TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MAGISTRATES COURT
STROFIELD, Magistrate
MAG-00006213/08
GERALDINE FOOI FONG ROBERTSON
Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND
First Respondent
FISHERIES
and
ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF
Second Respondent
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
BRISBANE
..DATE 14/08/2008
CONTINUED FROM 12/08/08
..DAY 5
WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal
offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for
their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those
categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.
1
14082008 D.5 T1/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
DEAN PAPAS APPOINTED AS RECORDER
1
THE COURT RESUMED
BENCH: Would you announce your appearances please? Mrs
Robertson, you're appearing on your own behalf.
10
APPELLANT: Yes, yes, I'm Geraldine Robertson, yes.
BENCH: You're the appellant?
APPELLANT: Yes, the appellant.
BENCH: Thank you.
MS MELLIFONT: Good morning, your Honour, Mellifont, initials
20
KA, counsel instructed by the Department of Primary Industries
and Fisheries, the first respondent. I can announce the
appearance for Mr Duong who is not here, solicitor, first
initial P, surname Duong, D-U-O-N-G, solicitor, Clayton Utz,
for the second respondent, the RSPCA.
BENCH: He just walked in the door. Yes, yes Ms Mellifont,
you have-----
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, just before we resume, yesterday
30
Ms Jackson, who's the person who's been instructing me from
the RSPCA-----
BENCH: Yes.
MS MELLIFONT: -----endeavoured to prepare, as best as she
could, a transcript of that field tape we listened to on
Tuesday. Now I myself have not checked it or verified it for
it's accuracy. I have only this morning - this morning given
a copy to Mrs Robertson. If your Honour would like her it now,
40
I can hand it up now, or alternatively I can have it verified
between today and the next time we come back.
BENCH: I'll - I'll take it now, and if it can be verified
between now and when we come back later this month.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: Are you having difficulties with your voice this
morning?
50
MS MELLIFONT: I am, your Honour.
BENCH: Right.
MS MELLIFONT: I shall try to keep it up.
2
60
14082008 D.5 T1/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: All right. This is the complete tape, this
1
transcript, is it?
MS MELLIFONT: It is.
BENCH: All right.
MS MELLIFONT: Of both days - of both days.
BENCH: Yes, of both occasions, yes, all right. Thank you for
10
the-----
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: -----Ms Mellifont. Yes, Mrs Robertson, you are - you
just started to cross-examine Mr Towers-Hammond on Tuesday
afternoon.
APPELLANT: Yes, your Honour.
20
BENCH: Would you like to continue?
APPELLANT: Yes please.
SHAYNE TOWERS-HAMMOND, CONTINUING:
30
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
APPELLANT: Excuse me, could - could I have this tape played
please?
MS MELLIFONT: I'll take that.
APPELLANT: Thank you.
40
BENCH: What is that a tape of?
APPELLANT: That's the exit tape.
BENCH: The exit tape?
APPELLANT: Yes, that was given to us by Ms Mellifont.
BENCH: All right. Mr Towers-Hammond, I - I haven't seen
50
this, I don't think, have I?
APPELLANT: I - I think we've been using it for a while.
BENCH: Is this - it's got the-----
APPELLANT: It's the - they - they are both virtually similar.
XXN: APPELLANT
3
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T1/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Okay. Has - has the exit tape been played before, the
1
actual exit tape?
APPELLANT: Yes, I think so - isn't it, do you know?
MS MELLIFONT: I'm not sure what description this tape's
given.
BENCH: All right.
10
MS MELLIFONT: We might just have to play it for a minute to
see if it's the same one.
APPELLANT: I think it was taped on the exit of the kennels.
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: At the exit. It was given to us by-----
BENCH: On - on the 9th or on the 22nd?
20
APPELLANT: Ninth.
BENCH: On the ninth, and was the inspector present at the
exit?
MS MELLIFONT: Yes was.
BENCH: He was, all right, okay, yes?
30
APPELLANT: It was supplied to us, your Honour, the tape.
BENCH: Yes, no, no, I'm just - all I'm trying to do is, in my
mind-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----ascertain what was - what it was about and I - if
I - I was thinking if - if this officer wasn't there, I didn't
- didn't know what he could or couldn't do, but if he's there
40
he - he can most definitely answer questions, I would've
thought. Is that the - title one, is that the-----
APPELLANT: Yes, it was given to us by, I think, DPI or RSPCA,
I'm not sure. It says "exit tape".
TAPE PLAYED
50
APPELLANT: Would you please stop the tape. The photo doesn't
stop, does it, because the photo went off - the-----
BENCH: Do-----
APPELLANT: -----the film went off, disappeared.
XXN: APPELLANT
4
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T1/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: Do you - do you want a - a - yes?
APPELLANT: This tape was given to us by - I'm sure whether
it's RSPCA or DPI, only recently. It came with the affidavits
and, Mr Towers-Hammond, did you record this tape?-- I do
recall that part of the, yes, that I did-----
Yes. I think in fact you did-----?-- -----I did copy -
record.
10
-----do the whole recording, it had your voice on it. Now I
think, what was the purpose of showing my sign on the tape at
the start?-- For identification of where I was.
Yes. You also showed the photo on television - released that
photo to the television media did you not?-- No I didn't.
Well it was on television in the news on the weekend following
the 9th of January, okay. As a result of your release, I was
20
inundated for three months continuous - continuously from
morning, 24 hours a day, by telephone calls, abusive telephone
calls and assaults.
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, can I please interrupt at this
stage. This particular area is one of the matters which was
struck out of the notice of appeal as a ground and - and, in
any event, this witness has denied releasing this to the
media.
30
BENCH: I'm struggling to see the relevance of what happened
on the 9th as well, Mrs Robertson.
APPELLANT: Well, I think-----
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
40
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.
APPELLANT: Your-----
BENCH: You need to focus on - you need to-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
50
BENCH: -----focus on why the RSPCA were at your property -
was at your property, or were at your property, on the 9th of
January.
APPELLANT: Yes, but this has, in my way of thinking, the tape
was made by Mr Towers-Hammond, and the main reason why they
XXN: APPELLANT
5
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T1/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
were at my property on the 9th of January was the result of a
1
plan to steal my animals, to defame me-----
BENCH: Mrs Robertson-----
APPELLANT: -----so that I have-----
BENCH: Mrs Robertson-----
APPELLANT: Yes?
10
BENCH: -----no-one has - from the evidence that's been
provided to me and from what I've read in the material-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
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.
20
That's what the proceedings are about.
APPELLANT: All right, your Honour, okay. Could you please
play the rest of the video?
TAPE PLAYED
30
APPELLANT: Mr Hammond - Towers-Hammond, right, in the four
days prior to your raid, were you aware that there were
massive floods in Buccan, where half of Buccan - of the - of
the Beaudesert Shire was under water? Were you aware of
that?-- No.
It was in all the papers and news. Surely your - your other
RSPCA inspectors that you had been talking to would have
mentioned something about it?-- No.
40
So you definitely was not aware of the flooding?-- No I
wasn't.
Okay. The - the - although most of south east Queensland was
under water, I think up north as well, it was still - you
didn't - you didn't think that we could be under water too;
did you?-- On the 9th of January I had just arrived from
Rockhampton.
50
When was Rockhampton flooded?-- Sorry?
When was Rockhampton suffering the same weather that we did
with heavy rains and all; can you remember?-- It was - it was
the latter of January and February.
How late in January, one week after?-- Can't recall the exact
date.
XXN: APPELLANT
6
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T1/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
Two weeks from the seizure?
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, the weather in Rockhampton really
is not relevant to this case, respectfully.
BENCH: What's the point of your questions, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: Well, I just felt that he must have some idea that
we were under water, first, because the rain started from the
10
south and went up north, I think, according to the news report
from memory and it seems really strange that it was all over
the news, over south east Queensland I thought, that he wasn't
aware that we were suffering more rain at the start. But it
doesn't really matter-----
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: -----I will move on. The ground where we were was
very dry because of the drought for 18 months and then the
20
rains came so fast that the water collected heaps of debris
with the - from the drought. The dirt was like tar so we did
have the flood, I think, about the beginning of January, the
weekend before the 9th and there was a build up of silt and
mud and the water came down and washed through the kennels. I
think it came up to about four inches high at the highest
point, it wasn't that much. The - the - the land from the
start of the drive to the entrance of the kennel block entry
into it was higher, would you agree or would you - can you
remember whether it was so?-- No, I can't.
30
I think if we show the kennel video later on again then you
will see it, that the land was higher than the kennels on the
side where you started filming the video. So the water
actually washed into the kennel and it went through the
kennels, right? Did you see looking at the video just now,
that that - that particular - during that particular period
prior to the date of the seizure, that the kennels still
looked flooded, like it still had debris in it as well. That
was a couple of days before. Would you agree to that? That -
40
that you saw that on the video?-- I can't agree with something
I didn't see two days before.
Can we play the video again please, and stop at the kennels,
the last part. I - I'll let you know when to stop, thank you.
TAPE PLAYED
50
XXN: APPELLANT
7
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T2/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: If you could stop it at - sorry, if you could stop
1
it at 2 minutes - 11 minutes, 2.11 minutes from the start.
BENCH: There's - there isn't any timer on there.
APPELLANT: Oh, sorry.
BENCH: Well, just - my clerk will take - try and take it to
the point where you want him to stop, so just-----
10
APPELLANT: Yes, thank you. Yes.
BENCH: -----watch and tell him-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----where you want him to stop.
APPELLANT: Thank you. Yes. Thank you. If you could go back
a little wee bit. Yes, thank you. I think about there.
20
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Yes, just hold it there. That will do. That will
show some of it. Could you please look and see whether - what
you think that is? All the - the patches of debris? Can you
30
see that? Perhaps that's not the clearest frame, we can
always go back. Perhaps if you could move a little bit - yes,
please.
BENCH: Back. Forward or back?
APPELLANT: Backwards.
BENCH: Back.
40
APPELLANT: Backwards. Yes. I think if - as - could we slow
it down, can we - no, okay.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Would you agree that is debris, Mr Towers-Hammond,
50
from the rain, the flooding?
MS MELLIFONT: Could I ask just Mrs Robertson to specify what
she's referring to as-----
APPELLANT: All the leaves in front of the kennels and the
general look of it.
XXN: APPELLANT:
8
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T2/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Inspector-----
1
APPELLANT: Of what's on the video-----
BENCH: Inspector-----
APPELLANT: -----that was part of the-----
BENCH: -----is it at the - at the bottom of the - of the-----
10
APPELLANT: The bottom of the-----
BENCH: Yes.
APPELLANT: -----of - of the - at the bottom-----
BENCH: At the bottom of the screen, what appears there. Can
you comment on what you believe that to be?-- There are some
leaves at the bottom, there's also a mixture of faeces at the
bottom there as well.
20
APPELLANT: Together with? Just - just - just dog droppings,
faeces and what else is mixed up with it do you think?
Looking at it?-- There'd be dirt.
Yes. Does it look like there's more dirt than faeces or more
faeces than dirt? Or silt, which is dust and water. The
residual after a - a - a flooding, sort of the water draining
away.
30
BENCH: You can make an observation about what's there and you
can also make an observation as you were there on the day as
to what you saw?-- What I can see at the base and what I saw
at the base and particularly in this frame, there are some
leaves there, but they're also mixed up with - with built-up
faeces. There is dirt and it was a rainy day so it could be
looked at as a bit of mud and there's trodden-in faeces
further back into the cage with mud as well. That's what I'm
trying to say, your Honour.
40
APPELLANT: So you would - would you say that looking at it,
if there was - and you think, you believe that there is more
faeces or more dirt mixed up? Just generally?-- Faeces.
More faeces? Right. Now, was it raining very heavy that day,
the day you were there?-- There were some intermittent
showers.
Yes?-- Light showers.
50
Mild showers or heavy showers?-- Light.
Light showers. Now, how long do you think it would take the
faeces to be this - this integrated into fine grit like - it
appears to me to be like silt.
XXN: APPELLANT:
9
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T2/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I don't know that this witness can
1
give that kind of opinion in terms of how long it takes a
faeces to - to degrade into a silt-looking substance.
APPELLANT: He said that it was showering that day, your
Honour, and that-----
BENCH: Well-----
APPELLANT: -----it looked like more for like faeces and it
10
would - the dogs-----
BENCH: I - I understand that, but the objection is that
whether or not the inspector can give evidence, whether he's -
whether he is an expert or whether he has experience to
say-----
APPELLANT: You don't have to be an expert.
BENCH: No, no, no, no-----
20
APPELLANT: Mmm-hmm.
BENCH: -----but whether he can say that it takes X amount of
time for it to become - and I think, what was the word you
used, disintegrated, or-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: I don't know whether he's an expert at that. Do you
30
have - Inspector, do you have any ability to determine whether
or not, how long it would take for dog faeces to - to
disintegrate?-- No, your Honour.
Thank you.
APPELLANT: Yes, I think we'll just go forward now a little
bit.
40
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Stop please. Stop. Now, can you see the kennels
on the screen?-- Yes.
There's the two kennels next to the brick wall?-- Yes.
50
Right. What sort of condition would you say they look like?
Do they look like they've been cleaned as compared to the
others that was full of debris and whatnot, this seems to be a
bit clearer, this vision?-- I can't say they're clean.
XXN: APPELLANT:
10
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
You can't say they're clean? Where is the debris, the storm
1
debris? Surely, there wasn't sufficient water that morning to
wash it all off?-- I can't understand what you say.
Have a look at it please.
MS MELLIFONT: I'm not sure that Mrs Robertson has asked a
question that this witness can answer.
BENCH: I think it's a repeat of the question, "Is it clean?"
10
You're asking is - if the - are those two kennels clean,
Mrs Robertson? Is that what you're asking him?
APPELLANT: Yes, your Honour?-- No.
You don't - it doesn't look clean to you compared to the
others. Could you please move it back - for - ah not back,
forward. Yes, please.
BENCH: Well, before you do that. Inspector, do you - in
20
respect of that question, do they look clean in comparison to
the others; yes or no?-- Well, they're not as dirty as the
others.
APPELLANT: Not as dirty. Where's the dirt? Could you please
show it to me?-- The darkened area-----
Point it out?-- -----is what I can see from there. The
darkened area to the right side of the screen.
