Stop Circus Suffering

The Mary Chipperfield Trial: the trial

The case started on Monday 18 January. Mary Cawley was charged with 21 offences.

The case started on Monday 18 January. Mary Cawley was charged with 21 offences: Charges 1-12 related to three incidents involving beating the chimpanzee Trudy (“cruelly beat, ill-treated or by unreasonably doing any act which caused unnecessary suffering to an animal”). Charges 13-15 related to the beating of a camel, Jasmine, with a broomhandle. Charges 16-18 related to“Permitting unnecessary suffering to be caused to the elephants”. These concerned allowing Gills to beat the elephants (Rosa, Tembo, and Opal).

Charges 19-21 “Failed to provide reasonable care and supervision in respect to the elephants”. This meant that even if Cawley had not known the full extent of Gills’ violence, or the way the animals were kept, they had not actually taken appropriate steps to protect the animals in their care.

Roger Cawley faced seven charges. Charge 1 related to whipping and beating the sick elephant Flora in the practice ring (“cruelty beat, ill-treated or by unreasonably doing any actwhich caused unnecessary suffering to an animal”). Charges 2-7 were the same as Mary’s charges 16-21.

The prosecution case was put by barrister Charles Gabb and the defence by Anne Rafferty QC assisted by barrister, David Whittaker, as second chair.

Five of the AD team had been called as witnesses: Jan Creamer, Tony Pattinson, Tim Phillips, Terry Stocker and Rachel White. The ADs arrived with the hundreds of video tapes, photographs and negatives. The day was spent reviewing evidence and the statements of Jan Creamer, Tony Pattinson, and Tim Phillips were accepted and they were released as witnesses.

DAY ONE
The case opened on 19th January 1999 with the prosecution giving background to the AD investigation, the way the animals were kept at Croft Farm and the incidents to which charges related. The prosecution described a culture of violence at the farm and that even though they knew that Gills was violent the Cawleys still left him in charge of the elephants.

The court was shown AD photographs taken of Trudy the day after a beating by Mary. These showed red marks across the chimp’s body.

AD Field Officer Terry Stocker then gave evidence about the investigation and the court began to watch several hours of video footage from Court Tapes 1-5.

Some five hours of violence was shown to the court, much concerning Gills, with the public and press galleries wincing and gasping as blows rained down on defenceless animals.

Extremely distressing scenes of animal cruelty included three occasions where Mary beat the young chimpanzee Trudy as she tried to force her into a tiny box for the night; hitting Jasmine the camel with a large stick; and Roger forcing Flora, a sick elephant, around a training ring, whipping her to make her go faster. The court also saw the Cawleys hitting elephants and camels with various weapons including whips, pitchforks, metal bars, fibre glass rods, even a bucket.

Roger Cawley was seen in an incident in which he repeatedly struck sick Flora across the back with an iron bar, whilst Charles Chipperfield hit her at the same time with a fibreglass rod. The Court saw the Cawleys whipping and hitting camels, including blows to and around the face.

DAY TWO
Yet more video footage was shown to the court notably a tape of Mary beating Trudy which the AD’s legal team had enhanced at a forensic services laboratory. The court also saw video of Terry Stocker informing Mary Cawley that Gills had beaten an elephant called Tembo.

Terry Stocker again took the witness stand. He described the violence he had seen, that other staff were aware of it. He described in detail the conditions in which Trudy was kept and the attacks by Mary Cawley on her. Video was also shown of Terry reporting to Mary how Gills had beaten the chicken to death. He pointed out that Gills had a violent record (he had served eleven years for manslaughter). Videos had been submitted to the court showing Gills threatening Terry for informing on him, and also of Mary informing Gills that Terry had told her how Gills had killed the chicken.

AD Field Officer Rachel White then took the stand and spoke of the violence she had seen, the way the animals were kept and the general attitudes towards them. Rachel had looked after Trudy for much of the time she had been at Croft Farm and so was ideally placed to describe her treatment, but bizarrely the prosecution had become confused and concentrated the questioning on the elephants.

In her cross examination, Anne Rafferty attempted to paint the animals as aggressive and vicious. This was a recurrent theme, as if to say “they deserved what they got”. Rachel explained that the animals were simply playful at times, but not aggressive. Rachel also pointed out that Gills hitting the elephants could be heard all over the farm (this was supported by video).

The prosecution then began to call their expert witnesses. Disappointingly, despite that it is fully detailed in our report The Ugliest Show on Earth, and subsequent evidence tapes, the experts had not been passed detailed information on precisely how the animals were kept. Therefore issues of husbandry became almost pointless.

