Horse lover gets kind reprieve from court that waives €2,000 fine

A court of criminal appeal has revoked a €2,000 fine for animal cruelty against the chairman of the Funny Farm horse rescue centre, Sue Arnett.

The court said it was discharging Arnett conditionally for one year, after the animal farm operator was found guilty of causing five dogs under her care unnecessary pain, having left them without adequate food and water.

“There is no doubt that the punishment awarded falls within the parameters provided by the law as it stood at the time. However, when taking into consideration the circumstances outlined… and considering that this case has brought her under the authorities’ spotlight, this Court feels that it is more opportune to give appellant, who has a clean conduct record, the chance to show that she truly cares for the animals housed within her farm and consequently apply a different method of treatment,” Judge David Scicluna said in his appeal decision.

In 2009, five emaciated dogs were removed from the Bidnija centre during a raid by animal welfare officers. Three of the skinny dogs, some of them skeletal-looking, were reported to have been malnourished and the other two had sandfly infections. Arnett, who pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against her, explained that she ran a horse rescue operation and provided shelter for horses, while taking in other animals such as stray dogs.

Animal Welfare representative Emanuel Buhagiar had testified in court that the dogs had no food or water and lived in a dirty environment. Three of the five dogs were eventually homed while the other two were put down because of their poor health.

On-site inspection carried out reported horses found in good welfare condition, well fed and kept in clean shelters, but not the same could be said of the dogs. But Veterinary Officer Dr Duncan Chetcuti Ganado at the time had said that all animals, 22 horses and 19 dogs, appeared to be well kept. “There were a few dogs which had been seen to have a poor body condition score, excoriations on the face or on the ears, and one dog was lame, which were diagnosed by warranted veterinarians (according to Ms. Arnett) and treated with medication which is correct for the type of pathology diagnosed. According to my evaluation of the situation on these premises in Bidnija, the allegations that were made regarding poor animal welfare are not founded and no action should be taken since in my professional opinion all dogs and horses are well kept and looked after appropriately.”

Judge David Scicluna dismissed Arnett’s main grievances on the evidence presented to the first court. “Taking everything into consideration it would therefore appear that there were instances when deficiencies and failings did occur, and this was due to a lack of proper organisation, meaning that there would be some dogs which unfortunately would suffer.”

But he said that while the punishment, as it stood, was correct in its application, he would opt for a different approach.