30
Does it look like it had water or - what sort of dirt do you
think it would be there to darken it, in the screen, looking
at it?-- I don't know what type of dirt.
Why would it be darker?-- I don't know.
Because it's wet. Doesn't it look wet to you?-- It was a
rainy day.
Yes, it's a rainy day, and does it look to you that it's not
40
clean, unclean, but where's the debris? Any dirt, mud,
faeces? Can you see any there? Please have a good look. Can
you see any faeces there and point out something to me that
you can look-----?-- Not in that frame, no.
Not in that frame. So it is clean-----?-- I can't make it
out.
-----compared to the others clean?-- It's not - it's not as
dirty as the others, as I said.
50
How can it - it's either cleaner, because you couldn't see
anything; how can it be dirty?
BENCH: Well, Mrs Robertson, his answer is it's not as dirty
as the others.
APPELLANT: Yes.
XXN: APPELLANT
11
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: I don't - don't - you've asked him that twice. I
don't think you're going to get him to change that statement.
APPELLANT: He said it isn't clean, then he said-----
BENCH: No, he said it's not as dirty as the others. He's
said that twice.
APPELLANT: All right. Okay. Yes. Please. Thank you.
10
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Stop. Could you tell me - this is your exhibit
video. There seems to be no more dogs in the kennels. Why is
there barking?-- Because there's a dog right next to the right
20
as you walk in.
So really this video - this part of the video was taken in the
entry part because that was the dog - the first dogs to be
removed from my property were the dogs from these
kennels?-- That's not true.
It's not true? Everything is exactly - you wouldn't say - if
I - if I produce another video or rather another part of the
video which was the entry video, and the picture is exactly
30
the same, every shot of it, because we did measure it and
played it. So this is part of the entry video?-- No, it's
not.
It isn't? You would say it isn't. You're sure?-- Yes, I am.
All right. Please.
40
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: And the news too is the same. Thank you. Mr
Towers-Hammond, do you agree that the property did suffer some
damage from the flash flooding?-- I can't say that. I don't
know.
You don't know. Okay. Thank you. I think we've finished with
50
the video. Now-----
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, are you wanting to tender the - that
extract of video?
APPELLANT: Yes, please.
BENCH: All right. Now, if I take that copy-----
XXN: APPELLANT
12
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: Mmm, yes.
BENCH: -----that would be taking your copy away. Ms
Mellifont, do you have a copy that's for - for the purposes?
If you tender your copy you won't have one, Mrs Robertson.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes.
BENCH: I'll be keeping it.
10
MS MELLIFONT: Do we have one of the - your Honour, I'm fairly
sure this has the video we speak of. In the morning break I
might just check that and then tender it.
BENCH: Yes. Yes - yes.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
BENCH: So that - that will be checked to make sure it's
20
exactly the same, and that - that will be tendered then. But
I'll give this video that you've just used back to you so that
you've got your copy.
APPELLANT: Thank you.
BENCH: Yes, Mrs Robertson, please continue.
APPELLANT: I would like to refer to a photo I - for some
unknown reason it has been - this one. The number has been
30
[indistinct].
MS MELLIFONT: It's part of Exhibit - part of Exhibit 18.
BENCH: I think the inspector might still have that. Do you
have some exhibits there in front of you, Inspector?-- Yes, I
do, sir.
APPELLANT: Part of Exhibit 18.
40
MS MELLIFONT: After Court on Tuesday we worked with your
clerk to ensure that the Court exhibits came back.
BENCH: Oh, did you?
MS MELLIFONT: Yes.
BENCH: Oh; all right.
MS MELLIFONT: But I can find the photograph that Mrs
50
Robertson wants to show-----
APPELLANT: It's got a dog running loose.
MS MELLIFONT: Okay, let me find it.
BENCH: Yes. Yes, Exhibit 18 is here. I do apologise. Which
one is it? Which one is it, Mrs Robertson?
XXN: APPELLANT
13
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
MS MELLIFONT: I'll just find it, your Honour.
APPELLANT: Oh, here it is.
MS MELLIFONT: Is that the one?
APPELLANT: Yes, what's the number?
MS MELLIFONT: Number 18.
10
APPELLANT: Eighteen. You've got a good memory.
MS MELLIFONT: Photograph number 18 it's in.
APPELLANT: Would you look at the photograph and tell me what
you see, please?-- I see two cages with a number of animals in
it and dogs in the cages. I see to the right of the cage, the
caged area, there's a dog loose there. There's also a, what
appears to be a bag of food, dog food. I see the tiled floor,
20
all the filth on the floor.
Where are these dogs located? Where were this pen in this
picture generally? Which part of the property?-- I recall
that was in the house.
In the house? Yes. And can you describe your - when - when
did this happen? When - when did you take this
photos?-- Well, this photo was taken on the 9th as it -
indicated to me on this, the 9th of the 1st.
30
When you first came into the house or-----?-- It wasn't taken
by - by myself, this one.
This wasn't taken by you? It doesn't matter. But you went
into the house at the same time, didn't you, or thereabout,
sometime during the day, the morning anyway; did you not?-- In
the afternoon-----
Did you go-----?-- -----I did.
40
Sorry?-- In the afternoon I did.
In the afternoon. All right. You went to the house in the
afternoon. What did you see? Did you see the dogs there?-- I
saw a number of dogs in the house, yeah.
Yes. Can you recollect what you said on Tuesday in your
evidence-in-chief regarding the dogs in the cages when Ms
Mellifont showed you the pictures in these photos; can you
50
recall?-- Yes.
What - what did you say?-- When I did go in the house I did
see a number-----
Yes?-- -----of animals in there, like this-----
XXN: APPELLANT
14
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
Yes?-- -----in there in the conditions that these animals are
1
in at the moment.
What conditions?-- In the cages.
Yes?-- That is faeces in the cages.
Yes?-- The smell at that time was absolutely putrid.
Mmm; a putrid smell-----?-- It - it was as it-----
10
-----dogs in the cages, and - and-----?-- At that-----
-----what were their condition? They were filthy?
MS MELLIFONT: Sorry.
APPELLANT: Did you say?
MS MELLIFONT: Mr Towers-Hammond should be able to answer the
20
first question which is: what were the conditions in the cage
- and he was partway through that.
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, remember the rules. Ask the question -
a question, allow the witness to answer, and then the next
question. One question at a time.
APPELLANT: Okay.
30
BENCH: Can you answer the question, Inspector, or do you want
it asked again?-- Could she ask it again, please?
Yes.
APPELLANT: Yes. What did you see in the house when you went
in into the house?-- In the cages?
Yes. Well, generally. You made some comments. On - on
40
Tuesday when Ms Mellifont asked you what did you see?
BENCH: Do - do you want him - want him to tell you what he
saw when he first went into the house?
APPELLANT: Yes, the impression that gave-----
BENCH: What were you - what - what observations did you make
when you first walked into the house, Inspector?-- I was
disgusted at what I saw. The - there were files - inside the
50
office area which is the first part of the house I went into,
there was a cage in there. There was files all over the
place, there was cobwebs, dust. The smell of the dog faeces
and urine was very overpowering. I could feel it in the back
of my throat actually. I could see that in the - in the cages
themselves, the - there was faeces on newspaper. I could only
describe it as like - excuse the word I use - lasagne where it
was paper, faeces, paper, like that...that had built up over a
XXN: APPELLANT
15
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
period of time. The flooring throughout the house was dirty,
1
as in in the indication of this...photograph. Similar
conditions in relation to the newspaper and the faeces. Again
the smell very strong. In this particular case animals
couldn't lay down in the case without being on sodden
newspaper or dirt. When I say dirt, again excrement. The
floor had pulverised faeces around it which, like in this
photograph here...
And the dogs, the condition of the dogs?-- The coats were
10
filthy. A number of animals-----
The dogs? The animals?-- Yes. The coats were filthy.
But they - the - they were filthy too?-- Yes.
The dogs were filthy, the cages were filthy, the place was
filthy, and the smell was putrid; right?-- Yes.
Now, if you have a look again at the pictures, don't the dogs
20
look wet or do they - or do - do they not look wet and soaked?
The dogs, look at the dogs, please?-- Some would have been
damp.
Damp? What do you mean by "damp"? They're either wet or
they're not?-- Well, from what I can see-----
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, they well may be - there is a
middle ground-----
30
BENCH: Yes.
MS MELLIFONT: -----respectfully, in answering in that
fashion.
APPELLANT: Ms Mellifont, please let him answer the question.
If he needs help I'm sure he'll ask you?-- The animals were
laying in sodden newspaper.
The animals-----?-- That's what I believe.
40
-----were lying in sodden newspaper. Well, see, you mentioned
it was like lasagne. That means heaps of paper, lots of
paper, one on top of the other, together with layers of - but
not in between. That's what lasagne look like. You know,
it's - it's pasta over gravy and pasta over gravy. Can you
show me where that is on the picture that you're looking
at?-- The base of the page. At the base of the page.
Would it - mmm. Would it - would it sound reasonable to you
50
if I were to say the dogs on - when I saw your vehicles
pulling into my drive, I - I stopped whatever I was doing, I
grabbed some pups, I threw some paper in the holding pens -
that's what these cages are, holding pens - and I put the wet
pups into them, the dogs, because I knew I was getting raided
and I had to secure the dogs that were - it was running loose
in the courtyard just outside the door; right? Would that
sound reasonable to you, or doesn't it? Because the dogs are
XXN: APPELLANT
16
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
saturated with rain and as you could see from top to the
1
bottom. Now, even if they laid in the cage like that, they
didn't - they look quite happy and content. Look at them.
They're just curious. Standing there, looking. They're not
upset. They're not disturbed and they're not sound asleep.
Now, what do you think; would you agree with me or don't you?
I - if I done that, the dogs would look like they do. They're
quite content. They've been out all morning. They've done
their toilet. They - they - they were wet because they've
been playing in the showers in between that morning.
10
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, are you wanting to ask the inspector
did the dogs look like they had just been placed in the cages?
APPELLANT: That's right. Not long ago. Within less than 10
minutes. Would you please make an observation and-----?-- I
can't answer that. I wouldn't know - I don't know.
BENCH: Did they appear-----
20
APPELLANT: Well, I'm just-----
BENCH: -----to be wet from the rain?
APPELLANT: Have a look at the photo, top to bottom. They're
totally soaked?-- From what I could see of the animals they
appeared to be wet because of the conditions they were laying
in.
So in other words those holding pens must be loaded with water
30
for them to get so thoroughly soaked from the top of their
head; just have a look. Commonsense. Use your commonsense.
Have a look at the dog, at the pictures that are shown. The
ones in the cage and there's one dog outside, so you can see.
Don't they all look like they have been playing out in the
rain with their feet deeper in water and the cages are
obviously not soaked in water or else the trays on them are
virtually non-existent. So it would be all over the floor if
there was water in the cages. And those are holding pens. No
dogs has lived in it. There's no faeces really in the cage if
40
you look-----
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, just break it down. Ask him a
question. You've got to ask questions.
APPELLANT: I must remember. Okay, thanks. Have a good look
at the picture, please?-- I have.
Mmm; and what - what - what do you - after having a good look
and after applying your commonsense I would think, taking -
50
bearing in mind what we have been discussing, there's been
rain, we have had - gone through a flood. We - the courtyard
you saw when you came in was still wet from the rain because
remembering there were 18 months before of drought. The water
was very scarce. I couldn't afford to waste the water, so
it's got to be rain. You still - still believe - would you
like to think about it or just-----
XXN: APPELLANT
17
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T3-4/LVT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Inspector, did the - did the top of the dogs appear to
1
be wet, either damp, you know - and whether it's just slightly
wet, damp or - or sodden; somewhere in - in that range? Did
the top of the dogs appear to be - to you to be wet?-- No.
The top of the dogs don't appear to be wet? They are not wet,
you would say?-- It was raining that day, yes. When I went in
and I saw animal - these animals, they were enclosed in this
cage.
10
Yes?-- The smell - the dank smell that was in there was coming
from the faeces and the urine within that area. The animals
were also standing, sitting and laying in that. That - they
were my observations at the time. It didn't appear to me to
be anything but what was there.
I put it to you, Mr Towers-Hammond, there was no putrid smell,
because the dogs were already out in the rain. Any smell
would have been washed off. They are all soaking wet to me,
the whole body. You could see the skin, and that is a wool
20
coat, a thick, dense, matted, wool coat; remember? Have a
look at the photo-----?-- All I remember-----
-----again, please?-- They - they were filthy and they smelt.
The whole area smelt to the - to the point that it was burning
the back of my throat.
Did you see a doctor about the burns in the back of your
throat? It must be very stressful if that was the case?-- No,
I didn't.
30
I mean, you know, under such stress, if the smell was so bad,
you didn't go and bother to see a doctor?
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, this witness has not said he
suffered stress. He said he - he suffered - he felt burning
in the back of his throat.
BENCH: And didn't - and he didn't see a doctor about it, Mrs
Robertson-----
40
APPELLANT: No.
BENCH: -----about that.
APPELLANT: Yes; okay. I refer to number 14, photo number 14.
BENCH: From the same-----
APPELLANT: From the same-----
50
BENCH: Same one; all right.
APPELLANT: Please.
XXN: APPELLANT
18
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Can you turn up photo 14, please,
1
Inspector-----?-- Oh-----
-----in that group of photo - oh, you don't have
the-----?-- No. No, your Honour.
I have the actual exhibit. Do you have number 14 that he
could have a look at?
APPELLANT: I put it to you, Mr Towers-Hammond, that it is
10
another photo of the dog and this is a - this one is taken
close, more closer to the dogs. In fact the dogs are clearer
and better focused; that the dogs were indeed soaked from the
rain outside. It is impossible for them to be soaked from
lying on the - on the faeces you said you can see because
there's no faeces shown and - and the mess at the bottom of
the - on the floor and in the pens, there's obviously not - is
- is the moisture from - from the rain, from the coats that
they have absorbed on the dust. I put it to you that it is
actually wet dust or damp dust and no faeces at all in the
20
pen. There's paper, there's dust, dry dust, and wet or damp
dust as well in the cages, and the dogs. This is a clearer
photo close-up and the dogs are thoroughly soaked to the skin.
