Appeal against conviction and sentence.
Held: appeal against conviction dismissed. His failure of due diligence was manifest. The trial judge was justified in finding liability on the basis of the appellant’s failure to do more to obtain immediate care for the dogs. Aggravating, prior criminal record, number of dogs neglected and position of trust. Crown had sought 30 days jail and defence sought a suspended sentence. Unclear the sentence received. Sentence appeal allowed in so much as there was no jurisdiction to delay the animal prohibition until the end of the probation period and the restitution order was reduced to account for the OPSCA’s sale of the 21 dogs.
The charges arose out of a search warrant where various animals were found in varying states of neglect, including birds, rabbits, sheep, chickens, horse and pig. Some were dead. The accused was charged with unnecessary pain, suffering or injury and criminal neglect in relation to dogs. The trial judge accepted the 21 dogs had come into the care of the accused in a badly matted state.
The conviction was based on he insufficient steps to have their neglected condition attended to. Superior Court accepted the care would not have been prohibitive and that care was available earlier and defence of due diligence was not therefore available (Note: accused was charged with criminal code charges – so this analysis seems flawed).
A stay on the unnecessary charge was entered after the findings of guilt.
The accused appealed stating the evidence of these other animals should not have been admitted. Superior Court accepted the admission of this evidence was a harmless error as the trial judge did not use this evidence as probative of the other charges before the Court.
Court of Appeal decision allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for a re-trial. The Court found the accused should have been granted an adjournment. The rest of the grounds of appeal were not examined.