Professor Donald Broom, an animal welfare expert at Cambridge University, took the stand. He viewed the footage of the treatment of Trudy, Jasmine and Flora and confirmed in each instance that the animals were feeling pain and suffering.

It was stressed how sensitive the skin of elephants was and that they could feel a fly land on their back. Elephants are particularly sensitive around the head, trunk and on bony joints, all areas which appeared to be targeted during attacks at Croft Farm.

DAY THREE
Professor Broom returned to the stand to be cross-examined by the defence.

During the cross examination, the defence attempted to stress that Mary had saved Trudy’s life by hand-rearing her and that Trudy’s brother, Teddy, had attacked her; therefore keeping her alone was the best thing in the circumstances. The key elements emerging as the Cawleys’ defence were that this was ’good animal husbandry’ and ’the animals were misbehaving, even being aggressive’ (Trudy was having a tantrum and Jasmine the camel was stubborn and belligerent. When Roger Cawley whipped the sick Flora it was claimed that this was for her own good; Cawley was exercising her.

The case hinged on what force was ’necessary’ to get the animals to do what was wanted of them. If the animals did not respond to one command then the defendants would use increasing levels of force.

Much of the cross examination concerned the assaults on Trudy, and Donald Broom repeatedly asserted that the treatment and force were excessive.

Next, chimp expert Jane Goodall took the stand. She described the first video of Mary beating Trudy, From the beginning the sounds I heard indicated extraordinary distress from the chimp… I heard whimpering and screaming of distress. Part of this is fear. The temper tantrum part is common in young chimps, but Trudy stops when picked up and hugged. That’s why this makes it very different from a real temper tantrum. I suggest the chimp was very frightened”.

Describing the end of the tape, She’s crying, a small chimp infant, like a child, plunged into darkness, frightened and alone. To me this is very cruel”.

Jane Goodhall was shown AD photographs of the conditions in which Trudy was kept. “Shows chimp in distress with a hunched back the typical position of a chimp who has lost its mother. There are no toys or enrichment in the cage. A young chimp has an active enquiring mind as do young children. How can she learn about the environment in this barren, sterile, cruel environment?”

There were various questions on the way Trudy was kept, with the defence pressing that given limited options, Mary Cawley did the best she could.

Next veterinary surgeon John Gripper took the stand. He had examined Flora at Dudly Zoo (to which she was later sold by Mary Chipperfield Promotions). He described ulcerated ears, muscles wasted on the spine and multiple abscesses all over the body including the tail – she was extremely sick.

The court saw AD video of Flora collapsed in her pen the day after Roger Cawley had whipped her in the ring. The next day she was taken from the pen, led by Gills, but reluctant to move, she stopped in the elephant shed. Charles Chipperfield began to hit her repeatedly with a fibre glass rod. Roger Cawley joined in, hitting her across the back with an iron bar, using both hands to bring the blows down. Flora’s hind legs buckled slightly under the blows, but she moved on to the practice ring.

Video was shown of incidents on 21st, 22nd and 24th January, both Mary and Roger hit Flora during training sessions. John Gripper described this as cruel. During the training session on 24th January, Flora’s wounds were treated in the ring, but she was still hit at least ten times. John Gripper described all of these incidents as cruel.

He also described the treatment of Jasmine and Trudy as cruel – especially the blows to Jasmine after she had got up.

Then came the bombshell for the ADs. The magistrate asked John Gripper to comment on the length of time the elephants were shackled and the way they were kept generally. John Gripper was willing to do so, however, the defence objected that they had not been served with any statements from John Gripper or anyone else on this. The magistrate asked to be presented with this evidence three times. The prosecution said they would not be presenting expert testimony on this.

The ADs had brought these groundbreaking charges – encompassing the elephant husbandry – which could have had a far reaching impact for all captive elephants. We had supported them with expert testimony and video evidence – all of which had been submitted to the court when the summonses were obtained. When the CPS took these and other summonses from us (as the request of the Cawley’s solicitors) they clearly took no further action to prosecute them successfully, nor did they even call the experts or present their statements.

Although it was never to be disputed during the case that the elephants were chained for most of every day and all day on some occasions, with no experts to say “this is cruel”, a conviction for this was now a near impossibility. A chance to define the law the way captive elephants can be kept – had been simply thrown away by the CPS.