BENCH: Inspector, in your - in your opinion are the dogs wet
from the rain or from the condition in the pen, in the
kennel?-- Well, this is a different photo to-----
Yes?-- -----that one, is that what you're saying?
30
APPELLANT: Yes?-- This particular photo, your Honour, is a
completely different area.
BENCH: Yes?-- It would be a mixture of both. There's a build
up of faeces, as - as I can identify it here. There's a build
up of faeces behind the animals here, their coats are heavy-
burdened with dirt, there's actual - oh, clumps of fur off one
of the animals near the - near the doorway there. You can see
it at the front of the animal. There's faeces outside, that
was faeces out there, and they did have access to run out so
40
they would have picked - obviously picked up rain out there as
well, but I believe that it's also a mixture of also laying -
there was no bedding or anything for these animals and they
were laying in what you see there as well.
APPELLANT: Right. This is actually a close-up photo, number
14, of number 18?-- No, it's not.
Have a look at it. There's only one holding pen that looks
like that, I know because I own them. Have a look at it. The
50
basin is on-----
BENCH: Sorry, Mrs Robertson, which number 14? Can I - can
you show us what 14 is?
APPELLANT: Fourteen is this...one and 18 is this...one.
XXN: APPELLANT
19
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Oh, I think the inspector's looking at a different -
1
your numbers are different. The - the 14 that I'm looking
at-----
APPELLANT: But this is 14. This is labelled number 14.
BENCH: No, the numbers are actually written down the bottom
on the right-hand side of the front of the - of the-----
APPELLANT: It says 14 on mine.
10
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I - I'll find the photo that Mrs
Robertson means.
BENCH: Think it's number 4? Is it number 4?
APPELLANT: Number 14? Yes, it says 14 on mine.
MS MELLIFONT: That's right. That's the one.
20
BENCH: Number 4, I think, Ms Mellifont.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, that's correct.
BENCH: It's got a 14 on the back. It's actually-----
APPELLANT: Four on the front.
BENCH: Four on the front, yes.
30
APPELLANT: Mmm, mine wasn't four.
BENCH: Do you have photo number 4 in front of you now,
Inspector?-- Yes, I do now, your Honour, yes.
All right. Now, Mrs Robertson, your point is that photograph
4 is a close-up of-----
APPELLANT: Eighteen.
40
BENCH: -----one of the cages in - or probably one and a-half
of the cages in photo number 18-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----is that right? All right.
APPELLANT: It shows the dog clearer.
BENCH: Yes, yes, all right.
50
APPELLANT: And the focus-----
BENCH: Yes.
APPELLANT: -----where the alleged faeces are supposed to be.
XXN: APPELLANT
20
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Yes, all right. Yes, what were you wanting to ask him
1
about it?
APPELLANT: I want - wanted him to have a good look because
you can see better. Because it clearly showed the dogs are
totally soaked to the skin, you can see skin. And there's no
faeces on him, just moisture. And there's no faeces in the
cage. There's no-----
BENCH: Do you accept the dogs-----
10
APPELLANT: -----tray in the cage.
BENCH: Do you accept that the dogs are saturated to the skin,
Inspector?-- They are damp, yes.
Do you accept that there is no faeces on their - on the
dogs?-- Certainly not.
APPELLANT: And no faeces in the pen, either, because - or -
20
or urine because-----?-- No, what I meant by that, there was
faeces on the animals as well as in the pens.
On the animals? Could you show me the faeces on the animals
that you can see, because this a close-up photo on number 4?
Can you-----?-- If you look-----
-----indicate, please?-- If you look at the paws, they are
standing on the faeces. It's pulverised-----
30
What faeces?-- -----in - it's-----
I - yep, go on?-- It is pulverised into the newspaper.
The newspaper at the side, on the front of the kennel and
alongside showed that it's been shredded up by the dogs. And
that's what they do, they scratch around, it's been scratched
up, can you see that? The newspaper?-- I certainly can see
the newspaper and-----
40
Yes?-- -----and the pulverised faeces around the outside of it
as well.
The - pulverised, as you call it, is, in fact, the moisture on
bits of the shredded paper that was left in the cage, mixed
with the dust. Would you like to have another good look? If
it's faeces, how long would it - I mean, you - you couldn't
tell me earlier on, couldn't tell us earlier on, as to how
long it would take to pulverise or - or for the faeces to
disintegrate. I would say it would take a little while and
50
the dogs are still wet from outside because it seems more
feasible, more logical, if they were wet from the outside and
just put in there within 10 minutes ago. They wouldn't have
time to pulverise anything. Could you please look at the
photo again? Have - try and identify some faeces that are not
pulverised. If there's plenty of faeces then, you know, some
of it.
XXN: APPELLANT
21
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Are - are you talking - you're talking about solid
1
faeces, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: Well-----
BENCH: Whether he can identify solid faeces?
APPELLANT: Yes, something that resemble faeces. He says
they're pulverised-----
10
BENCH: Well-----
APPELLANT: -----within 10 minutes.
BENCH: -----Inspector, can you identify any - any solid
faeces in the - in the photos, photo 4?-- I can identify the
entire base of the cage there, your Honour, as actually having
thick dog excrement, absolutely.
I understand-----?-- I've used that-----
20
I understand your evidence about-----?-- Yeah, okay.
Actually, in the next cage I can actually see it. But-----
APPELLANT: Please identify, from the next cage, that you can
actually see?-- It appears to me as the - on the - just on the
left-hand side, on the floor of the cage, it appears to be
faeces in there, a small - small piece of it.
Which piece?-- Again, I observe that to also have pulverised
30
faeces in there, but there appears to be a piece just where
the door is. Would you like me to-----
BENCH: Inspector, I'll give you photograph 4. Now, this is
the actual Court exhibit. I'll ask him to mark on that
photograph-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----where he can see - thank you very much - the
40
solid faeces. Do you have a pen, Inspector?-- No, I don't,
your Honour.
On the actual Court one, yes. Need something to lean it -
lean on?-- No, it's all right, your Honour. It's just one
mark, your Honour, on there. Show Mrs Robertson and Ms - show
Mrs Robertson and Mrs Mellifont, please.
MS MELLIFONT: Okay, yes. Is it - do you see that, Mrs
Robertson?
50
APPELLANT: Yes. Which? There. Which part?
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, the red - the red dot.
APPELLANT: Where the red dot is. Here?-- It's a small arrow.
Oh, yes.
XXN: APPELLANT
22
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: Do you want him to keep that photograph, Mrs
Robertson? Are you going to ask him some questions about it?
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: I put it to you that's not a piece of faeces
because the dogs hadn't been in there long enough?-- It's just
10
what I saw.
You couldn't see any, then you saw one piece. And the whole
lot has been - pulverised. You got - did you say that?-- Yes,
it - a lot of it was pulverised.
All of it, except for that lump?-- You asked me if I could see
something and I told you what I could see.
That you identify as faeces, right, only one piece and you
20
also said that the rest of it has been - pulverised?-- Yes.
Is that right?-- Yes.
Yes, okay. All within 10 minutes of putting the dogs in
there?
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, he can't-----
BENCH: Well, he can't - sorry, Ms - yes, Ms Mellifont, yes.
30
MS MELLIFONT: The objection is that this witness is not
purporting to say when it happened, he - not purporting to say
whether the dogs were put in there 10 minutes prior, he's just
saying what he saw on the day.
BENCH: That's right, Mrs Robertson. He doesn't know how long
the dogs were there. If he had seen them put into the cage
and he could say, "Yes, they were there for 10 minutes", he
could perhaps make a - make a comment about that.
40
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: But he didn't see the dogs put in there-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----doesn't know how long they've been there.
APPELLANT: Yes.
50
BENCH: Whether it's 10 minutes or-----
APPELLANT: Mmm-hmm, or whenever.
BENCH: 10 days, mmm.
XXN: APPELLANT
23
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: I put it to you that you're wrong, that that is
1
not faeces, those things that you - what you call pulverised
faeces is not, but actually dust from the - and the dogs are -
are soaked and wet from the rain and they are soaked so
completely that if they layed on it - if the cage was full of
urine and faeces, there would be faeces sticking to them,
which you cannot identify on any of the dogs in those photos,
or you couldn't even see that they were wet from the rain and
they look like they're soaked to the skin.
10
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I'm - I'm very sorry to be up and
down, but there's about three questions so far. The first
question was, according to this witness, that what he saw was
not faeces, that's the first answer to be given.
BENCH: Can you answer that question, Inspector?-- What I saw
was faeces.
All right. What do you say about the question that it - about
the - proposition that what you saw was dust?-- It was not
20
dust, it was pulverised faeces.
All right, and I've forgotten what the third proposition was.
APPELLANT: Sorry, your Honour. The - the question is that
the dogs, although they were - they appear to me to be soaked
to the skin-----
BENCH: Oh, yes, sorry, yes.
30
APPELLANT: -----he - he saw, as they were just damp from
lying on the urine.
BENCH: As opposed to being damp from being in the rain?
APPELLANT: Yes?-- I can only say what I saw at the time and
they were in that cage. The floor of it was damp, it was, as
I said, strewn with faeces - pulverised faeces - and that's
what I believe it was from.
40
All right. The - and there was pulverised faeces, the dogs
were damp from what, to you, appeared to be from lying on the
- the wet kennel, wet with urine; is that right? The
kennels?-- The photograph shows that, as I said earlier.
Yeah, the photograph to you, that's how you see it, because
I'm telling you different, you don't agree, so that's what you
saw and what you think. The dogs were damp from lying on the
urine. It's got to be the dampness, the dogs' dampness - got
to come from somewhere; would you agree?-- I don't - all I can
50
say is what I saw and that's where I believe it - it came
from-----
Okay?-- -----being in that cage.
Right, okay. Can you see any - any urine stains or moisture
on the cage, other than the cage, out of it, assuming that all
the dogs in there urinated?
XXN: APPELLANT
24
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: Sorry, Mrs Robertson, I'm struggling with that myself.
Can you see any urine on - on the cage other than on the -
where do you mean, can - "Where can you see urine?"
APPELLANT: He's saying that the dampness from the dog, which
appeared to be quite massive, came from the urine-wet kennels
and I'm saying that that isn't the case. It was the moisture
from the rain outside, because the dogs were put in there by
me.
10
BENCH: Right, okay, so-----
APPELLANT: In 10 minutes, yes. And-----
BENCH: Yes, I - I know, I understand that's your evidence,
but that's not-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
20
BENCH: -----the inspector's evidence.
APPELLANT: His evidence is different, obviously.
BENCH: Right, right.
APPELLANT: And I want to determine that - basting on his
evidence, if the dogs had laid on urine - urine - kennels that
are wet with urine, there must be urine that can be seen
because there is no base to that kennel and neither was that
30
holding pen, it didn't have a base to hold the water, the
urine. Any urine would have seeped through. Unless it's -
there's so much dirt in there, there was a lot of dust,
because those - those holding pens weren't used, I didn't
prepare to use them. But because they came, I didn't have
time. They were in storage there for a while.
BENCH: All right, all right. Well, your question to the
inspector is, did he see any actual urine-----
40
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----on the floor-----
APPELLANT: Yes, sufficient-----
BENCH: -----of the cages or on the floor-----
APPELLANT: -----yes.
50
BENCH: -----of the - in the area where they were, is that the
question?
APPELLANT: Yes, near the - near the holding pens, because the
dog would have to urinate quite a lot.
BENCH: Okay. Can - do you understand the question-----?-- I
think I-----
XXN: APPELLANT
25
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
-----Inspector?-- -----do, your Honour.
Did you see any urine around the cages?-- I took it that the -
because the - the base of the cage was damp and the smell of
urine was overpowering, that it was urine.
Do I-----?-- That there was urine present.
Okay. And I think what Mrs Robertson's question is - and
10
correct me if I'm wrong, Mrs Robertson - but did you - see any
actual, rather than damp, but if I can put it this
way-----?-- Puddles?
Puddles, yes?-- No, your Honour, not in those cages, no.
All right.
APPELLANT: I put it to you too that there was no putrid smell
or smell of urine or faeces because there was none. It was
20
just dust and wet dogs?-- That's not correct. There was a
putrid smell.
And the mud that you guys brought in and walked all over the
place?-- As soon as I entered the premises, I could smell the
urine and the faeces and that particular location, there was
an overpowering smell of urine and faeces.
BENCH: Did you hear that answer to that question, Mrs
Robertson? As soon as he walked in he could smell an
30
overpowering smell of urine and faeces.
APPELLANT: Mmm-hmm. When - from when could you smell it? As
soon as you walked in, walked into where? You walked through
the door?-- Your reception area as you walk into the premises.
Yes. You come through the reception, yes?-- I could smell it
straight away.
And then, straight away you could smell, before the - before
40
you came into the property yourself, through the door?-- And
as you enter inside the door you can smell it even as well.
And when you came through the door you could also smell the
smell, the same smell?-- Stronger.
Stronger.
BENCH: Are you going to ask any more questions about
photograph 6?
50
APPELLANT: No.
BENCH: All right, well, just before we move on then, I'll
formally identify what the inspector has drawn on photograph 6
for the purposes of the record. You've indicated - you say
that's an arrow, Inspector, do you-----?-- Yes, it is, your
Honour. Sorry, I should have made it bigger.
XXN: APPELLANT
26
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T5-6/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
-----marked in red in the - in between the two cages which
appear in the photograph, but in the cage-----?-- On the left.
-----on the left-hand side-----?-- Yep.
-----approximately halfway towards the back of the cages where
you say you see solid faeces in that photograph?-- Yes, your
Honour.
10
Yes, thank you. Anyone want to quibble with that description
of - of where-----
MS MELLIFONT: No, your Honour, thank you.
BENCH: Yes, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: I would like to go to photograph 16 now of the
scene, I think. Excuse me.
20
BENCH: Is that the photograph you have, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: Different. Number - number 6.
BENCH: Number 6.
APPELLANT: Six.
BENCH: The inspector's got the Court copy of photo number 6
of Exhibit 18.
30
APPELLANT: Yes. Photograph number 6.
BENCH: Yes, Mrs Robertson.
