saying that on an initial walk round there were “no glaringly obvious husbandry issues”, with kennels appearing relatively clean and dogs having access to water, and the dogs themselves appearing happy to see people and jumping up at the front of their kennels.

However, she added: “As soon as you went in their behaviour changed. It was quite unusual and concerning.

“Some froze, some tried to get away, some were anxious… some flinched if you tried to touch them.

“I felt that behaviourally they were quite concerning.”

This kind of behaviour was also backed up by evidence given by other RSPCA inspectors who was responsible for kennel buildings during the operation and added that the dogs “didn’t appear to want to cross the threshold” of their kennels, and some were “shaking” when approached.

Defence counsel suggested the RSPCA staff, many of who were wearing white disposable coveralls and stepped in disinfecting foot baths prior to entering the kennels, were strangers to the dogs, and the whole experience was “extremely unusual” for them.

It was noted that the RSPCA staff had not seen the animals interacting with their “usual caregivers” and how they behaved in their normal circumstances.

Ms Dawe said: “Most dogs that are balanced and well socialised would not behave like that.

“It might be normal for one dog to behave like that… but it’s not normal behaviour for 300 dogs.”

Video evidence shown as part of other inspectors’ evidence showed dogs including spaniels, a pug, a poodle cross, and a beagle. Other breeds on the site included Spitz, Samoyeds, and Poodles.

Vet examinations shown on footage detailed ear mites, missing teeth, dental disease, skin issues, gingivitis, and limb pain, with one dog suffering from an eye infection so inflamed the vet couldn’t tell if the dog’s eyeball was still underneath it.

A number of dogs were also suspected to be pregnant.

Footage from inside kennels showed a dog who was ‘extremely nervous’, shaking, and did not want to walk on a lead, and another who was ‘petrified’ and who had frozen in the kennel.

The counsel also questioned Ms Dawe on why attempts had not been made to speak with the business owners or track down council records from previous licensing inspections prior to choosing to seek a warrant.

It was suggested the RSPCA wanted to turn up unannounced to “catch them out”.

Ms Dawe explained that due to the scale of the operation and the number of the dogs needing veterinary checks it was not feasible to carry out without a full team and full access to the site, and said that she had spoken with other ‘local colleagues’ who had previously attended the site without a warrant and had not been allowed full access, or had been asked to come back for a pre-arranged visit.

“We felt things may get hidden,” she added, although did acknowledge that during the walk-around on the day of the warrant the staff had been “cooperative”.

Additionally, Ms Dawe explained the intelligence provided to the RSPCA suggested a link between the business and North Kesteven District Council, so an “operational decision” was made to not risk a tip off by contacting the council prior to the warrant.

No further questions were asked of the defendants — who had previously been identified as directors via companies house records — about their roles within the business or documentation about the dogs as this would normally be included in their interviews under caution, Ms Dawe explained.

She asserted that the group had all been made aware of the request for an interview, but these had never successfully been arranged.

The trial continues.