Vet cross examined on day three of RSPCA trial.

A DOG seized from a couple by the RSPCA had some of the worst teeth a vet had ever seen, a court heard yesterday (Friday, January 17).

Veterinary surgeon Jacqui Paterson was giving evidence at Darlington Magistrates’ Court on the third day of the trial of Margaret Jamieson, 68, and her husband, Richard Abraham, 66, who both deny seven animal welfare charges.

The RSPCA seized 25 dogs, mostly dachshunds, from the couple’s home in Heighington in February and Ms Paterson said the ailments suffered by some included bad teeth, ear infections and skin problems caused by flea infestation.

She also graded three dogs as being emaciated – with a body condition at the lowest end of the scale – and said that some of the dogs’ ear infections were so bad that pus and wax was clearly visible around the ears.

Several had to have their teeth removed due to the extent of their problems, and describing one particular animal, Ms Paterson said: “I have to say in my experience these were some of the worst teeth I have come across.”

She added that many of the dogs’ medical problems would have been obvious to a “competent and humane” owner and would not have reached such a level if the animals’ needs were being properly addressed.
During cross examination, defence barrister Sara-Lise Howe suggested that Ms Paterson was ‘making up’ some of her evidence.

She pointed out that Ms Paterson’s verbal recollections of the dogs’ living environment, such as kennel areas being cold and smelling of urine, were not recorded anywhere in her contemporaneous notes or witness statement.

Miss Howe also questioned why in some cases there were no written medical records to back up Ms Paterson’s assertion that some dogs had been treated for ear infections.

Ms Paterson admitted that she was “somewhat disappointed” that she could not provide such documentation.

The court had previously heard that when the RSPCA seized the dogs, around ten dachshunds were loose in the living room and the rest were in wooden cages in an annexe.

Larger dogs - spaniels and a german pointer - were kenneled outside and in a stable inside a barn.

Miss Howe queried the basis on which the dogs’ environment was deemed unsuitable and pointed out that an RSPCA officer present during the seizure had described the outdoor dogs as being “bright and alert”.

The trial is set to continue for a further day and a half next week, although Miss Howe indicated an intention to make legal submissions regarding some of the RSPCA’s evidence.

So the RSPCA vet goes to court with no notes but remembers everything from the event?
Great to see a barrister with some savvy picking holes in her evidence.

This name will become very familiar in the case histories of RSPCA court cases, she is regularly employed to defend and seems to be becoming another 'expert' in this field which is sorely needed. Look out for her again folks and hope that if you should ever need her services that she is available to help you!

They always use the same old line don't they? 'It was the worst case they've ever seen'

They do misty...I think they must have a handbook with a list of lies they should be telling to fabricate a statement. Another expression they use to impress, instead of saying the dog had fleas/worms or the horse had lice/worms. What do they say? The dog/cat 'carried a heavy parasite burden'. As if it has them in a shopping bag! So Ms Paterson forgot to take any notes to court? She's 'somewhat disappointed' that she had no notes? Christ almighty, where do the RSPCA get them from...no doubt the dopey cow was well-paid too. Surely this is a case which should be kicked out. They'll be using clairvoyants before long.

THE RSPCA has dropped its case against a dog breeder and her husband accused of causing unnecessary suffering to their animals.

Last February RSPCA inspectors seized 25 dogs from the Heighington home of Margaret Jamieson, 68, and Richard Abraham, 66 and the couple were later charged with seven animal welfare offences relating to the dogs’ care.

They pleaded not guilty and during the course of their trial at Darlington Magistrates’ Court, defence barrister Sara-Lise Howe continually questioned the strength of the evidence presented by the RSPCA.
This included assertions that some of the dogs were kept in wooden cages in a dark, cold room that smelt of urine, and that many were suffering from ear and tooth infections.

On the third day of the trial today (Thursday, January 23) Miss Howe expressed further concerns about the evidence given by vet Jacqui Paterson for the prosecution.

During cross examination it emerged that Ms Paterson had examined the same dog twice, which led to the RSPCA initially numbering the dogs up to 26 instead of the 25 there actually were.

The court also heard that veterinary documents such as clinical billing notes and consultation notes, which would prove which medical treatments the dogs had received, were not included in the RSPCA’s evidence.
Upon hearing this, Miss Howe said: “I am struggling at the moment because this is quite an important revelation and I am concerned as to how this can be a fair trial.”

She asked the bench to retire and when court resumed half an hour later, prosecutor Kevin Campbell said he had been instructed by the RSPCA to withdraw the case.

He said: “The matter is fraught with difficulties legally, there is a chance we will waste even more money.

“Applying the principles of fairness the prosecution will not be proceeding with the matter.”

Speaking outside court an emotional Mrs Jamieson, who has bred champion show dogs and judged at shows, said she had been through “eleven months of hell” since her dogs were taken from her.

She praised Miss Howe as being “brilliant” and added: “I am ever so pleased it is all over.”

Mrs Jamieson’s dogs, mostly elderly dachshunds, will now be returned to her and Mr Abraham.

A spokeswoman for the RSPCA said it withdrew the proceedings due to concerns over procedural aspects of the case that came to light during the trial.

She added: “These issues could have affected the fairness of the proceedings and, as a responsible prosecutor, this was the only appropriate course of action.

“The decision to institute proceedings in the first place was the correct one, and unfortunately these developments were largely beyond the RSPCA's control.”

The spokeswoman was unable to say how much the case cost, but it is likely to have run into the tens of thousands.

“Applying the principles of fairness the prosecution will not be proceeding with the matter.”


Since when did RSPCA apply the 'principles of fairness' to any of their prosecutions? It looks as tho' Sara-Lise Howe is going to be a force to reckon with.

Sooner their 'review' takes place, the better, but they will no doubt lie their way out of any tight corners. Tens of thousands? Paid for by...? They just get worse. Excellent ending to the case tho'.