APPELLANT: Mr Towers-Hammond, yesterday when you were asked
about photograph number 6 you mentioned that there was no
food, no water, and there was plenty of faeces, and a putrid
smell. Do you still - what do you see in the photo this
morning?-- All right. What I see in this photo are a number
40
of animals, number of dogs, in a cage. There is three bowls
in the cage. One appears to have some water. One appears to
have some form of food, and another one appears to have - I
don't believe that's food in that one at the back. There's
newspaper, again, very similar to what we saw in the previous
photos with these animals in there. The cage is - is rusted.
There's faeces - pulverised faeces on the outside of the cage,
again, where the newspaper has built up as well, and to the
left side there a couple of small puppies in there - in that
next cage as well.
50
XXN: APPELLANT
27
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T7/AW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
How - how do you describe the conditions of the dog and the -
1
the room and generally, you know, the smells and what
not?-- Well, they appear overcrowded. The - doesn't appear to
be enough room for all the animals to lay down and be
comfortable themselves. If they were to pass any excrement it
would be in the area that they'd be either lying in or sitting
in. I'd regard it as inappropriate.
And how long do you think the dogs have been in there?-- I
don't know.
10
Have a guess. Well-----
MS MELLIFONT: You can't speculate, your Honour.
APPELLANT: Okay. You don't know. Now, would you agree that
there is food in the kennel and in fact two plates of food.
The one at the end is actually meat, and the one at the side
is biscuit. They have a choice. Now-----
20
BENCH: Well - yes. What do you say about that proposition
that there is food in those plates?-- Oh, there - there is
food, yes, but I don't know about the food - food in the back
tray there because I couldn't identify that as meat.
APPELLANT: And the condition of the dogs?-- Overcrowded.
Other than - are they clean, dirty, wet?-- The dog at the
bottom at the left appears to have - appears to have quite a
bit of dirt in its coat. The one on the right - or the one in
30
the middle, the white, there's a darkened area in the coat as
well. The one on the - the right side that has its nose
actually in the pen there, it is actually - it's actually
sitting on soaked newspaper. The one at the back there
appears okay. The one at the back standing up, very hard to
tell exactly the condition of any particular animal from that
particular view without having a closer look.
I put it to you that I just put the dogs in there about - say
- within 10 minutes of your arrival, of your seeing the dogs.
40
Would you agree, or you think it would be longer than that?
They'd been in there longer, or-----
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, this witness can't say when these
dogs were put into this cage.
BENCH: All right. Mrs Robertson, what you can do is say to
the witness, "Assume for the purposes of today that the dogs
were put in there 10 minutes ago."
50
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: And then ask him a question about that. But he can't
say how long they were, or weren't, there.
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: We went through this before with the other cage.
XXN: APPELLANT
28
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T7/AW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: Yes. Looking at the condition of the - the
picture - looking at the picture I say to you that I did put
the dogs in there, say 10 minutes before the photo was taken,
and looking at the condition what do you think it would have
been - the condition of the cage, the food, the water, the
dog; roughly, within 10 minutes?-- I can't answer that.
You can't answer that. Okay. You said that the dog on the
left looked a bit dirty, the white dog was also dirty to you,
10
and the one in the front is also sitting on dirt. Now, where
- where exactly was the dirt on the white one? He looked
pretty white to me, and clean?-- What I actually said about
the white one was there - it had some dullness in the coat
there. It's actually standing in filth at the moment. That's
as much as I can say.
Right. He's standing in filth. One is sitting on filth. Is
that right?-- Yes.
20
Mmm. And the - the - how long do you think they would have to
be sitting there to stay clean - to still look clean?-- I
don't understand the question.
All right. Thank you. I think we'll just leave that photos.
BENCH: All right. Could you get the - just return the photo,
number 6, thanks. Thank you very much. Do you want to play
the DVD again? Is this the exit one?
30
APPELLANT: Yes.
TAPE PLAYED
BENCH: Do you want to see all of the exit video, or go to a
particular point?
40
APPELLANT: Just up to - I'll say later on. We don't want -
we'll see - just let it run for a little while. The exit -
the entrance where all the smell was coming from.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
50
XXN: APPELLANT
29
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: I put it to you that there is not a putrid smell
1
because of the flooding, as shown on the video?
BENCH: Inspector, is - is this the point where you say you
first encountered the - the putrid smell?-- When I first
arrived at the premises it certainly was, your Honour, yes.
All right?-- That's not when I first arrived at the premises.
APPELLANT: Could you please repeat that?-- This is not when I
10
first arrived at the premises.
This was not? Why wasn't it - why wasn't it not - it's the
only - and - is this where you said the putrid smell was when
you came through the door?-- Still was then, yes, but I'd
arrived at the premises some time earlier to explain an exit
video, your Honour. An exit video of - from a crime scene
examiner is to give an appraisal for the area to the
Magistrate or the - or a - or a Court possibly later on, and
to give a view of the - of the entire area whether it -
20
particularly at the end of the work that's done there, and
this in particular was done at that time. I notice that we
had cameras there that were running out of power. That's why
it cuts off at the end of this particular - particular one.
This is just to give an - an indication of the area, the size,
what was in the place, and to give people an appreciation of
the location, and this was done just before - just before we
left and finished loading the animals.
This video was done just after you finished loading the
30
animals?-- No. That's not what I said.
Yes?-- We hadn't finished loading all the animals at that
stage. That - we were running very low on power-----
Mmm?-- -----in the video cameras, and that's when I did
that-----
Mmm?-- -----exit video.
40
So you did the exit video, and why wasn't there the
smell?-- It was there.
So this is the exit video and the smell?-- The smell was there
when I first arrived at the premises-----
Yes, when you first arrived at the premises-----?-- -----and
the - and the smell was still there when I was - when I was
videotaping that.
50
BENCH: At the time of the exit video - that you
were-----?-- Yes, your Honour.
-----doing the exit video?
APPELLANT: The smell was still there?-- Yes.
XXN: APPELLANT
30
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
How could it still be there when it clearly showed that
1
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.
10
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
20
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.
30
-----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
40
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.
BENCH: 41 from?
APPELLANT: Exhibit 18, your Honour.
50
BENCH: Photo 41 out of Exhibit 18?
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: Could you show me your-----
XXN: APPELLANT
31
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: This...one. It's marked on the bottom right -
1
bottom right, your Honour.
BENCH: Mine has "27" on it.
MS MELLIFONT: In the break, your Honour, we'll try to do a
correlation and make sure we've all got the right numbers.
BENCH: Just - just confirm I've got the right - the right
photo.
10
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, that's it.
BENCH: Excuse me. Yes, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: Exhibit - photograph 41, Mr-----
BENCH: Sorry, Mrs Robertson, for the purpose of the record,
the actual Exhibit 18 - it appears as - it appears to be that
it's, on my records, photo number 27 in Exhibit 18, but we're
20
talking about the same photo?
APPELLANT: Yes, so is-----
BENCH: You've got 41 and-----
APPELLANT: -----27 now we're calling it?
BENCH: Well, for - for your purposes call it - call it 41,
but-----
30
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----but I know that you're actually talking about my
27. All right. As is Ms Mellifont, I hope.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour. Thank you.
APPELLANT: In photograph 27 we're looking at, now, is a photo
which wdas taken on entry because the barrier on the right-
40
hand corner bottom was the barrier I went from when I went up
to greet Inspector Stageman and after he said he was going to
serve the warrant I said, "I have to get back in to put up a
barrier", and that barrier is between the shed and the
courtyard on the left of the entry and the house, "so that the
puppies cannot run out of the courtyard", and you can see part
of the - the fence - the temporary - this is the fence -
temporary fence that I put up to secure the pups from running
out, and this is the same courtyard, or some of it anyway,
that you can see where it is not - it hasn't got any faeces,
50
and so-----
BENCH: Well, do you accept, Inspector - do you - Inspector,
do you inspect - do you accept that it's a - photograph number
27 is a - an entry photograph?-- No, your Honour. That - I -
when I entered - when I entered the premises and I saw - there
was faeces over the ground in that area - I had to actually -
if you notice in the photograph there's a table and a couple
XXN: APPELLANT
32
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
of items on top of that table - I had to actually move that
1
table to get behind to look at a few things behind there, so
that would've been in the early stages, but I do recall when I
did arrive there that Ms Robertson was doing some cleaning up.
It wasn't drastic or anything like that, but she was doing
some cleaning up. That would've been taken throughout the
time the other inspectors were there, but - and I remember
stepping over a number of things to get - to get into there,
and there were a number of animals in there.
10
Mmm-hmm. I think the second - the second question that Mrs
Robertson was asking you, do you see any faeces - any faeces
in that photograph?-- I can't see any there, your Honour, no.
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
20
given to us-----
BENCH: Oh, the Exhibit 2, the actual video?
APPELLANT: Yes, the VHS.
BENCH: Exhibit 2.
APPELLANT: Yes.
30
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: That one, please. That was the original one that
was given to us, yes-----
BENCH: Yes. That's-----
APPELLANT: -----by DPI, yes.
BENCH: Yes. Yes. That's the one we initially had trouble
40
with the DVD?
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: Mmm.
APPELLANT: It wouldn't - it wouldn't show it all. Could you
please also turn up the volume a bit, because I think it's a
bit hard to hear. Thank you.
50
TAPE PLAYED
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
XXN: APPELLANT
33
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
two days because of the rain?-- If that's what you said on the
1
video. I can't recall actually hearing that part.
Would you like to replay that, please, again?
TAPE PLAYED
10
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,
20
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
30
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.
I need - I need to - could you please play the video again?
BENCH: From the beginning?
APPELLANT: Just the part, you know, when-----
40
BENCH: The - the - the-----
APPELLANT: Yes. The - where-----
BENCH: -----where you're - I can hear your voice?
APPELLANT: Yes, please. Could you please listen to what was
said and have a look at the video. And try and identify the
faeces too in the courtyard, please, on the left-hand side.
It's the same courtyard as it starts now.
50
TAPE PLAYED
XXN: APPELLANT
34
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: Well, what - what do you see? What -
1
what-----?-- I heard what you said, ma'am. What you said was
what you said, that you hadn't cleaned, but I did notice some
faeces there.
What faeces? Please point it out? I mean, the stench was so
putrid and so bad you said. It has been raining non-stop for
two days virtually?
BENCH: Well, we'll start the video again, Inspector, if you
10
can tell my clerk to stop the video and hopefully pause it on
the photo of where you say you can see faeces.
TAPE PLAYED
WITNESS: You can see some marks around - around the yard
20
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
30
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-----
40
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.
50
-----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-----
XXN: APPELLANT
35
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
What, up - there's a - a - a - what appears to be a
1
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-----
10
-----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
40
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
50
were, in fact, pebbles, and the big chunk there is actually a
toy - a piece of twisted rope.
BENCH: What's - oh-----
APPELLANT: Where 11 is.
XXN: APPELLANT
36
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T8-9/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: I don't think - I don't think Inspector - the
1
inspector has said that that was faeces.
APPELLANT: Yes. All the little bits-----
BENCH: You haven't - you haven't said that, have you,
Inspector?-- Not at all.
No.
10
APPELLANT: -----were pebbles and stones that fell from the
embankment because of the rain-----
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: -----dislodged it. Anyway. And there was no
faeces-----?-- If you go further on also I could show you
where the smell came from as well, your Honour.
BENCH: I - I don't think Mrs Robertson-----?-- Oh, right.
20
Okay.
-----is asking for that.
APPELLANT: Perhaps if we can go further on?
BENCH: Oh, you do want to go further on?
APPELLANT: Yes.
30
BENCH: All right. And what do - what do you want the
inspector to do?
APPELLANT: Oh, just-----
BENCH: Or do you want to stop the - the - the video at a
certain point?
APPELLANT: The inspector said he - he just said he could show
us where the smell was coming from.
40
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: So we wait and let it play through and perhaps he
can identify where the smell was coming from.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
50
WITNESS: Directly in front of there there is a build up of
mud and faeces. Also to the right - well, you can't actually
see that, but that's the entrance to the house. But in that
area there, there was a build up of faeces. Up on the wall,
over the other side of that wall there was other animals in
there as well, and faeces throughout the courtyard area there
XXN: APPELLANT
37
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T10/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
and another courtyard. But right at that position there was a
1
very strong smell and that area that the video shows has a
build up of mud and faeces.
APPELLANT: Okay?-- That's about where I was standing - or
even where there photographer's standing there is a couple of
metres.
All right. I think we will change to the exit video now and
then - yes, and we play it because nothing has changed from -
10
from the entry to the exit. The - the - the entrance was the
same. The - the-----
BENCH: Put those things to the inspector.
APPELLANT: Yes, and I put it to you that nothing has changed
from the exit and the entrance video, although - and it has
been raining continuously for a couple of days prior and any
smell could have been washed - and it would happen, and it
did. It was washed off, so just - thank you. I think that's
20
it.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
WITNESS: Stop it there.
30
BENCH: Stop.
APPELLANT: Could - could we play it?-- There has-----
He wanted it stopped. So to have a better impression could
we, sort of, go back and - at the beginning and once you get
through the entrance just stop and, sort of - can we - not to
the very beginning. The entrance to the property. Thank you.
BENCH: Into this part of the property?
40
APPELLANT: Yes, please.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
*********** Conversation deleted ****************
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I appreciate it's a little bit
50
early, do you mind if I have a break?
BENCH: Yes. Yes, certainly.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
BENCH: We will have a - we will have a break.
XXN: APPELLANT
38
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T10/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
1
BENCH: Let my clerk know when you're in a position to resume.
THE COURT ADJOURNED
10
THE COURT RESUMED
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, thank you for that additional
time.
BENCH: Yes, Mrs Robertson.
20
SHAYNE TOWERS-HAMMOND, CONTINUING:
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
APPELLANT: Your Honour, I would like to start on something
30
else and then go back to the videos.
BENCH: Yes, that's all right.
APPELLANT: Mr Towers-Hammond, in your affidavit, item 2 you
said, "On the 9th of January about 12.45 p.m. I was requested
to accompany a fellow RSPCA inspector to Lot 13, Buccan Road,
Buccan?-- Mmm-hmm.
Right. Now, who was the inspector that accompanied
40
you?-- Inspector Katie Heaton.
