Shayne Towers-Hammond - false evidence about condition of entrance yard. Affidavit of Shayne Towers-Hammond sworn 01/08/2008

Paragraph 4: "As I made my way to the front entrance of the property I could immediately smell a heavy pungent stench of what I believe to be animal excrement. This smell was rather overpowering. As I entered through the front entrance doors I saw a number of what appeared to be poodle type  dogs in 'penned' directly opposite the office at the main entrance. There would have been about  eight or so dogs of varying size. I could see their coats were heavily knotted and overgrown. These animals were in a filthy condition and were barking incessantly. The smell was such I could feel the burning sensation at the rear of my throat. I saw that there was a considerable amount of animal excrement! on the ground and there was discarded dog fur strewn throughout the 'pen'. I saw that there were chairs and a table in the undercover area of the pen where the discarded dog fur had built up and had built up to a stage that the fur was attached to these furnishings. The enclosure overall was filthy to say the least."

"The smell was such I could feel the burning sensation at the rear of my throat." can only be a fabrication as he was in an open area and it was lightly raining with some wind and there had in the previous days been the worst flooding rains in twenty years.

"I could see their coats were heavily knotted and overgrown." the following videos and photos prove this to be a lie.

"I saw that there was a considerable amount of animal excrement! on the ground and there was discarded dog fur strewn throughout the 'pen'." The following photos and video prove this to also be a lie.

Under Cross examination Transcripts Day 5 page 31 line 1. Sworn Witness Shayne Towers-Hammond:

"How could it still be there when it clearly showed that there's no faeces there, the rain had washed it all off?-- I disagree. You actually cleaned that, ma'am, when I was - when I was there.

I actually cleaned it-----?-- Cleaned some of the area----- -----there?-- Cleaned some of the area up. That's not how I originally saw it.

When - when did I clean it? How did you originally see it, or me clean it, which - whichever? How did you originally see it first?-- There were faeces around the area itself in that - that particular location, there were a number of dogs in that area also, and you were - you started to clean the area up whilst we were there.

And I started to clean it up when? I can't remember cleaning it?-- I saw you do it, ma'am. It was - as a matter of fact,if you go further on in the video you'll see you cleaning as well.

Actually clean that area?-- You're cleaning up in another area as well, ma'am.

I cleaned up in another area. You said that I clean up the faeces and the urine, how much was there, like-----?-- There was amounts of faeces scattered throughout that whole area.

Scattered throughout-----?-- Mmm.

-----the whole area? Was it close together or spread out?-- Spread out.

Spread out. But definitely faeces, you could identify?-- Yes.

Can you identify any faeces in that picture now?-- Well, that's a bit of a blurred frame.

Yes, in the frame that we're looking at?-- Very hard to distinguish it with a frame like that.

So you can't really see any faeces?-- On a single frame, no.

On that frame, no. All right. Looking at the photo number 58 - it's 41 - 41 now."

Transcripts Day 5 Page 33 Line 50

"APPELLANT: Did you hear what I said on the bit that was recorded by the video, that I hadn't been able to clean for two days because of the rain?-- If that's what you said on the video. I can't recall actually hearing that part.

Would you like to replay that, please, again?

TAPE PLAYED

APPELLANT: Can you - can you hear that?-- Yes, I heard what you said, yes.

Mmm-hmm. And you still believe that - and you still - still - you said yiou saw me clean it earlier on?-- Ma'am, I've - when you were - when I say "cleaning" you were just picking up things, that sort of thing. That's all.

How was I picking up things? I was busy, there were so many, I was busy, there was about 20-odd people on the property running everywhere, and I was with Laurie Stageman all the time since he came through the entrance and served me the warrant. He was with me. He stayed with me throughout. Right. He did not make any phone calls. And I was talking to him all the time, because when you came in and gave the order to seize the dogs I was still talking to Laurie Stageman, and I didn't have the opportunity to clean. I mean, somebody was with me all the time, and that person was Laurie Stageman throughout?-- And what I mean by "clean" was picking up things, that sort of stuff, that's all. I didn't - the - I'm not saying that there was big vacuum cleaners brought in or anything like that. That's what I'm saying."

