It has been an exhausting few days in court due to Carol Dollery’s 14 horses that were brought to Wet Nose after being abandoned in a stable yard without food. After admitting that she was unable to afford these horses and giving us the impression that she would co-operate in the re-homing of her horses Carol brought an urgent application to the high court in order to re-possess all 14 horses. To make a very long story short, we will be keeping the worst of the horses who really need us the most and only the better conditioned horses will be returned to her. I know this is not first prize, however, two of the horses that we are keeping were due to be euthanased by Carol and will now go on to enjoy green pastures and lots of spoiling by new owners who will retire them to a life of luxury. The fate of these two horses were our worst fear. This battle is however by no means over. We will now be compiling our case to place in front of the Magistrate and are asking for members of the public with any information which may assist us to contact our attorney Ms Lomax at [email protected] . Please see below for the statement by our attorney regarding this case: ATTORNEYS STATEMENT REGARDING CAROL DOLLERY’S HORSES BACKGROUND FACTS On 14 November 2014, Wetnose was asked by Marion Clough to take into its care fourteen horses which they were told had been abandoned, without food or bedding, by Carol Dollery. As Wetnose was were told they had been abandoned, and handed over as such by the occupant of the property (Marion Clough), they took them in without a warrant. Section 8(1) of the Animal Protection Act stipulates that: “If authorised thereto by writing under the hand of a Magistrate of a District, any officer of any society for the prevention of cruelty to animals may in that district without warrant and at any time with the consent of the owner or occupier enter any premises where any animal is kept for the purpose of examining the conditions under which it is so kept.” The authority of an officer to SEIZE any animal is contingent upon them first obtaining a warrant for the arrest of the person responsible for the animal UNLESS the ends of justice would be defeated by first obtaining such a Warrant. At the time the horses were seized, Mrs Dollery was in Parys, and Wetnose was concerned that the delay which it would take to obtain a warrant and then have it either acted upon by the Police in Parys, or worse, upon her return to Johannesburg in five days, would have caused undue suffering to the animals. In those circumstances, it was elected to take the animals immediately into their care. They were unable, at that stage, to contact Mrs Dollery, and nor was Mrs Clough, as she avoided all calls. On 17 November 2014, Dollery arrived at Wetnose to claim her horses. After some discussion with her:- - She admitted she could not afford to care for them; - She claimed she did not own all of them; - She signed over the ones she admitted to owning to Wetnose (6 horses in total); - Of the remaining eight horses, one was claimed by a third party, and Mrs Dollery claimed that the other seven were leased to her by third parties, but not her own horses. At all times, it was Wetnose’s intention to try to rehome the horses, either back to their original owners, or to new homes, with the cooperation of Mrs Dollery. To that end, no warrant for her arrest was requested nor was a Warrant sought for the confiscation of the horses. Mrs Dollery’s statements and behaviour at the time made such a step seem unnecessary. Only one person came forward to claim his horse, and Wetnose subsequently learned that Mrs Dollery had lied about the ownership of the other seven horses, all of whom were hers. Attempts were made to arrange for Mrs Dollery to sign those horses over to Wetnose, but this did not happen.. In retrospect, like so many other members of the riding community, we were taken in by what turned out to be no more than a ploy by Mrs Dollery to get the horses back in time, without prosecution. On Wednesday last week, Wetnose was served with an urgent application for the return of all fourteen horses, Dollery having alleged that they were seized unlawfully and that they had been handed over under “duress”. Given only 24 hours to respond to the application, and lacking a go-to legal team, Wetnose relied on the pro bono services of a well-meaning person to assist us. Without enough time to formulate a detailed response, the papers filed could not adequately address the history of Mrs Dollery’s behaviour which has since come to light. The matter was postponed from 5 December to 9 December for hearing. On 6 December, Wetnose engaged my services, pro bono, and I in turn obtained the pro bono assistance of Advocate AJ Venter. As papers had already been filed, we were unable then to place more evidence before the Court without the Court’s permission, and I endeavoured, in discussions with Ms Dollery’s attorney, to settle the matter on the basis that the horses would be kept by Wetnose, rehomed by us, but any proceeds from any adoption would be paid to Mrs Dollery. Mrs Dollery rejected this suggestion. The Gauteng North High Court heard the application yesterday for the return of the horses. I will write up a full report of the issues raised in the application, as well as the outcome, in due course, but at this stage, can confirm that the Court (Ishmail J) found that:- 1. The Animal Protection Act requires an organisation to obtain a Warrant before seizing animals, or immediately thereafter. Wetnose did not obtain such a Warrant because Mrs Dollery initially appeared to cooperate with them in signing over six of the horses, albeit that she claims to do so under duress; 2. Wetnose acted in good faith and, in the judges words, did exactly as he would in the circumstances. The judge indicated that, if it were not for the provisions of the Animal Protection Act, he would have made a very different order. However, his hands were tied by the provisions of the Act, and he was obliged to follow it; 4. Mrs Dollery de facto abandoned those horses. Her version that she left them in the care of others had to be disregarded as no conscientious horse owner would simply go away, leaving her horses with no food, and not bother to check whether the arrangements she put in place for them were working; 5. Mrs Dollerys allegation that she signed over the six horses under duress was dismissed as there was no basis made out in her papers for such duress. Accordingly, those six horses are now the property of Wetnose; 6. Wetnose may keep the six horses signed over by Mrs Dollery, and Mrs Dollery had to collect the remaining seven (one having been claimed by its owner), at her own cost, by 12pm on 11 December 2014; 7. Wetnose was not ordered to pay her costs, as requested by her, as her behaviour warranted their intervention, which was bona fides. Wetnose will now be compiling a substantial report, to place before the Magistrate, for the confiscation of these horses. Members of the public who have any information which may assist us are welcome to contact me at [email protected]. We will certainly be requesting the SAPS to continue with the prosecution of Mrs Dollery under the act, for her abuse and/or neglect of the six animals still in Wetnose’s possession, as all attempts by us to persuade her to cooperate with us in rehoming the horses have been rejected. Wetnose is indebted to the learned judge for his insight into the realities of welfare, and for his uncritical acceptance that it conducted itself, at all times, in the best interests of the horses. As soon as the written judgement is received, it will be distributed to the SA Showing Association, SAEF, and posted on this page.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:24:52 +0000