Sorry, how do you spell his name?-- It's a female, Katie,
K-A-T-I-E, Heaton, H-E-A-T-O-N.
Thank you. "So on arrival at the property I saw a number of
other RSPCA inspectors at the establishment. I also saw and
it was identified to me that there was a number of Beaudesert
Shire Council officers who were also present at the property,
assisting the other inspectors." Do you remember who they
50
were?-- Oh, the inspectors?
No, the Beaudesert Shire, did you know - do you know who they
were?-- Not personally.
How did you know they were from the Beaudesert Shire?-- It was
identified to me by the other inspectors.
XXN: APPELLANT
39
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T11/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
Uh-huh. How many were there?-- I-----
1
Can you remember?-- About three or - three or four I believe.
Three or four? Males and females?-- Yes.
How many males and how many females?-- Oh, I don't know
exactly how many, but that'd be about - about the figure.
Three or four. "As I made my way to the front entrance,
10
number four of the property I could immediately smell a heavy
pungent stench of what I believed to be animal excrement.
This smell was rather overpowering. As I entered through the
- entrance doors I saw a number of what appeared to be poodle-
type dogs in pens directly opposite the office at the main
entrance." Meaning, the - as you enter the left side?
BENCH: Which - sorry, Mrs Robertson. Which-----
APPELLANT: His affidavit dated-----
20
BENCH: Oh.
APPELLANT: Sorry. Sorry, your Honour.
BENCH: No, it's all right. No, I think I'm reading from his
- his statement which is a - an - an exhibit, which is Exhibit
8 to Ms Ferguson's - you're talking about another document?
APPELLANT: It's 129-----
30
BENCH: Mmm. No, I-----
APPELLANT: Ah-----
BENCH: -----I believe - yes, I know what you're talking
about, I-----
APPELLANT: It is after-----
40
BENCH: Yes. In the affidavit, I'm sorry. Yes, I - I'm
sorry, I was reading from the statement to Ms Ferguson's
affidavit. This is his affidavit dated the 1st of August?
APPELLANT: That's right, your Honour.
BENCH: Yes.
APPELLANT: Yes.
50
BENCH: You're talking about paragraph 4-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----"As I entered through the front doors."
APPELLANT: Mmm-hmm. Yes, your Honour. And you continue to
say that the dogs were penned directly opposite the office in
XXN: APPELLANT
40
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T11/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
the main entrance, meaning the left side as you enter. The
1
courtyard that we saw on the video?-- Ah yes.
Yes, okay. "And there would have been about eight or so dogs
of varying sizes. I could see their coats were heavy, knotted
and overgrown. These dog - these animals were in a filthy
condition and were barking incessantly." Now, do you still
believe that they were - there was - their coats were heavy
and knotted and overgrown, the dogs you saw on your left-hand
side?-- Yes.
10
Could we please see the video again. Either one of them will
do. The - the exit one. Oh, the entrance one, the - the VHS,
sorry.
BENCH: Oh, you want the - you want the video?
APPELLANT: Yes, because that is the - the entrance video.
With the dogs, the other one hasn't because it was exit-----
20
BENCH: Bearing in mind that the inspector didn't arrive until
in the afternoon. He wasn't there-----
APPELLANT: He actually arrived shortly after Stageman. The
time is - I - I didn't think it's material to dispute it, but
he did arrive after Stageman arrived-----
BENCH: Well, in his - in his affidavit he says he arrived at
12.45.
30
APPELLANT: In fact, he arrived much earlier than that, your
Honour. But you know, time is neither here nor there, the
sequence I think, is what I was trying to - to show because he
- you did see the dogs at the entrance when you came in
because you did, I remembered, but it's up to him what-----
BENCH: Well, yes.
APPELLANT: -----what he remembered. Yes.
40
BENCH: Well, it's - it's his memory, not yours, Mrs
Robertson.
APPELLANT: Yes. Yes, your Honour.
BENCH: Sorry, Ms - you were on your feet when I-----
MS MELLIFONT: Mmm. Time is relevant obviously-----
BENCH: Of course it is, but-----
50
MS MELLIFONT: -----in terms of reference to dogs on a video
and when Mr Towers-Hammond speaks of seeing dogs at a point in
time in his affidavit, showing Mr Towers-Hammond a videotape
at some other time doesn't assist the process, respectfully.
APPELLANT: Can I point out, your Honour, that in the photo
clips and the video at the time and the dates, most of the
XXN: APPELLANT
41
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T11/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
video I've seen - I've seen dates that were dated the 9th and
1
actually they were done on the 10th because there was only one
raid and that was on the 9th, right, of the kennels.
BENCH: Mmm.
APPELLANT: And some of the video that we have called Laurie's
poodles was dated the 10th and the timeframe is a bit
different. They - they seem to be taken at the same time, but
different dates and different times.
10
BENCH: All right. Yes, I - I follow that point, yes.
APPELLANT: That - that brings up the question that I have in
mind as to whether RSPCA, I don't know who could - who I
should address this to, has video editing facilities and if
so, who took them? And also who took the film and video
footages?
BENCH: All right. Well, ask-----
20
APPELLANT: Perhaps-----
BENCH: -----ask this officer-----
APPELLANT: Mmm.
BENCH: My recollection of his evidence is that he's taken the
exit video which was the-----
30
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----but Inspector, did you record the - what's on the
video that we've seen earlier today which is Exhibit 2 of when
the RSPCA officers arrived?-- No, your Honour.
So it wasn't this officer.
APPELLANT: Yes. As - as I'm aware that there are three
different videos; two - one dated the 9, one dated the 10
40
which is very similar and the exhibit of course, that was not
dated and timed-----
BENCH: Mmm.
APPELLANT: -----from our viewing of it-----
BENCH: Yes, I see that.
APPELLANT: -----to date. Mmm.
50
BENCH: All right, now you want the-----
APPELLANT: Okay.
BENCH: -----the entry video if I could call it, Exhibit 2,
played? Is that correct, Mrs Robertson?
XXN: APPELLANT
42
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T11/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: Yes, please.
1
BENCH: Yes, all right. And just tell my clerk when you want
it to stop.
EXHIBIT 2 PLAYED
10
APPELLANT: I think if we could stop - start from the top,
from - from the beginning please.
EXHIBIT 2 PLAYED
20
APPELLANT: Stop. Your Honour, sorry, could-----
BENCH: We'll pause it rather than stop it, Mrs Robertson.
APPELLANT: Sorry, yes, pause I think the key word is-----
BENCH: Mmm.
APPELLANT: -----is "pause". Sorry. Pause. It's just in
passing I thought I'd better mention, see - see it's the 10th
30
of the 1st-----
BENCH: Oh yes, I - I-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----I've seen that, yes.
APPELLANT: Yeah, okay.
40
BENCH: I - I accept that.
EXHIBIT 2 CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
Could we go back, sorry? We were actually looking for the
entrance, that's it. Now, were the dogs - stop please. Mr -
50
Mr Thomas-Hammond, did - did you see the - we went through a
bit fast, would you like to go back or-----?-- No, need to.
Yes. And you said in your affidavit that, "Penned in the
opposite there have been about eight or so dogs of varying
sizes." Perhaps you could describe, if you - if you - the
dogs that was on the left-hand side of the entrance that you
saw when you came in."
XXN: APPELLANT
43
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T12/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, you should just ask him-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----to clarify, is this the - the area that he's
talking about in his affidavit or another area. Just clarify
that would you?
APPELLANT: There - there is no - no other area, your Honour.
10
BENCH: Just clarify that with him.
APPELLANT: Yes. Could you please clarify about-----
BENCH: Is that what you inspected?-- Yes it is the area, your
Honour.
This is the area, all right?-- Yes it is the - that area at
the side-----
20
That you're talking about in your affidavit?-- -----and at the
front, yes.
All right.
APPELLANT: And you - you saw eight or so dogs of varying
sizes?-- I did.
Yes. What did they look like? Perhaps if you could describe
30
them?-- Various sizes of poodles.
As in, you know, their different colours and-----?-- Yes,
different colours.
What colours did you see?-- Chocolate brown, lighter - lighter
brown colours.
Like reds?-- Well, I - I am not in - I'm not-----
40
Like - like a - a red is what we call a dark apricot that's
not a brown. A brown is distinctively brown, they come in two
tones, they're either so brown they're nearly black brown, and
you have the reddish brown, but-----
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, I'm sorry, that would assume that this
inspector has the degree of knowledge that you have about
dogs. A chocolate poodle to me would be one that looks like
chocolate.
50
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: Whether that's a red one or a brown one, as far
as-----
APPELLANT: They are brown, your Honour.
XXN: APPELLANT
44
WIT: THOMAS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T12/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: That's - that would be a matter for people who know
1
about dogs. I'm - I'm assuming, Inspector, that you're
talking about a - the colour rather than-----?-- There were
varying colours of dogs, your Honour. Most of them were all -
their coats were rather dirty, so it's hard to tell.
APPELLANT: All the coats were dirty you think?-- Yes.
I see that you're mistaken. None of the dogs were dirty,
because of what - they have all been out in the rain for last
10
couple of days, they have been soaked and dried off. You
still believe that - you still think - recollect that you saw
them dirty?-- Yes.
Okay. I would like to draw your attention to Exhibit 27, the
photo of the pups.
BENCH: Photo 27 in Exhibit 18, is that the one?
APPELLANT: Yes, sorry, yes, Exhibit 18, photo 27, have you got
20
a picture there?-- No I haven't.
BENCH: I'm just arranging for my clerk to give him the Court
documents as well.
APPELLANT: Do you see the - those puppies there as filthy and
smelly?-- Yes.
Are we looking at the same photo?-- Yes we are.
30
Does that pup look dirty and filthy, matted with faeces and
urine?-- The - the - those - those dogs there were dirty, even
the one up the back was very dirty, and-----
Which one, please identify the dog at the back that was - that
is dirty?-- The dog at the back that's standing over that -
that bowl area.
Yes, climbing into the food bowl, climbing - getting stuck in
the food, yes. What do you mean by dirty, it doesn't look
40
dirty to me. Is - you still think it's dirty, okay?-- Ma'am,
it's dirty to me.
Right, okay, it's dirty to you, right. In view of the
circumstances with rainwater in the courtyard and dirt - the
embankment has - has - has fallen off and fallen down rather,
you think - you - you - you still believe, under the
circumstances, after seeing - watching the video of the rain
and the - the fallen embankment, that that puppy is still
dirty?-- Yes I are.
50
Okay, thank you. Now - and the smell was so bad that you felt
a burning sensation at the rear of your throat?-- Yes I did.
And that is from entering the property, going through -
through the door, you still believe that's how you
felt?-- Yes.
XXN: APPELLANT
45
WIT: THOMAS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T12/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
Okay, thank you, sorry.
1
TAPE PLAYED
BENCH: It just started on its own, Mrs Robertson.
10
APPELLANT: Yes, that's okay then. You also went on to say you
saw there was a considerable amount of animal excrement on the
ground, and there was discarded dog fur strewn - I can't
pronounce that word - strewn throughout the pen, and saw that
there were chairs and a table in the undercover area of the
pen where this discarded dog fur had built up, and had built
up to stage that the fur was attached to this furnishings,
right. We can see some of it, unfortunately, but please have
a look and where - where were they - you - if you can
recollect?-- Ma'am, at the back of the - in that darkened area
20
there-----
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
Mmm?-- -----there was built up fur. There was also some
faeces in there as well, and also, if I direct you to the
30
video, that area there along that fence line there - there was
built up fur and faeces. I can see the faeces directly in
front of me now.
Ah, mmm?-- Not on that photograph, on that video that you're
seeing at the moment.
Yes, I'm looking at it?
BENCH: It's 11:13:46 on the video that's being identified.
40
APPELLANT: I would like to point-----?-- And from when
this-----
Yes?-- -----ma'am, from when this photograph and video were
taken-----
Mmm-hmm?-- -----was some two hours or so before I arrived.
Mmm-hmm. I put it to you that you arrived and saw that video.
50
At 11:13 you were on the premises, because I was still
standing at the office and nobody has gone very far, except
into the office, and taken - taken some of the photos, and
then you arrived possibly within half an hour of Laurie
Stageman?-- No ma'am.
All right, okay. Now, you said that there was a chair and a
table, which we can identify?-- Mmm.
XXN: APPELLANT
46
WIT: THOMAS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T12/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
The chair is sitting on top of the table, right, is that what
you meant?-- There was a number of furnishings in there, yes.
Well they were the only furnishings, yes?-- No, but if you
notice in the bottom-----
And there's a table inside as well, in the photo, I can see
part of it, and a dog bed as well, a metal - can you see that
in the photo?-- Yes I can.
10
Mmm-hmm. Now, admittedly it's not a clear photo, but where
was the location of all that fur?-- It was built up throughout
the area underneath there, stuck to the-----
If-----?-- -----stuck to the sides, stuck to the walls.
I put it to you that there was no fur stuck to the side and
stuck to the wall, because if that was fur built up in there,
the puppies would've dragged it out, because we were not
20
expecting you, the puppies didn't know how to behave other
than as puppies do, they would've dragged the fur out and
played with it. That is normal behaviour of puppies, they're
like little children. What do you have to say to that?-- I
can't answer that, Ma'am.
Why not?-- Well I don't know what the puppies were doing.
You can't identify the fur, we can't see any signs of fur, and
obviously this was taken and - and, according to you, the
30
photo was taken, like the video, a couple of hours before you
arrived. The puppies had two hours while I was tied up, I
couldn't clean, I was talking to Inspector Stageman, and yet
no fur appeared on the outside of - of the - where they are
supposed to be?-- Ma'am I-----
You believe that - that is the base, or-----?-- Ma'am I said
that if you look - in there in that darkened area there was
build up of faeces around the edges of the floor, there was
fur actually stuck to part of the furnishings in there and if
40
we go to the-----
Fur stuck to parts of the furnishings. Right. Okay?-- Can I
finish?
MS MELLIFONT: Yes. This witness - sorry, the witness hadn't
finished his answer.
BENCH: Continue, Inspector?-- And when you see the exit
video, as I've indicated, if we look at that video we're
50
seeing now in that frame along the walls of this - this walled
area here there was fur stuck to that. There was - on - on
the base of it as well.