Transcripts Day 5 Page 34 Line 15 Court Exhibit 2 is played. This video was taken by Stageman at 11:13am before Shayne Towers-Hammond arrived at the Appellant's property.

"APPELLANT: Could you play the - the VHS video, the tape 1, please?

BENCH: Which - which one?

APPELLANT: The one that the - put in as Exhibit - that was given to us-----

BENCH: Oh, the Exhibit 2, the actual video?

APPELLANT: Yes, the VHS.

BENCH: Exhibit 2.

APPELLANT: Yes."

Transcripts Day 5 Page 34 line 46 onwards. This witness can only identify a few marks that he said were faeces when infact they were pebbles and a rope toy for the dogs.

"WITNESS: You can see some marks around - around the yard itself.

APPELLANT: Which marks?-- Well, on the - see the - see the large dog-----

Yes?-- -----the small dog, about the same distance away between the large and the small there's - there's a piece there, what I beleive is, up on the back there was some faeces up the top, also if you go into that room there was faeces right - well, there was faeces on the floor in that room area and we get over to the other side, and that's where the matted fur and things were also.

BENCH: In so far as this frame's-----?-- Yes.

-----concerned, Inspector-----?-- Yes, your Honour, so to the left of that-----

-----at 11.23.28?-- -----little dog-----

To the left of the small dog-----?-- Yeah, about - oh, I don't know how big your screen is - about 3 knuckles to the left of-----

About the same size as yours?-- -----that there's a black mark there, it appears, from what I can see there, up the back also there is faeces-----

So - so the first lot's about 9 o'clock in-----?-- Yes, your Honour.


-----to the-----?-- To the - to the little dog.

Yes?-- Little black mark.

Mmm?-- Then if you go up onto the back of the property itself-----


What, up - there's a - a - a - what appears to be a concrete-----?-- Concrete----- -----ledge?-- -----ledge up there...there is - there is - it's very hard to tell, but I recall seeing faeces up there as well.

In relation to the dog that's-----?-- In relation to the dog----- -----that's standing up on the wall where do you say-----?-- Oh, to the other end of the wall there, your Honour.

To the - to the far left?-- To the far left-----

All right?-- -----in that area there...

All right?-- And particularly inside that little room as well.

20
Well, you need to - the video will-----?-- Mmm.

-----need to continue on, and so it's questions about the faeces, which identified that so far.

APPELLANT: Mmm.

BENCH: Can we continue on to identify where he says it's-----

APPELLANT: No, I think that's - that's enough-----
30

BENCH: All right.

APPELLANT: -----in establishing-----

BENCH: All right.

APPELLANT: -----the faeces in the courtyard, because those were, in fact, pebbles that came from the embankment when it fell. They were little - I think they are pebbles. There was no faeces in that yard, because the dogs had only been shifted-----

BENCH: You can't give evidence from the Bar table-----

APPELLANT: Yes.

BENCH: -----okay.

APPELLANT: Okay. Sorry. They - they were not faeces, they were, in fact, pebbles, and the big chunk there is actually a toy - a piece of twisted rope ."

This witness could not identify a sludge of urine and faeces in the entrance yard and resorts to identifying some pebbles and a puppy toy as faeces on the video taken by RSPCA Inspector Stageman before this witness arrived at the property. But worse - the Magistrate accepted this as evidence. Now see for yourselves and try to identify the sludge of urine and faeces in these videos following:

The video of this yard taken by Shayne Towers-Hammond - Court Exhibit 24 - exit video

Katie Heaton took this photo below shortly after arrival.

In the Affidavit of Gwen Kate Heaton sworn 25/8/2008 paragraph 5 she arrived with Shayne-Towers-Hammond at 12:34pm.

See the video of this yard taken by Lawrence Stageman Shayne - Entry video at 11:13am according to Stageman.

How did you go? Could you see a sludge of urine and faeces in this yard?

1.      Page 27 line 80 Shane Towers-Hammond arrives and is introduced to Geraldine Robertson Stageman:  Hello Geraldine. What I'd like to do now is the finality, and introduce you to . Laurie ,inspector with the RSPCA. The inspector.  Here's my ID. This is Inspector Shane from the RSPCA Now anything you do say can be recorded and later on used in evidence. Robertson:  Yes.  

