Nottingham Magistrates’ Court trial of Brant Broughton-based breeding business Little Rascals directors accused of causing unnecessary suffering to dogs hears evidence from RSPCA inspectors, vet, and Lincolnshire Police
Dogs at a breeding business “bolted” and “cowered” when staff entered to clean their kennels, and didn’t seem to have walked on leads, a trial head.
Evidence has today (Wednesday) been heard from further RSPCA inspectors, a police officer, and a vet involved in the warrant carried out at Little Rascals, also known as Puppies at Home, Brant Broughton, in November 2018.
Inspector Daniel Bradshaw witnessed staff members at the farm site clearing dirty shavings from the kennel block he had been put in charge of during the warrant, and said: “The dogs would cower and hide away from these people.
“The dogs would look like they were terrified.”
He described them as “bolting” to the back of the kennels and not getting out of their beds until the staff members had left.
As for the kennels themselves, he explained some had just one bed to be shared between multiple dogs, and the area smelt of ammonia.
His evidence was given as part of the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court trial of dog breeding business directors 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, who each face 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 of the 374 dogs found to be in the defendants’ care at ‘Little Rascals’ and ‘Puppies at Home’, which operated from kennels at The Dairies farm in Brant Broughton.
When questioned by defence as to why he did not seek further information about the cleaning procedures and the dogs’ temperament, he said: “It’s not for me to question, I’m there to deal with the dogs.”
Another defence counsel sought confirmation that despite these issues raised, the RSPCA team were “happy” to leave 13 dogs from that block at the site rather than seizing them.
Two statements were read out in court from other RSPCA Inspectors.
Inspector Marc Cooper’s detailed dealing with a group of dogs who were “mainly adult females who were heavily pregnant or had puppies” and described many of them as “particularly nervous”.
His statement added: “One even yelped and jumped back when the microchip scanner beeped.”
A statement from Inspector Kirsty Withnall detailed the seizures of a number of dogs with ‘sore’ ears and mouths — including a two dachshunds, one of which was bleeding from the mouth to the point of blood being visible in the water bowl, and another which was underweight and had matting around the ears.
Her statement continued: “All of the dogs I handled seemed like they had never walked on a lead before.”
The court also heard from PC Green, a wildlife crime officer with Lincolnshire Police, who executed the warrant.
He described how Mr Swindells had left the site on the day to visit Lincoln County Court to seek an injunction against the officer — however this was refused by the court.
The officer also described the difference between the public-facing areas of the business and the kennels where the dogs were housed.
He said the main buildings, which would have been open to the public, “looked fairly clean” and “smelled ok”, but that in the kennels further back on the site “the smell of ammonia was quite overpowering”.
PC Green also doubled down on assertions made in yesterday’s evidence by RSPCA Inspector Nikki Dawe that a warrant had been sought to ensure the entire site could be searched without access being blocked or animals removed.
In the afternoon, evidence was heard from vet Dr Vanessa Whitfield, who was one of the first people on the site and conducted initial walkarounds for some of the kennels.
She told the court her first impressions had been that there was “very few staff for the large number of animals” and that the kennels did not appear to be purpose built, meaning some had “poor natural light and ventilation”. Many of the kennels did not have direct access to outdoor space, and the dogs were generally housed in groups.
However, she had spoken with June Swindells — Mr Swindells and Ms Dickens’ mother — while at the site, who she told the court had spoken about improvements being made to ensure all dogs had access to outdoor runs, as well as new legislation meaning they would need to increase the size of their kennels.
She raised further concerns that the area had appeared “generally untidy” and also had a lot of feral cats on site which “posed an infection risk”.
A lack of socialisation was noted for the dogs. Puppies were reportedly brought to a ‘puppy socialisation room’ two to three times a week — however it lacked a ‘home-like’ atmosphere to prepare them for their family lives, and had fake grass floors which Dr Whitfield suggested were not suitably cleanable to prevent the spread of infections.
The veterinary room at the business was deemed “unsanitary” with boxes of vaccines, including used syringes, left out on the side.
The ‘irritant’ qualities of the wood shaving bedding used at the site was also a concern, the court heard, although its benefits in absorbing urine and faeces was acknowledged.
The trial continues.