APPELLANT: The fur stuck to the wall of the - on the screen -
the photo - the picture on the screen or in the picture?-- In
the - it's in the exist video. It shows in the exit when I'm
walking out.
XXN: APPELLANT
47
WIT: THOMAS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T13/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
So we're looking at the video now and there's fur stuck to the
wall of the video - the picture.
MS MELLIFONT: The witness has just said it's-----?-- I'm just
indicating it where - like, at the top and down the sides and
you see a bit of it on the video - on the exit video as well
as cobwebs and things like that.
APPELLANT: Your Honour, is it possible to see the two video
10
like - as in compare it?
BENCH: Well, only one at a time.
APPELLANT: Yes. That would be excellent.
BENCH: You can't - we can't play them both together.
20
TAPE PLAYED
BENCH: Do you want to go to the exit video?
APPELLANT: Yes. Could we just, sort of, stop this one and go
to the exit video?
BENCH: Yes. We can only do that one at a time though, we
30
can't-----
APPELLANT: Yes, lovely.
TAPE PLAYED
40
APPELLANT: Could you please, Mr Towers-Hammond, stop the
video when you see the fur and what-not on the walls?
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
WITNESS: Can we stop it there please? As you see - as you
50
see, this is different to the video that's there. It's a lot
cleaner than what it was, but just - if we can go - oh, start
it up again.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
XXN: APPELLANT
48
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T13/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
WITNESS: Stop it there please. If you notice, there was a
cage there at that time which is different to what's in that
video. Can we keep going please?
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
10
WITNESS: Can we stop it there? We hear in the background the
shovelling. Can we keep - keep going please?
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
20
WITNESS: Stop it - yeah. Can we go back a little bit?
APPELLANT: That's it.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
30
WITNESS: Stop there please. I may be able to show your
Honour on - actually the five photographs as well. I just
noticed some fur then.
BENCH: Are you able to - it's being fast-forwarded
now?-- Okay.
We'll try and pause on the spot where you ask?
40
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
BENCH: Pause it. Is that the area where you want it
paused?-- No. No, sir, a bit further on.
50
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
WITNESS: Stop. If you notice down on the - about the middle
- on the right-hand side you'll see a gutter format there.
You'll see-----
XXN: APPELLANT
49
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T13/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: On the right-hand side of this bin, yes?-- Yes. A
gutter. There's a - it looks like a - from what I can see
there, some fur.
What do you mean by a gutter?-- Can I finish please?
Yes?-- All right. As we - see about half-way down you'll see
a build up of something there. I - I believe that to be fur,
but when the video goes further on you'll - you'll hear me
10
indicate the fur. Can we go on please?
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
BENCH: That's the area there, is it?-- That's it, sir, yes.
20
APPELLANT: The - the - the dog hair on the wall, right, is -
is that what you said?-- Yes, I did.
Yes. I put it to you there's no dog fur on any of the walls
and that was actually the sack that the beds - the hessian
sacks that go over the beds - the dog frames, and those were
the dog beds that were actually attached to the wall because
they were wet. There was never any fur because no clipping
was done. Do - do you want-----?- I disagree with that. I
saw fur.
30
Could we try and hold that? Perhaps we could go back, and we
can't, well, we'll just leave it?
BENCH: When - when you say "hold" it-----
APPELLANT: Pause.
BENCH: What did you want - what did you want to pause at?
40
APPELLANT: He said - Mr Towers-Hammond said-----
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
BENCH: Sorry.
50
APPELLANT: Sorry. There was dog wool on the - on - on what
was the metal frame of the dog beds and the hessian, and he
said there was wool on the fibro walls and I can't see-----
BENCH: I think he used the phrase "fur, dog fur" on the
top-----
APPELLANT: Yes, which is wool.
XXN: APPELLANT
50
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T13/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: -----on the top of the wall.
APPELLANT: Is that - is that where you meant it to
be?-- That's part - yes, I said some on - on top of the wall
there.
On top of the wall. There's no-----?-- As well as-----
Yes. Okay?-- -----down below. I - I've seen it a number of -
10
a number of times. I - you know, the issue is-----
Yes?-- -----is it dog fur?
Or hessian. Yes, it was hessian. That's where - that's where
I put the beds out to dry because they were wet.
BENCH: Don't - don't give evidence from there, but-----
APPELLANT: Okay. Sorry.
20
BENCH: I - I understand what you say and I understand what
the inspector says-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----about what it was.
APPELLANT: Yes. And could we just go back perhaps?
30
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Could we please pause?
BENCH: Okay. Yes, we've paused.
40
APPELLANT: Back, back.
BENCH: How far do you wish to go?
APPELLANT: I think one more - if we go back and then we pause
a couple of times just to clarify a few things.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
50
APPELLANT: To the - back to the beginning please.
BENCH: The very beginning outside?
APPELLANT: No, inside.
XXN: APPELLANT
51
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T13/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
BENCH: Okay.
APPELLANT: Once we get through the door we need to pause when
we come to the left courtyard please only because we try and
identify the pieces of faeces, alleged faeces, and I claim
that they are stones.
BENCH: All right. We'll see.
10
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: And we can - I just needed to compare this video
and the other video that - whether they were in the same
spots. Okay.
20
BENCH: Go a bit further forward.
APPELLANT: Inside a little bit more. A little bit forward
please.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
30
APPELLANT: Now, you'll swing over-----
BENCH: Go to the - okay.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
40
APPELLANT: Pause. A bit over. A little wee bit more.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Pause. A bit more. Just a little bit more.
50
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
XXN: APPELLANT
52
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T14/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: Pause, please. That's it. Now, these are the
1
same spots I think where the other faeces - alleged faeces
are. Can you see the spots? It's - the darker-----?-- Yeah.
-----bit, I think, is about the right position?-- I think I
say on the video that you've since cleaned the area.
I - I believe it looks exactly the same except it's got more
water than your - your - your-----?-- No, what I'm saying,
ma'am - all I say on the video is it's since you've cleaned
10
the area.
I put it to you I didn't have an opportunity to clean because
that's the last thing on my mind. My whole life has
disappeared before me. All my beautiful babies were removed
without me being able to identify them in a state like that.
Do you think I would be bothered to clean the floor? What -
what consequence is it? In fact, I didn't clean the courtyard
and the pens for at least three more weeks-----
20
BENCH: Oh, well-----
APPELLANT: -----because I was so distressed.
BENCH: -----okay, Mrs Robertson, you have to put a question
to him.
APPELLANT: Oh, yes, the question is-----
BENCH: All right. You can't make-----
30
APPELLANT: -----you alleged that I've cleaned the floor, and
I'm telling you I haven't cleaned the floor. It's just
physically-----
BENCH: Okay.
APPELLANT: -----not possible.
BENCH: Okay. Do you accept what Mrs Robertson has put to you
40
or not, Inspector?-- I don't accept it, your Honour.
APPELLANT: All right. The - I think - do we - do - would you
- would - would you sort of consider again - if we play the
other video - we have a note of this - the distance where this
alleged faeces supposed to be, and we'll play the other video
and you can - you will find that they're exactly in the same
spot - those faeces you call it, which I call stones and, in
fact, they are stones. Would that - would - would - would you
like to have a look at the other video, please?-- Sorry,
50
ma'am?
Would you like to-----?-- No, I don't need to-----
-----have a look at the other video-----?-- -----have a look
at the other video, ma'am.
XXN: APPELLANT
53
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T14/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
-----because it will show exactly the same spot where those
1
stones that you call faeces are on - still on the ground, and
they were taken that morning?-- What stones, ma'am?
The entrance. You know, the - the - the - the-----
BENCH: Look - look, Mrs Robertson, the inspector's evidence,
as I understand it, is that what he has identified as faeces,
but what you're putting to him is - is that they are stones.
10
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: Okay. He has an - he has not accepted that
proposition.
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: He's maintained that it's faeces.
APPELLANT: Even if he saw the two videos, because-----
20
BENCH: Well, he's-----
APPELLANT: -----they are at the same location.
BENCH: -----he's done that.
APPELLANT: Uh-huh.
BENCH: He's done that.
30
APPELLANT: He's still insist, of course, yes.
BENCH: Well, his - his - his evidence is that it's faeces.
APPELLANT: Okay.
BENCH: All right.
APPELLANT: Mmm. Righto.
40
BENCH: And I can tell you, Mrs Robertson, I will be
making-----
APPELLANT: Mmm.
BENCH: -----not only will I - but as each witness is in the
witness box-----
APPELLANT: Mmm.
50
BENCH: -----I will assess their evidence during the course of
them sitting in the witness box, and on reflection-----
APPELLANT: Mmm.
BENCH: -----I will - I will assess their - their credibility
as a witness-----
XXN: APPELLANT
54
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T14/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: Mmm.
BENCH: -----and their reliability.
APPELLANT: Okay.
BENCH: Everyone who sits in the witness box.
APPELLANT: Mmm-hmm. Mmm. I've got a couple more
10
questions-----
BENCH: Yes. Yes. Certainly, ask the questions.
APPELLANT: -----your Honour. Mmm-hmm. I like to - please,
you - you said - Mr Towers-Hammond, you said, "There was a
stand-alone - alone concrete and cyclone-wired dog enclosure.
This was located" - where is it - sorry, let me start again.
BENCH: It was - where are you reading from, Mrs Robertson?
20
So I can follow.
APPELLANT: Paragraph 6.
BENCH: Mmm.
APPELLANT: Halfway through, "As I entered the main and side
entrance there was a large rubbish pile and rotting dog faeces
in a pile about two to three feet high."
30
BENCH: Did you see that in your statement,
Inspector?-- Ah-----
Paragraph 6.
APPELLANT: It's in the middle?-- Oh, there's two paragraph 6,
I'm sorry. Right.
"As I entered the main side entrance there was" - can you
identify-----?-- Yes, I see what you're saying. Yes, I see
40
the spot now.
Yes, "large rubbish pile and rotting dog faeces in a pile
about two - three feet high. The smell was repulsive. As I
walked through the door the smell intensified and was
overpowering." Could you please identify - can you remember
seeing that, or can identify or describe where it was
located?-- Well, there's - as you enter the - it's on the
video there - the exit video - as you enter that area there
there was a pile there which we had rubbish and there was
50
faeces in that rubbish as well, and it was about-----
That's-----?-- -----one to two foot - probably one to two feet
high as well.
Mmm. Is that the area right in front of us that - that we saw
just now, in the-----?-- No, it's in the exit video at the
end.
XXN: APPELLANT
55
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T14/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
Yes. Could - would you like to identify it for us on the
video, please - exit video - near the end.
BENCH: Inspector, when the area - the area comes on could you
identify where you're talking about?-- Yes, your Honour.
What - it's being fast-forwarded at the moment?-- Yes.
10
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: Stop. Your Honour, Mr Towers-Hammond, I put it to
you that this photo is part of an earlier footage, because by
then the exit video was taken when there were no more dogs on
the property? Where did these dogs come from?-- Ma'am, we had
- there were still a - on the exit video?
20
Mmm-hmm. This is the exit video?-- Ma'am, the - the meaning
of an exit video is when we're leaving. When we leave. There
were still animals there. We still had to get a trailer that
was coming back to pick up the rest of the animals.
When was this video taken - the time?-- It was - it was
approximately 4 o'clock or something like that - 3 or 4
o'clock.
30
You left at - by the time I saw you off at the door after
you'd taped the electronic voice caution I came back in and
look at the clock - it was 4.40. Now, I put it to you that
isn't the case, that the exit - this footage is part of the
entrance video that was used to make up the exit video?-- It
couldn't have been, ma'am, I wasn't there.
You were there?-- I wasn't, ma'am.
Well, who edited the video for you, because that's not full
40
footage - not a complete footage?-- Ma'am, as I indicated
before, we were running low on power. The previous - the
inspectors that were - that were doing the inquiry were
running low on power on video.
Mmm?-- I require that an exit video's taken of all matters
that I do, so I got what was left of the video camera and the
power, and you'll notice that it - right at the end of the
video it actually stops as I walk through the door, because
the power actually ran out.
50
Mmm. Mr Towers-Hammond-----?-- I haven't finished yet, ma'am.
-----I was with you when you took the exit video.
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, let the inspector finish.
XXN: APPELLANT
56
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T14/GRB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: Yes?-- And what happens then, I - as you'll hear
1
me say, "I'm now moving to a different position", I stop the
video, move to a different position, the video actually stops
and starts again. I hope that explains it for you.
It is still the same video? It was a continuing one, am I
right, in - in understanding what you're saying?-- So the
video actually stops.
Yes?-- The camera stops.
10
And?-- And it starts again.
It - in other words, is a continuing run?-- The last part of
that, yes, I - I took that - I took that video.
All right. Okay. Now, I undestand you're telling me that you
took the video, you - it stopped because it ran out of
power-----?-- Mmm-hmm.
20
-----and you had new batteries or whatever-----?-- No, I
didn't-----
-----to get more power?-- -----have new batteries, ma'am.
How did the two videos got together?-- There's not two videos
there, ma'am.
It's the same video?-- It's the same video.
30
Okay. It stopped and then it carried on?-- Yes.
Okay, right. Now, I'm - I'm putting to you that I was with
you when you took the exit video and [indistinct] the first
half because I saw you come through and I went with you to
this courtyard where the dogs are located, the concrete
courtyard I call it, the holding pen; the concrete holding
pen, right? That's what we are looking at now and that it was
devoid of dogs because you also, in between times, went into
the house and took some more video and you said, "Well, it's
40
all right, we've done it before" and I said, "Please, you
know, we've had enough pictures." And we went into this
courtyard and you also opened the side entrance door to the
grass courtyard on the other - on which there was a side door,
like not facing where we are facing, but to the right there is
a door adjoining to the grass courtyard and we went through to
check whether there were any more dogs and there was none.
There was in fact, one more dog and that was Flirt, who had
dug - who had hid in that hole on the fence line and I wasn't
aware of her and you did look through that door and there were
50
no dogs. And I put it to you also, as this footage continues
later on in a few seconds time, you will see an area of this
concrete courtyard where it was bare, where you - you took a
photo of the faeces. That would be the correct part and this
particular section of the video actually did not belong to the
exit video, but in fact belonged to the original video. The -
the entrance video. It's got to be, because there were no
dogs?-- That's not correct, ma'am.