The defence began their cross examination of John Gripper by saying that Flora was off her food, she needed exercise, so to get her to do so a stick was used. John Gripper responded, “It’s a question of force. If any animal won’t move, you can use a stick but you don’t have to beat the hell out of it”. The defence asked John Gripper to concede that the whip was being cracked in the air and on the ground. Gripper said that in some cases yes, but in others the animal’s response clearly indicated contact.

Ian Redmond, a wildlife biologist, who had also examined Flora at Dudley Zoo, then took the stand. He confirmed her sick condition. It had been pointed out in the prosecution’s opening that the elephants never had water to bathe in and were rarely washed. Ian Redmond was asked how important it was for the elephants to bathe, he replied “ Very, sometimes two times a day. They will look for water in which to submerge or to use their trunks in captivity…”

He said of Flora’s treatment: “Pain as a means of exercising an elephant is wrong”. He believed that “Gills should not be used as a scapegoat” and that the Cawleys “should be prohibited from training or keeping animals ever again”.

DAY FOUR
Jim Cronin of Monkey World, where Trudy was being held under police seizure (PACE), was called by the prosecution. He said “It is inappropriate or cruel to beat chimps. It is counter-productive”. Sadly, he had not read the relevant section of The Ugliest Show on Earth, nor had he been given detailed video and photographs of the chimpanzee housing so was unable to comment broadly on the way the chimps were being kept. From what he had seen he described the environment as “disgusting, deprived, heartless and cruel, cold. Entirely tragic thing to do to a chimp”.

AD Field Officer Rachel White, who had filmed the Flora whipping for which Roger Cawley had been charged, was recalled to verify which elephants were trumpeting during the video.

Before the prosecution was concluded, the ADs served papers on the CPS from our legal advisors regarding the failure to present evidence on husbandry saying that there was a chance to rectify this. The CPD did not respond. We were at the halfway mark, and so the case for the prosecution was concluded.

Anne Rafferty QC then addressed the court to try to undermine the case so far.

Of Trudy, she said that Mary was attempting to restore routine and discipline after returning from a break. This was in fact inaccurate – Rachel White and another worker, Virginia Winter, never had trouble putting Trudy “to bed”. She also stressed that although people might not like keeping a chimp in a dog transport cage at night – it was not illegal. She said that the crown’s experts had not visited to take photos or obtain plans (which were produced in evidence by the ADs and made available to the CPS). Rafferty claimed that Mary had saved Trudy when her mother rejected her saying that the fact that “the chimp lives reflects good husbandry”.

In the cases of Flora and Jasmine, Rafferty claimed the defendants had only done what was necessary within the boundaries of their legal profession.

The Magistrate then had to decide whether the prosecution had proved there was a case to answer on each charge before it proceeded to the next stage of the trial.

With the charges concerning Trudy he felt there was a clear case to answer and these would proceed. With Jasmine and Flora, he felt this was less clear. The defendants were allowed to cause suffering necessary to make the animals do what was demanded of them. However, had they inflicted more suffering than they needed to? Roger Cawley had whipped Flora to make her move faster and Mary continued to beat Jasmine when she was on her feet and moving. The Magistrate concluded there was cause to answer. He said he was unsure that the Cawleys were fully aware of Gill’s abuse of the elephants but that they were on notice of his actions, through AD Field Officers’ warnings, so may have failed to take appropriate action. He therefore concluded that all the charges relating to permitting suffering and failure to protect the elephants should proceed.

After adjournment, the first defence witness was vet William Allen, a Professor of Equine Reproduction at the University of Cambridge. During questioning, Allen admitted that he is pro-hunting, his work centres around embryo transplantation in horses and camels, he thought camels were a kind of horse with a hump, and that he employed women to do work that involved kneeling down because for a man to do so would break his legs! He began salivating with praise for Mary’s whipping technique on some camels exclaiming she had “lovely ability to make a whip crack – wish I could do that”. Under cross examination, he claimed that “if I hit in anger it is violent – if I hit in frustration it isn’t violent”. Asked what size of stick he would think suitable to use on a camel, he replied “a piece of two by two”.

It was clear from the Magistrates comments earlier that the question was, were Mary’s final blows to Jasmine, when she was already up and walking“necessary”? The prosecution asked: “once on their feet, do camels tend to move forward at their own speed?” Allen replied “Yes”. Gabb then asked “Jasmine started to walk and was still struck. Were the further three blows necessary?”. Were the further three blows necessary?”. Allen replied “Yes, to make it go forward”. Gabb countered, “Before the blow was struck, it was already moving forward”. To this Allen said “Not in a realistic sense”.

