Puppy farmers given dog bans totalling 40 years

According to a statement from the RSPCA, Nottingham Magistrates’ Court was told that Edward Swindells, 50, of The Dairies, and Bridgett Donna Dickens, 62, both of The Clays, Brant Broughton, Peter William Dickens, 67, of Yeadley, Derby, and Amy Allen, 42, of Jericho Road, Balderton, Newark, were involved with the running of Little Rascals or Puppies at Home on the Brant Broughton site when the RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit launched an inquiry.

The charity says it had been contacted by ex-staff who sent videos and photographs to back up their complaints about “prolonged neglect” despite repeated warnings from vets about the conditions.

Magistrates were also told the defendants continued to breed and sell puppies after they had agreed not to, and engaged in a “cover up” of the “inadequacies and lack of appropriate husbandry”.

Breeds covered in the offences included cocker spaniels, pugs, French bulldogs, and dachshunds, and there were so many dogs on site - 374 in total - it took 19 vets to examine them all.

The RSPCA says they found dogs “shaking and cowering” after “suffering psychological distress and fear” and were “afraid of staff - not just strangers”.

Swindells was found guilty of nine charges, including causing unnecessary suffering to dogs by failing to provide veterinary treatment for ailments including dental disease and inflammation of the ears, eyes and skin.

He was also convicted of causing unnecessary mental cruelty to 84 dogs by failing to address their emotional and behavioural needs, and of failing to obtain medical treatment for 52 pets.

Swindells was also found guilty of charges relating to his failure to provide for dogs’ bedding and dietary needs and investigate the cause of their thin body condition.

At sentencing on August 14, he was sentenced to 20 weeks jail suspended for 12 months, ordered to pay £5,000 costs in addition to the disqualification from keeping dogs.

Bridget and Peter Dickens and Allen each admitted failing to take steps to provide for the behavioural and emotional needs of dogs on the site, and failing to provide suitable veterinary care and bedding for an unspecified number.

The Dickenses were each banned and sentenced to 14 weeks in prison suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £3,000. They were also banned from keeping dogs for ten years.

Allen was given a 14-week term suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £5,000 costs, in addition to her disqualification from owning dogs.

SOU Case Officer Jason Bowles said in a statement to the court that in November 2018 he searched the site with police and spoke to Edward Swindells.

There were buildings housing dogs ranging from a portable cabin to structures of different sizes that looked to have been converted into kennels from other uses.

The RSPCA’s solicitor told the court: “The defendants were known to the RSPCA through complaints having been received over a number of years. Officers who had visited had been refused entry.

“In relation to this matter, the RSPCA were contacted by former staff members who sent a large number of videos and photographs and provided statements.”

A warrant was issued under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 following “concerns they had and the fact that there was a deliberate attempt to ‘cover up’ the concerns when those in authority visited.

“Due to the amount of animals on the premises 19 vets were in attendance and after an initial walk-around by two expert vets, those vets conducted examinations of the 374 dogs on the premises.”

The court was told the case had “a very long history, exacerbated by delaying and non-compliance by the defendants including changing legal representation and use of a ‘fake’ company.”

According to the RSPCA, Magistrates were told all four defendants were guilty of “prolonged neglect” in a “commercial context” despite advice from a local authority vet about the dogs’ welfare needs.

They had taken “deliberate steps” to “‘cover up’ the inadequacies and lack of appropriate husbandry and care for the dogs at the premises.

“The defendants were well aware of the requirements for the welfare of the animals, and they wilfully ignored them.”

There had been a “high level of suffering” - especially “mental suffering” - among the animals and physical harm necessitated treatment and in some cases surgery.

In addition, Edward Swindells was said to have been willing to go to great lengths in order to frustrate the proceedings against him.

In mitigation for Swindells, it was said that he had tried to run the premises as a business but was now “plagued with health difficulties” and cannot walk unaided.

Bridget Dickens accepted there were “too many dogs there” with “male and females together” but “puppy farms are controversial” and it was not “wholesale neglect”.

Peter Dickens was said to be guilty of “incompetence not neglect” and was not a director of the company but looked after food and beddings.

In defence of Allen, it was said she had a “largely administrative role” and had been “well-intentioned but incompetent” in her animal care.

After the case, a spokesperson for the RSPCA’s SOU team said: “The defendants kept a large number of dogs in terrible living conditions for their own profit. Not surprisingly, many of the pets suffered physical and mental harm as a result. This is unacceptable.

“Luckily, we were able to mount a successful investigation which got them to a safe place, where they could get the veterinary treatment they needed and begin a new life in which they will receive care and respect.

“We are extremely grateful for the former members of staff of this business who kindly and responsibly, came forward with the evidence we needed to bring the ill-treatment of these dogs to an end.”

Bridget Dickens has lodged an appeal against her sentence.