XXN: APPELLANT
57
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T15/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
All right.
BENCH: All - all of that that's been put to you is not
correct?-- It's not correct. Ah oh, it is correct that-----
APPELLANT: We will continue watching-----?-- -----ma'am was
there, she was there, she's actually in the video. But what
I've done there, your Honour, is I've started at the front and
you'll notice there were no other vehicles there.
10
That's right?-- At all at the front. And then I've walked
through and you'll see where the area's been cleaned. I've
gone into this area here because we were waiting for a trailer
to come back to pick up the remaining animals. I've gone down
to the - to the caged area, there were no animals left in
there except for a couple of animals in that front area 'cause
they were very timid and we thought were going to bite. And
what I was doing was I was actually going to walk through and
after all the animals had left because I believe there is
20
another video that your Honour may not have seen as yet, and
it was taken by the other guys. But this is - 'cause I was
the last to leave with a - a couple of the boys and I had a
discussion which you heard on the video - on the audio earlier
with them about what was - what was to occur. But there has
been no extra editing or anything like that, your Honour, to
change it or mix it around or anything like that.
Mr Towers-Hammond, I put it to you that I disagree with what
you've said and what really happened was as I have described
30
previously and also that you were in fact, and I agree with
you on that, that you were the last to leave with Inspector
Laurie Stageman and that was the car you left in and it was
within 10 minutes of videoing the - the uninhabited runs and
looking into the - through the door into the other courtyard
to ensure there were no other dogs. Laurie Stageman from the
outside came in to join us and you both left the building and
I followed you out to the car. On the way past the - on the
drive you recorded a taped voice caution to me and you both
got into the same vehicle, the only vehicle that was left and
40
you left the premises and I went back inside. And there are
witnesses to that and that - those were my neighbours because
they rang me and one of them came to see me after you and
Laurie Stageman left. Now, that is what actually happened.
And-----
BENCH: What do you say about that, Inspector?-- All I can
say, your Honour, when we left we were of the belief that we
had all the animals at that time. We took as many animal - we
took all the animals and I even say it on the video there,
50
there - there's two animals still in there that we're to
remove or three, one of - of that, and I was concerned to get
this - the exit video done because I was running out of power,
the - the boys didn't have any - enough batteries. But this
has certainly not done or been edited in any way-----
No?-- -----that's as much as I could say.
XXN: APPELLANT
58
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T15/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
Well-----?-- But - oh, and when I did leave I did do a
1
recording with Ms Robertson and I agree with that, just before
we left.
And was Inspector Stageman that you left with?-- I recall
Inspector Stageman would have been with us as well, yes.
All right?-- And there would have been another inspector there
too, I'm pretty sure there would have been, oh, Inspector
Barran would have been there as well I believe.
10
Yes, Mrs Robertson.
APPELLANT: Yes, I think we'll continue to look for the two to
three feet high - perhaps. Could you please stop the video
and let us know where - when we come to it?
BENCH: I think in - I heard - I've read that you say two to
three feet-----?-- But it was-----
20
-----high, but I heard you say in the box it wasn't that
high?-- It wasn't. Well, with the rubbish on top-----
So how-----?-- -----it would have been about - about that
high, your Honour, like a - a mound-----
Which is - so we're talking feet and inches, 18 inches?-- Oh,
okay, about 18 inches. Yep.
All right. Eighteen inches, you accept that we-----
30
APPELLANT: Eighteen inches of faeces?
BENCH: Well, what - no, what he's - the - the distance
between his hands is indicating the amount of faeces. The
amount of faeces and rubbish or faeces-----?-- Faeces and
rubbish, yes.
Faeces and rubbish, is 18 inches?-- About - approximately,
sir.
40
APPELLANT: I - I put it to you there's no such pile of
rubbish and faeces. You shall see the video and-----
BENCH: Well, we'll-----
APPELLANT: Yeah, if you could identify it.
BENCH: We'll watch the video and-----
50
APPELLANT: Mmm.
BENCH: -----and the inspector can identify where he says it
is.
APPELLANT: Yes. Yes, could you?
XXN: APPELLANT
59
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T15/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
BENCH: Just pause?-- There was rubbish and faeces all through
there and that's that build-up I'm talking about. Your
Honour, it's over a tank area there as well which made it -
gave that appearance that it was two to three feet high. Or
one to two feet high, whatever I've said there. But that's a
10
build-up of rubbish of old bags of - feed bags and things like
that or of old food and the smell was tremendous out there and
then there was faeces intermingled with all that there.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
20
BENCH: Is there anywhere else on the video where - is there
anywhere else on this video where there is a-----?-- No, that
- that was it, your Honour. That was it.
That was it, all right.
APPELLANT: Yes, I think when this continues on the dogs in
the kennel as well. I still - well, you - you have said that
this is the exit video?-- Mmm.
30
And I still - and you - you do not, or do you, still believe
that that is the total exit video all in one second, done at
the same time?-- That - ma'am, I took - to explain to make it
easier-----
You have explained?-- -----I took - I took the exit video as I
call it, over a period of time whilst I realised I didn't have
a battery left, just about no power left in the battery. We
took the remainder of the animals after that, put them in a
trailer, you actually assisted us by helping with at least one
40
of the animals and then we left. In that time I spoke to you
and-----
That was at about 1.30 that afternoon or 2 o'clock. The first
kennels that was emptied out of dogs was in fact, the kennels,
what I call the quarantine kennels which is this block, the
rear kennels, right? All the dogs were emptied out. The dog
in question came from the house, that was the last removal
lot. All the dogs were - the last lot of dogs removed were
from the house holding pens. Right. And that happened
50
shortly about lunchtime. Everyone had left the premises prior
to about 3 o'clock, by 3 o'clock I think just about all the
dogs were shipped off because how many trailers attended? I
think that - that was what happened. And this video, part of
it was done, like all-----
BENCH: Well, hang - hang on, Mrs Robertson, you've asked him
how many trailers were there, so let him answer that.
XXN: APPELLANT
60
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T15/ADS(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: Yes?-- There were a number of trailers there,
ma'am, there was two from the RSPCA and I believe one or two
from the council.
I disagree with you. Well, how many trips did they make?-- I
don't know, ma'am.
You don't know. Who is - who was in charge of that - that
seizure and the arrangement of the trailers? Do
10
you-----?-- Originally it was Inspector Stageman.
Stageman. Okay. And the - to clarify in your mind and mine,
would you agree that all the dogs that were removed from my
property initially - the first clean up they did was - we went
to these kennels, to the rear kennels. Later, after your
arrival - or was it before your arrival that we started
removing the dogs?
BENCH: I don't know how he - I'm sorry. I - I'm sorry to
20
interrupt, Ms Robertson.
APPELLANT: Sorry, your Honour.
BENCH: But how can he answer a question about the removal of
the dogs if he wasn't there? Think - think of what you're
asking. You've asked him-----
APPELLANT: He was there.
30
BENCH: You've asked him did the removal start before he got -
you know, he - how can he answer something that he wasn't-----
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----when he wasn't there?
APPELLANT: I'm sorry. Were you there when they remove -
started removing the dogs from the rear kennels?-- I believe I
arrived whilst removals were occurring, and I believe there
40
was removals before - that I actually got there.
From which kennel did you see - did you actually see the
removal from?-- The side area. As you enter-----
What do you mean by the side?-- As you enter the reception
area, the removal of animals from that side area. I actually
assisted in the removal of animals from the caged area because
all of them had been removed before I got there, or a majority
had been removed from this cage area on the video except for
50
the animals that were in that - as you walked in the door to -
to the right because-----
Which cage area? Please clarify?-- As I'm explaining, as you
walk into the caged area-----
Yes?-- You see it on this video here...Turn to the left and
you'll see that there is a dog still in there. You can hear
XXN: APPELLANT
61
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T16/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
the dogs barking. They're the ones that I helped remove out
1
before we left.
So this is the - the quarantine block at the end - at the end
of the property?-- It's on the video now.
Yes, that's the quarantine block at the end of the
property?-- Quarantine block.
Yes. The rear kennels. Right?-- Mmm-hmm.
10
And the dogs on the side were the ones that were there, and
you helped remove them?-- Yes.
I put it - I put to you, Mr Towers-Hammond, that that
statement is incorrect because the first dogs to be removed
from that particular block were the standard poodles at the
rear next to the septic tank entry door. They were the first
to go out because they had difficulty taking out the red
standard poodle and short trim, and Laurie Stageman had to get
20
a - a stick - a metal stick - a prod with a loop and he said,
"That dog will be put down," and I said, "You can't." And
that was [indistinct] because I was quite distressed about it,
and Jack later came out - the dog - anyway, that's - that's
what I put to you. That was what actually happened and that
was the first removal.
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, this witness can't say what the
first removal was. He wasn't there for that. He can only say
what he saw respectfully.
30
APPELLANT: Excuse me, but that's what he said he saw. The
dogs were being removed from those kennels. If he wasn't
there how could he tell me that the dogs were being removed.
They were first being removed - they - they were the end ones.
BENCH: I - I think what the - what the inspector said is
where he went, what he did and what was there when he got
there.
40
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: He can't - as has been said, he can't talk about
things when he wasn't there. If he tried to, it would be
objectionable.
APPELLANT: Your Honour, I - I apologise.
BENCH: So he can't answer questions about it.
50
APPELLANT: Yes. But as I understood, he said he was there
when he saw the removal of the dogs. He could hear the
barking, as we can hear, of those dogs and that was actually
the - the dogs that were removed in the first lot and he
wasn't supposed to be there because he said he wasn't there
when it started.
BENCH: All right. Well, you say-----
XXN: APPELLANT
62
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T16/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: He just said-----
BENCH: You say - you - you're putting to him that those dogs
which we see in the video were taken in the first lot. Is
that correct?
APPELLANT: That's right.
BENCH: What do you say about that?-- That's incorrect.
10
All right. He doesn't accept that proposition.
APPELLANT: That's - that's right. He said it was incorrect.
BENCH: Okay. He doesn't accept that proposition.
APPELLANT: Okay. That's - that's fine. Mmm-hmm. And - and
the faeces and bags of rubbish and fur as you call it or - is
that what you meant, on top of that concrete slab?-- Around
20
that area, yes.
Yes. You - you - did you actually check those bags to see
what they were?-- They appeared to me to be the old feed bags.
Yes, they were old feed bags, but did you actually see what
was in them, check them?-- No, I didn't look inside them, no.
You didn't look inside them, but you said they were full of
faeces and fur?-- I didn't say that.
30
Oh, you didn't say that. Okay. The - I - I think that's -
that's it for the kennel. The - what else is there? We'll go
further down. These dogs - paragraph 6 again, after the - the
two to three feet high, "These dogs were in - I immediately
saw three poodle type dogs to my right," which is what we saw,
"were in a cage without food - any food or water." You're
sure that the - Mr Towers-Hammond, you're sure there was no
food or water?-- In - I'll just go to that. Which one was
that?
40
That was on the video. Those dogs that were barking. We only
saw - yep?-- They're those - they are those dogs as you soon -
see the video you will see a dog's head peer around.
Mmm?-- That's one of those dogs, and they-----
There - there was no food and water in that pen?-- No.
All right. Could we - excuse me. Do you still have the video
50
on the VHS? Is the entrance video still on tape, because if
we flash past the first lot the kennels would be at the back
and that will show the run better and in fact this footage is
part of it.
BENCH: We can go to - this - this is where the video shows
him walking into the entrance.
XXN: APPELLANT
63
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T16/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: We - yeah. We - we got to fast - fast it-----
BENCH: Fast-forward.
10
APPELLANT: -----to the end. We came in from the other exit
and that was the last thing we saw of that - yep, yep, past
this - pass all this. That's it. Now, pretty soon we'll be
going through from the other entrance.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
20
APPELLANT: Can you make it go - yep, yep. This is it. Hold
it please? Pause. Yep. This is the same footage as the
other I think, this part of it, and I think if you, sort of -
you can't slow it down, but you'll see there's - there's a
bucket there behind - between the dog and the wall on your
right, and there should be two big bowls, stainless bowls of
food, but it would be next to the wall.
BENCH: Can you see a bucket there, Inspector?-- No, I-----
30
APPELLANT: On your right half-way down?-- -----can't, your
Honour, but-----
It's clear. It's a great big white bucket.
BENCH: Whereabouts-----
APPELLANT: There should be two buckets and-----
40
BENCH: Where are you - where-----
APPELLANT: Sorry, on - on the right-hand side next to the dog
standing up and behind that - that, sort of, reddish coloured
dog underneath. There is a door letting - going out to the
outside - opening to the outside.
BENCH: Yes, but does - does the bucket appear in that - that
frame?
50
APPELLANT: Yes, it does on the right-hand side in the middle
of the frame just about.
BENCH: Well, point it out to the - to the - the right-hand
side in the middle of the frame.
APPELLANT: Yes. That's a white water bucket - plastic bucket.
This - this one here, the entrance, that-----
XXN: APPELLANT
64
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
MS MELLIFONT: Mrs Robertson is pointing to the very right-
hand side of the photograph in the centre, and on the screen
it looks around three centimetres tall, and around a
centimetre wide, and it looks like there's, I don't know,
something silver towards the bottom.
APPELLANT: Yes, the silver is actually the door handle, this
here is the handle and that's - anyway if you play more, we
might be able to see it because - as you swing to that side
10
there.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: See, here they are, the buckets, sorry.
20
BENCH: Just go back a bit.
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I should say the last frame was
11:29:57, and then the second frame we're about to stop on is
11:30:00.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
30
APPELLANT: Excuse me, the music - stop please, pause.
BENCH: Pause.
APPELLANT: Sorry, pause. If we go back a bit and play the
music, you will find that music that came from 4BH radio is exactly the same as the exit video's music. What do you have
to say about that Mr Towers-Hammond?-- It's a different video,
40
your Honour.
BENCH: All right. Now returning to the bucket, do you see a
bucket in the - in this frame?-- I do see the bucket.
At 11:30:00?-- That's right, your Honour, that was-----
Yes, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: All right. We'll move on to the next.