2.     Page 28 line 15

We're in the final stages now of  Robertson: seizing the dogs yes.

Seizing all the animals off your property. We're waiting for another vehicle to come back to remove the animals on the property. Now you did say to me before, also what we're doing is, I won't be giving you seizure notice when I leave. We're collating all the animals back at the refuge, so it's all nice and quiet so we get all the animals down on the list, their colouring, their description, so it's all down, and then we will forward that to you with a seizure notice. I'll bring it up to you.

  1.     From the above it is clear that the intention from the very beginning was to take all the Appellant's dogs. page 10 "she'll play straight into your hand so we I giving her a direction,". It was only a matter of whether they would give her a direction and then take all her dogs, or just take them, which is what they did. 

2.     Stageman was determined to get the media onto the Appellant's property. This indicates this seizure was a staged media event. 

3.               Stageman said the dogs were in good body condition and needed clipping.

1.               Shayne Towers-Hammond 2:50 on 9th January 2008. on this video says "Storage areas since been cleaned" with scraping noises in the background.  

2.               Witness Towers-Hammond in his Affidavit Paragraph 4. states "As I made my way to the front entrance of the property I could immediately smell a heavy pungent stench of what I believe to be animal excrement. This smell was rather overpowering. As I entered through the front entrance doors I saw a number of what appeared to be poodle type , dogs in 'penned' directly opposite the office at the main entrance. There would have been about  eight or so dogs of varying size. I could see their coats were heavily knotted and overgrown. These animals were in a filthy condition and were barking incessantly. The smell was such I could feel the burning sensation at the rear of my throat. I saw that there was a considerable of animal excretment on the ground and there was discarded dog fur strewn throughout the 'pen'. I saw that there were chairs and a table in the undercover area of the pen where the discarded dog fur had built up and had built up to a stage that the fur was attached to these furnishings. The enclosure overall was filthy to say the least."   Exhibit GR30 is the affidavit of Shayne Towers-Hammond.  

3.               He said he smelt what appeared to be animal faeces transcripts day 4 page 75 line 30.  

Entrance Video Court Exhibit 24. “The entrance yard to left of entrance was a sludge of urine and faeces”

1.               Shayne Towers-Hammond said he took this video. This video at the entrance yard has scraping noises with Shayme Towers-Hammond saying this yard has since been cleaned.  Shayne Towers Hammond arrived after the Court Exhibit 2 was taken and Court Exhibit 2 shows the yard in exactly the same condition with a variation in wetness as it had been raining. Having been caught out by these two videos showing what Shayne Towers Hammond had said, on the evidence of the two videos, could not be true it was up to Lawrie Stageman to cover for him.  

2.               Lawrie Stageman said the yard had been cleaned before Shayne Towers Hammond arrived. A listen through the tape recording shows no evidence of any cleaning, in fact it shows the Appellant in full on defence against the prospect of losing all her dogs. 

3.               Since this failed it was left to Katie Heaton and Fiona Ferguson to save the day. Both these witnesses pointed to the photograph of this yard and said it was a sludge of urine and faeces. Fiona Ferguson was unable to give evidence of the urination capacity of a dog and how many dogs it would take to create such an extensive wet patch. 

4.               Shayne Towers-Hammond 2:50 on 9th January 2008. on this video says "Storage areas since been cleaned" with scraping noises in the background.  

5.               Towers-Hammond Affidavit. Paragraph 4. states "As I made my way to the front entrance of the property I could immediately smell a heavy pungent stench of what I believe to be animal excrement. This smell was rather overpowering. As I entered through the front entrance doors I saw a number of what appeared to be poodle type , dogs in 'penned' directly opposite the office at the main entrance. There would have been about  eight or so dogs of varying size. I could see their coats were heavily knotted and overgrown. These animals were in a filthy condition and were barking incessantly. The smell was such I could feel the burning sensation at the rear of my throat. I saw that there was a considerable of animal excretment on the ground and there was discarded dog fur strewn throughout the 'pen'. I saw that there were chairs and a table in the undercover area of the pen where the discarded dog fur had built up and had built up to a stage that the fur was attached to these furnishings. The enclosure overall was filthy to say the least."   