After Allen had said “it’s not cricket” to hit a camel in the face, the prosecution showed video of Roger Cawley striking a camel hard in the face with a fibre glass rod and the animal reeling away. Almost the entire court winced, however, Allen described it as a “tap”.

Many of those present were amazed that here was someone with apparently even more extreme views than Mary!

DAY FIVE
The day opened with the Cawleys producing for the court a variety of implements with which they hit (or in their court parlance, ‘encouraged’) animals. These included various whips and a fibre glass rod – the metal bars with which the elephants were beaten were not produced.

Mary Cawley took the stand and questioned by Rafferty, claimed Trudy had bitten her and this was why she went to get the stick to hit her. Asked if she caused “unnecessary pain”, she replied “No, the chimp has a very tough bottom”.

She then squirmed under a ferocious cross-examination from prosecutor Charles Gabb. Referring to her interview with the police, he said: “…You were shown the first clip of Stephen Gills beating Tembo with a large iron bar, double-handed using all his force. You said “it didn’t harm the elephant”. She replied, “I still assert that. I said I regularly went to the elephant house, I never saw marks or heard trumpeting”.

He asked Mary if she would kick a dog the way she had kicked Jasmine the camel. “If it’s in the way, yes”, she replied.

She admitted that she knew Gills had killed someone and that he had extensive convictions, saying “I don’t think killing a person is relevant to killing animals” and that she had made no enquiries about him.

Gills had served eleven years for manslaughter. He came across 28 year old Patricia Woolard on a train, and stabbed her to death.

Gabb confronted her with the fact that she had said in her statement to the police that the attacks on Trudy were in January. In fact the video had been taken in November and December. We are left to wonder if Mary also beat Trudy in January as she herself seemed to think.

She was shown the AD photographs with marks across Trudy’s body. She said these were scratches from another chimp, Teddy. Although not commented on in court, Trudy had not in fact been with Teddy on any of the previous days.

Describing hitting Jasmine with a broomhandle, Mary said “this would start as a tickling”.

Finally Gabb asked, “Do you regret anything?” Mary replied, “I don’t regret anything, I have done nothing abusive”.

Roger Cawley took the stand and said that his role at Mary Chipperfield Promotions was administration of the whole organisation and that he was a zoo inspector. Questioned by his own barrister he said that he had been informed of Gills violence by Virginia Winter who was working on the farm at the time. He said that his vet had recommended exercise for Flora.

Under cross examination he said he caused Flora no pain, correcting this to say he might have caused a little. Asked why the elephants were shackled all day he said at first he didn’t know but when pressed claimed it was due to staff problems, “Not enough staff. Someone let on short notice. I can’t remember the name”.

This was untrue. No one had left during the successive days over Christmas 1997 and the ADs had supplied the court with a video tape (CT7) where on two occasions Roger Cawley specifically instructed Gills to leave the elephants chained. Sadly this was not shown.

Asked when he was first told about Gills beating the elephants, Cawley said that he was told by Virginia Winter his secretary. Charles Gabb pointed out that in a written statement Cawley had sent to the police he claimed he had been told by Terry Stocker and that he had disregarded this, because he thought it was down to ill feeling between Stocker and Gills. In court he conceded that the warnings had come from two people including one long standing colleague – yet still no action was taken.

Gabb asked if Cawley issued a written warning to Gills, Cawley answered, “No, didn’t find it necessary”. Cawley claimed “I was vigilant in watching him”. Gabb therefore showed the court video clips in which Gills violently attacked elephants whilst Cawley was in the elephant shed, to which Cawley responded “Didn’t notice, I was busy”, “I probably had my back to the elephant, the sound of hitting the elephant was the same as that made scraping manure” and “I was with Charles Chipperfield dressing Flora’s boils”.

Another clip was shown in which Cawley was seen whipping the elephants in the barn to make them lie down. Asked why he was doing this when the animals had already been sold to Colchester Zoo, Cawley said he had a request from an advertising agent for a quotation for a job. Gabb told Cawley had had no registration under the Performing Animals Act 1925, Cawley replied he wasn’t training.

Cawley was questioned about assaults on the elephants in which he hit them with buckets and metal bars, sometimes delivering nine and ten blows at a time. Each time he said he was attempting to get the elephants to do routine tasks. Asked why he felt it necessary to whip the sick Flora he said “To make it go faster, to maintain speed”. Asked why, Roger replied that he wanted to “see how sick it was”.