6.               He said he smelt what appeared to be animal faeces 4_75_30 STH smelt animal faeces. 

  10.           Witness Katie Heaton States   9 10 1

  "Okay; 9, "I sighted" - paragraph 9 now. "I sighted to the left of me a concrete area that was completely covered in a sludge of faeces"?-- Mmm-hmm.

What - what's - what do you mean by "a sludge of faeces"? Now, you've provided some photos; where are the sludge of faeces in relation to the photographs you've taken? How would-----?-- You can actually see it.

Number? Photograph number?-- Number 3.

Number 3. Oh, yes, the one with the puppy standing on the fence, sort of?-- Mmm-hmm.

Two puppies. Where was the sludge of faeces?-- If you actually look at this entire area here...this is all made up of - of faeces that has just turned into like a sludge-like material, and you can also see it in this shed area here...

So it's all this area here...and the shed area?-- That's right.”  

11.           The Second Respondent had not properly identified the Appellant's dogs and renamed them all so the Appellant could not know which dog she was talking about. 

12.           The Second Respondent refused to allow the Appellant to have a Veterinarian attend to microchip, identify and check out her own dogs prior seizure. Breach of section 151 of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001) Refused proper identification.    

13.           The Appellant was performing her duty of care by moving the dogs to the house yards and cleaning up the kennel flood debris. 

14.           With so much rain and weather the concept that an open court yard could have a putrid smell so bad that it burnt the back of my throat is impossible. 

15.           Benji-Pet Kennel pups were not covered in urine and faeces. When the Appellant realised the Second Defendant was coming into her property she had closed the door and packed the puppies into cages for their protection in view of the number of the Second Respondent staff/volunteers present. While waiting Lawrie Stageman threatened to kick the door down. These dogs had just been playing in the rain and were wet from rain. The Benji-Pet kennel dogs were in perfect health as they were booked to be shipped to Singapore in the following week. 

16.           Ned had maggots put onto him by someone at the Fairfield shelter, 

17.           The Veterinarian report shows that there were few health issues with the Appellant's dogs when they arrived. The health problems arose from the lack of care they received at the RSPCA Fairfield Animal Shelter. 

18.           The statements of the RSPCA veterinarians are not supported by the veterinarian records. 

19.           The Appellant was restricted in her use of the Veterinarian records by the Magistrate. 

20.           Perfectly healthy puppies playing in the video taken at the Appellant's home at time of seizure are found dead three weeks later and the RSPCA Veterinarians state their deaths were caused by the Appellant's neglect. 

21.           Lies that silt and water from the flooding rains was faeces and urine. 

22.           His Honour erred in fact when he accepted the evidence given by Lesley Vlahos as truthful when it was clear that Tracey Jackson tutored this witness and typed Lesley Vlahos affidavit for her. His Honour erred in law and in fact when he accepted the evidence given by Lesley Vlahos as truthful when it was clear that the Appellant wanted to keep her dogs handed to Vlahos for clipping services when she had an order from Paul Ho for the puppies to be born from those dogs.  His Honour erred in fact and law in that he never considered that Lesley Vlahos may have had malice, or an improper motive, towards the Appellant and that this malice was reflected in the manner of her photographs and the presentation of the dogs for the photographs. Having accepted the dogs and consideration from the Appellant for grooming the dogs and then surrendering them to the Second Respondent was a breach of the contract between the Appellant and Lesley Vlahos. Having breached this contract placed Lesley Vlahos in a conflict with the Appellant that would have to be defended by Lesley Vlahos. Her evidence was contaminated. Transcripts Day 5 page 60 line 35

BENCH: Well hang on, hang on, remember the rules, when I'm talking you don't, when you're talking I won't. I'm not going to allow you to ask him questions about things that he has no involvement in. I'm certainly not going to allow you to ask him questions about things which Magistrate Bradford-Morgan has ruled is not part of the proceedings, so on those grounds you can't ask him questions in relation to the disclosure, or
otherwise, of what might've been on this tape to - on any media outlets.

Transcripts Day 5 page page 60 line 15.

BENCH: -----no-one has stolen evidence. What this is about is about seizure of animals and an order - an order made by the delegate of the Chief Executive to forfeit those animals, which were seized, and forfeiture is to the - to the State. That's what the proceedings are about.