DAY SIX
The defence then brought two vets into the witness box, Keith Cutler and Robert Cull, both from the Endell Veterinary Practice which has served the Chipperfields at Croft Farm for the last 23 years (the practice was later the subject of the series Animal ER on Channel 5).

First up was Keith Cutler, who had previously worked at Chessington Zoo and Whipsnade Wild Animal Park. Early defence questioning was in order to show that Trudy was strong and potentially dangerous – using a stick was ‘appropriate’ and would ‘not have caused pain’.

Asked if there were heating facilities in Trudy’s barn, Cutler said yes, and there were other animals. This was true, except the other chimpanzees were in a different room, and no contact was possible, and from October to January the heating was never turned up.

With regard to the beating of Jasmine the camel, he responded: “Reasonable, camels are stubborn, it takes force to make them stand”. Any observers must wonder why anyone is allowed to have a performing camel in the UK when everyone in the industry appears to accept that hitting them hard with a broomhandle is the only way to get them to do what you want. He described whipping Flora to make her go faster as “reasonable”.

Under cross examination from Charles Gabb, Cutler became increasingly uncomfortable when asked about specifics, such as kicking Trudy or holding the chimp whilst she was hit. He repeatedly said he could not see what was going on in the videos or whether the blows made contact, but added “…it could be construed as excessive force”. Videos were replayed to him, but Cutler was apparently unable to see what everyone else could see.

Cutler claimed the red marks on Trudy could not have been caused by the whip because they were not weal marks – they did not have a white line down the centre with red either side. Gabb pointed out that as the photos were taken the following day they would have become single red lines. Cutler would not even concede this, saying they were more like scratch marks from another chimp (Trudy had not been with another chimp).

Gabb accused him of not being objective, declaring that he had not “voiced one single word of criticism”. Cutler eventually conceded that he “saw actions which could have potentially worried me”. Next to the stand was Robert Cull, a senior partner in the Endell Practice who had been visiting the Cawley’s farm for 23 years.

The ADs were intrigued as to what Cull would say, as we have video of Cull criticising horse care at Croft Farm, and even saying a tiger was becoming stereotypic. However, he did not voice a single concern about the Cawleys in court.

Under cross examination it transpired that Cull had been called to the police station to view videos of Gills beating elephants and beating the chicken to death – scenes which have been universally condemned. Cull’s reaction was to refuse to comment until he had checked his “professional client obligations”. A sad insight for anyone thinking the vet’s primary obligation is to the animal (his patient) rather than his client. Thus in court when Cull was asked, “See anything you thought was wrong re Trudy?” he replied, “I would wish to know my professional obligations towards my clients”. Although he did concede “I thought to kick her foot was not something I would recommend”. “Acceptable to beat with a riding crop?”, “Yes”.

Robert Cull claimed that “pain can be a method to get it to do what you want it to do”. Gabb asked, “If a dog wouldn’t go into its kennel, would you beat it?”, Cull replied, “Yes…” With impressive use of language, Cull said of Mary, “She utilised her foot to project it into the cage”. “You mean kick?” Gabb queried, “Yes” replied Cull.

The final defence witness was David Hibbling, ‘artistic director’ for Zippo’s Circus. Hibling had previously worked at Croft Farm (where his Performing Animals Registration is lodged) and presented chimps for Mary Chipperfield. In public, Hibling is a loud exponent of ‘animal welfare’ in circuses. He says animals are not beaten, promotes Zippos’ code of conduct for their horses and replaced Roger Cawley on the Circus Working Group. During the next two days we were to get an interesting insight into what the circus industry considers to be ‘beating’.

The defence asked about the three videos of assaults on Trudy: Did Hibling “See anything which would constitute cruelty?” Hibling replied unequivocally “No”. Asked “Would you do what Mary Cawley did?” Hibling replied “Yes”. “On the videos (relating to Mary and Roger Cawley) did you see anything cruel?” again Hibling said “No”.

DAY SEVEN
The day began with the prosecution cross examination of Hibling. Gabb quoted from Hibling’s biography in which he said he idolised Mary Chipperfield and that the Cawleys had given him his first break in the industry.

Asked if he had beaten a chimp he said “No, reprimanded”, later saying he had “slapped” one of his chimps. Gabb asked, “Is thrashing a chimp with a riding crop acceptable?” Hibling replied “In certain circumstances, yes”.

When the defence asked its final questions, Hibling said he had himself hit a chimp with a riding crop. “They are loving animals, not sweet tea-drinking things…potentially wild animals, …short, sharp hit with a stick is justified”. Hibling left the stand.

The defence began its closing speech.

The defence first argued against three ‘permitting’ charges against each defendant saying that it hadn’t been proved that the defendants were fully aware of the extent of Gills’ behaviour therefore could not have knowingly permitted it.

On the three charges each of failing to protect elephants, the defence argued that the defendants took some precautions but were not fully aware of the treatment of the elephants. The defence stressed that when the Cawleys hit animals, it was to make them do things.

There were some inaccuracies in this – notably that Gills’ blows to the elephants and his swearing could not be heard outside the shed, which of course they could. Also nothing was made of the days Mary and Roger were away from the farm during the period; when Gills was seen beating the animals when he was alone with them, it was because they were not around at all, not that he was avoiding their presence. The ratio of attacks when the Cawleys were nearby was actually very high. Indeed the ratio of the number of blows by the Cawleys on the elephants, against their time with them, was probably higher than that of Gills during the period observed. Roger had claimed he was “vigilant”, yet the whole body of video evidence shows he was hardly ever in the shed to oversee Gills.

The Magistrate was concerned that they had been warned and in fact intervened, saying, “They had been given some notice as to what was going on. Their presence should have been greater, knowing about Stephen Gills”.

The defence responded saying that Gills was warned and “Roger Cawley was in the elephant shed every day”. This latter point was completely untrue, the ADs had produced logs to show that even on consecutive days, neither of the Cawleys entered the elephant shed at all, but the CPS did not present them to the court.

With regard to Flora, the defence claimed that Cawley was exercising her for her own good and that she had not been hurt by the whip.

Jasmine was only hit as much as was “necessary” to get her to get up and go to the ring. A similar defence was presented for Trudy.

The Magistrate began his judgement by explaining in the burden of proof required. He said that the actions of the Cawleys were not in the same league as Gills and that their violence was always a means to an end.

On the charges of permitting Gills to do what he did, he found the Cawleys not guilty on the basis that they had not been shown to know the extent of his abuse.

On the charges of failing to protect the animals, the Magistrate said “Not all was done that should have been done since they were on notice”. Sadly he repeated the untruth that Roger Cawley was in the shed every day and didn’t see anything. Mary Cawley, he noted, was away for much of the time. He therefore concluded, “They did exercise reasonable care and supervision given their circumstances”. The way the elephants were kept did not come into this judgement because of the CPS failure to present expert testimony to clarify the tapes.

Given that in reality there was not a single component in the routine to ensure Gills was overseen, or to afford the elephants protection from any member of staff, this seemed extraordinary to many. The ADs had requested that a sanctuary or even zoo manager be called to testify on the management systems in place at Croft Farm. This was not done.

Jasmine was an interesting text case of what is or is not legal in the circus world. The video was clear; Mary twisted Jasmine’s tail, then kicked her, then beat her repeatedly with a broomhandle to get her what she wanted to do. Significantly, the Magistrate noted “The camels were being trained in the ring. It’s not for us to judge if that’s right – it is legal”. He deemed the force was necessary and found Mary not guilty. This showed clearly the lack of legal protection afforded to working animals.

The magistrate conceded that Flora needed to be exercised, but believed that because she was covered in boils, was sick and was whipped that she suffered enduring pain. Importantly, he concluded that this suffering was greater than was necessary to achieve the stated objectives, especially as Cawley had forced her to go faster and faster. Roger Cawley was therefore guilty of cruelty.

On the charges relating to Trudy, the magistrate found Mary Cawley guilty on all counts. It was deemed she could have used less force.

Unfortunately, the Magistrate said that because of their previously “unblemished record”, he didn’t intend to deprive the Cawleys of any of their animals. However, after the Magistrate had delivered his verdict and before he could move on to sentencing, the defence put in a claim that the Cawleys did not own the animals anyway, and so applied for the return of Trudy to the owner – Mary Chipperfield Promotions Limited. The case was therefore adjourned for legal negotiations.

The defence pointed out that the Protection of Animals Act only provides the Magistrate with the power to deprive the owner of an animals if the owner is convicted of cruelty. We were bitter indeed that the charges brought by the ADs against Mary Chipperfield Promotions Limited, in order to cover this eventuality, had been dropped by the Crown.

 

The sentencing

Comments

  1. susan · 10 January 2006 at 1:32a

    They want life in prison for their heines crimes against animals. what was the crown thinking of to release this monster.

Leave a comment on this story

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.