50
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
XXN: APPELLANT
65
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
APPELLANT: And stop. I'm sorry about this, but could we play
1
the exit video to the point of the other one, where the music
is? I think at the end of the exit video, just before it
ended, you'll hear the music the same.
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I'm not trying to cut Mrs
Robertson short, but these are things which Mrs Robertson can
address you in her closing. A pure comparison between what's
on this video and another video is a matter for argument, as
opposed to a matter specifically for this witness to address.
10
There's a certain amount that is necessary to lay the ground
work for attacking credibility, but this is going beyond
what's necessary, respectfully.
BENCH: I-----
APPELLANT: Your Honour, I object to that. Only because it
goes to-----
BENCH: Well-----
20
APPELLANT: I'm trying to prove that the evidence has been -
been tampered with.
BENCH: Well I'm going to allow Mrs Robertson, on this
occasion, to go to the exit video so that we can listen to the
- the music, but what has been submitted to me is, in fact,
correct. This witness has rejected your - your proposition
that there's been tampering with the tape on at least three
occasions that I can recall. The question of his credibility
30
is something that you can submit on at the end, but I will
allow the exit video to be played so that we can all listen to
the music, but we won't - we won't be traversing it again, all
right - I should say traversing, I meant "going over".
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
40
APPELLANT: I think the start of the - the - the - your
Honour, I think the start of the video - the VHS one, the
music that ended would be similar to this one, because it's
the view of the dogs and the music coming in. I think that
was - because we didn't see the end - not the end of the - the
entrance video, but the start of the entrance video. I think
he - he used a bit of the film, and - and it's the same one
that is in the exit, which is this video. The start of the
entrance video.
50
I don't know how much they put together, because it wasn't -
they took a look more than that footage. I knew, because that
whole day they were taking - it was about two teams of people.
The video was different from the film, because there was a lot
of cameras around.
XXN: APPELLANT
66
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
APPELLANT: See?
BENCH: I beg your pardon?
APPELLANT: This music is the same as the exit one, I think,
10
just the early bit. This is the exit isn't it?
BENCH: Mmm.
APPELLANT: Yeah, the entrance one, at the start when we -
when - as - as - it - as the camera was taking film-----
BENCH: Mmm, I'll listen closely to the - to the video.
APPELLANT: It's just this song, the same song.
20
BENCH: I'll listen closely, but in any event, the Inspector
doesn't accept that proposition either, is that-----?-- That's
correct.
APPELLANT: Yes, the start I think. When - when the video -
the film must match.
BENCH: Mrs Robertson, I will listen.
30
APPELLANT: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: I will watch and I will listen closely.
APPELLANT: Thank you. I think-----
BENCH: But I have to say, from what I've heard, I'm not - I
don't agree with what you've - what you've put to - to the
witness-----
40
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----about the music.
APPELLANT: Yes, this-----
BENCH: But I will go back and I will listen very clearly -
very, very, very, very closely.
APPELLANT: Thank you, thank you, your Honour. The - the exit
50
one being-----
BENCH: I - no, Mrs Robertson, you don't have to - to go over
this again. I understand what you're saying.
APPELLANT: Yes. There's a couple of other issues - Flirt, the
dog that was forfeited or seized on the-----
XXN: APPELLANT
67
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: 22nd.
1
APPELLANT: -----22nd of February, Mrs Towers-Hammond, did you
mention Flirt's eye condition, or describe it to Anne Chester,
the vet at RSPCA?-- I had - had to show her.
I beg your pardon?-- She had - I had to show her the dog, she
was given the dog.
Oh yes, so you actually showed Flirt to the vet, Anne
10
Chester?-- Yes.
When did you show the dog to her?-- The dog was taken to the
vet as soon as we finished the second time, which was on the
22nd.
At about five in the afternoon?-- I can't recall the exact
time.
It was about 5 p.m. in the afternoon. What hours was - was
20
the vet present then at the RSPCA waiting for Flirt?-- I'd
have to say I can't recall that - the exact time, but the -
the animal was taken back to the veterinary section at the
RSPCA.
After 5 p.m. this is has to be, because you left the premises
about close to five?-- It would be, yes.
Okay, that's fine, on the 22nd?-- Yes.
30
Who was the vet, did you speak to the vet?-- No I can't say -
I'd - I'd have to say I cannot recall that.
You cannot recall?-- No.
So what happened to Flirt, you just - surely-----?-- No.
-----what did you do with Flirt?-- No.
-----you took her. Did you take her or someone did, there
40
were three of you?-- That's right.
Laurie Stageman, Daniel Young and yourself?-- Well-----
BENCH: Mrs Robertson-----
APPELLANT: Sorry.
BENCH: -----break it down to single questions, okay.
50
APPELLANT: Yes.
BENCH: -----okay, you've asked him that twice-----
APPELLANT: Sorry, I must remember, your Honour.
WITNESS: For that particular case, the animal was taken back
to our veterinary people at Fairfield-----
XXN: APPELLANT
68
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
APPELLANT: Mmm-hmm?-- -----and it has to be taken into the -
the veterinarian room and I recall that was - I think it was
Lawrie that might have - may have actually done the taking of
the animal in.
So you remember that Lawrie took Flirt back to the RSPCA at
Fairfield?-- Was taken - the dog was taken into the reception
area for the veterinary - veterinarian surgeons, yes.
10
By Lawrie Stageman?-- Well - I recall we were both - we both
went at the same time.
Both of you took Flirt?-- Yes, to - back to the RSPCA.
Mmm, and you didn't speak to anyone there?-- I - I have to say
I cannot recall exactly who I spoke to back there.
Yep, that's fine, mmm-hmm. Did you sort of - would you or
Lawrie - or is it - I'm not sure what your - your - your - the
- the rule or what the practise is, did any of you leave a
20
message about Flirt or you just left her there? Or sort of
mentioned that you filled out a form to see what - what was
wrong-----?-- No, the animal was put into what's called
"security".
Mmm?-- For that - it's - you don't just leave an animal.
Mmm?-- The animal's looked after 24 hours a day.
So somebody came and took the dog off you?-- As - as I said, I
30
can't recall exactly who that was, but it was in our - in our
processes.
But what - what is the procedure normally?-- Well, I - I work
out of a - a different area-----
Yes?-- -----right, but in this particular case the animal's
brought into what's called "new security".
Yes?-- And - and is processed through there through the
40
veterinary surgeon.
And do - do you remember speaking to someone about her eye
condition and all those things?-- Over the next couple of
days, yes.
Over the next couple of days?-- And initially when the animal
was brought in.
So, somebody - either you or Lawrie has spoken to someone
50
about Flirt's eyes?-- Yes.
Right, okay. Thank you. Your Honour, I think I've finished.
BENCH: You think you're finished?
APPELLANT: Yes.
XXN: APPELLANT
69
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: All right. Mr Duong, do you have any questions?
1
MR DUONG: No, I've got none.
BENCH: How long do you think you might be?
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I'll only be about 10 minutes in
re-examination, but I do need to tender the original of the
exit video.
10
BENCH: Yes. Yes, thank you.
MS MELLIFONT: And if your Honour would like that played
whilst Mr Towers-Hammond is still in the witness box, I'll
need to do that after lunch to get the camera here so it can
be played back through the system.
BENCH: Well, there's no suggestion is there, that that's
different to what I've seen, is it?
20
MS MELLIFONT: No, there's not, but given that there's an
allegation of editing-----
BENCH: Well, I'll view the tape myself and if I have any
concerns I'll certainly raise it with the - with the parties,
but I've seen the - the exit interview on a number of
occasions, I don't require that to be played, if you're - if
you're telling me that that's the original, I accept that.
MS MELLIFONT: In that case I'll just - I'll have it tendered
30
through this witness.
BENCH: All right, well I'll return the exit interview that
Mrs Robertson handed up to me.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes.
BENCH: And if you're going to be 10 minutes, we'll continue
on, it's after 1, with this plan, that the inspector's
finished with - for the day, but we come back at 2.30 today.
40
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: All right.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
BENCH: All right, if you tender that - yes, that - that exit
interview goes to Mrs Robertson and Ms Mellifont has - sorry.
50
XXN: APPELLANT
70
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
RE-EXAMINATION:
1
MS MELLIFONT: Mr Towers-Hammond, can you have a look at this
cassette, please. Do you recognise that cassette?-- Yes, I
do.
What is it?-- It's a - a - a video of - or the one I actually
took as the exit video for - on the 9th of January 2008 and
10
it's together with another - other videos that was on that
particular camera.
Thank you. Your Honour, I tender that audiocassette-----
BENCH: The - the exit video taken by this inspector will be
Exhibit 24.
20
ADMITTED AND MARKED "EXHIBIT 24"
MS MELLIFONT: Mr Towers-Hammond, at the - at the beginning of
the exit interview, you refer to a time-----?-- Mmm-hmm.
-----what source would you have had reference to in order to
state what the time was?-- That would have been my watch.
30
Okay. Mr Towers-Hammond, you will recall - recall a series of
photos, Exhibit 23, which depicted the items which were
seized?-- Yes.
Now, you said the photos were taken in your vehicle, where was
the vehicle when you took the photographs?-- It was backed up
to - right next to the reception area at Waterford Kennels.
Mr Towers-Hammond, you were asked a series of questions in
respect of - of a couple of specific kennels, in terms of
40
their comparative cleanliness, did you look at all the kennels
when you were there?-- Yes, I did.
Were any clean?-- No.
You gave some evidence about what you describe as pulverized
faeces in the bottom of cages, as depicted in Exhibit 18,
photograph 6 and 18, why do you believe they are pulverized
faeces and not dust?-- Because it's dried - dried faeces and -
and the smell right - if you were that close was so
50
overpowering, it was certainly faeces.
In the exit video you said you heard shovelling, did you see
who was using the shovel?-- Yes.
Who?-- It was Mrs Robertson.
RXN: MS MELLIFONT
71
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
What was she doing with the shovel?-- Picking up rubbish off
1
the ground.
You were asked the question, "Who was in charge of the seizure
and the trailers?" And you answered, "Originally Lawrie
Stageman", did Inspector Stageman stay in charge of that
process, or did it change at some point in time?-- Inspector -
Inspector Stageman stayed in charge, however he consulted with
me on the overall situation at the kennels and we discussed a
number of points.
10
And you were shown the entrance video, Exhibit 2, at 11.30.00,
the two big white buckets, do you recall - or do you know what
was in the buckets?-- Nothing.
Thank you, your Honour, nothing further.
BENCH: I just want to ask - the two-----?-- Yes, sir.
-----areas, the first is about - to do with the inspector and
20
it's relating to the sufficiency of the search because of the
dogs found later. I see you have a number of service
medals?-- Yes, sir.
Do you have an ADF or - or for a law enforcement
background?-- ADF and law enforcement together.
In-----?-- I was with the United Nations, UN.
Right, right. You've had experience in - in conducting
30
searches, have you?-- I was a crime scene examiner for the UN
together with an atrocity - investigator, yes, I have.
All right. Second question is, you were there on the 9th of
January?-- Yes, sir.
You returned on the 22nd?-- I did.
What was - what observations did you make about the premises,
was there any difference between the 9th and the 22nd?-- The
40
external areas on - on the 22nd there was some vast
differences, the external areas were clean, they - there had
been a - a massive clean up done, but the internal parts of
the house were, in my belief, exactly the same.
Anything arising out of that?
MS MELLIFONT: No, your Honour.
BENCH: All right, well, thank you for coming, Inspector,
50
you're excused. Is that - witness, wouldn't be - that's
obviously a copy of a statement, or is that an
original?-- That's the original, your Honour.
Original, all right, well we'll have that returned to the
Court file then-----?-- Sorry, it's a copy of the-----
MS MELLIFONT: I think it's my instructing solicitor's copy.
RXN: MS MELLIFONT
72
WIT: TOWERS-HAMMOND S
60
14082008 D.5 T18/KSJ(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Yes, I thought it was.
1
WITNESS EXCUSED
BENCH: All right, well we'll adjourn then to 2.30.
10
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: It's 10 past 1 now, 2.30. And who will we hear from
this afternoon?
MS MELLIFONT: Inspector Lawrie Stageman. There is
unfortunately one - well, unfortunately - probably I shouldn't
use that word, there is a tape-recording by Inspector
Stageman, which does take a substantial period of time, but
given the nature of the allegations, I do propose to play it
20
and, as I understand it, Mrs Robertson says that she hasn't
got a tape-recorder, so she hasn't listened to it.
BENCH: Okay. All right. If we give some thought over lunch,
I wasn't - I wasn't going to inquire about tomorrow, I know
there's availability tomorrow morning and it's - we're getting
late in the day, but I may be able to change my other Court
commitment tomorrow if - if you want to come tomorrow morning.
The coordinating Magistrate might not be keen on that because
I'll have an afternoon free if you're available, so I'll make
30
that inquiry to see whether I can swap with someone tomorrow
morning if-----
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour.
BENCH: -----you're happy - everyone's able to come back
tomorrow morning?
APPELLANT: Yes.
40
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour.
BENCH: And your witnesses are available?
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, they are.
BENCH: All right, well, I'll do that over lunch and let you
know after lunch whether I can sit tomorrow morning.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour.
50
BENCH: And not forgetting that 4.30 is the latest I can sit
this afternoon. All right, we'll adjourn to 2.30.
THE COURT ADJOURNED
73
60
14082008 D.5 T19-20/KLW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
THE COURT RESUMED
BENCH: Yes.
MS MELLIFONT: Just a housekeeping matter if I might? We're
endeavouring to make sure that Mrs Robertson has one folder
10
with dividers of the photographs that have been tendered so
it's easy for her to follow along. And we're going to have an
identical copy available for the witnesses in the witness box
of the [indistinct] of the statement to be used all of the
time. For that purpose though, your Honour, can I ask for four
of the exhibits to be returned to me for about an hour? My
instructing solicitor will go then and make photocopies. It's
3, 4, 5 and 8.
BENCH: I have a note that Exhibit 3 may have in fact not made
20
its way back to me. I've certainly got 4, 5 and 8.
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, that's not one I took out of -
I've taken out of the courtroom or asked for the return of,
so-----
BENCH: No. Look, I think it was one of the ones which was
provided to Inspector Towers-Hammond on Tuesday, and of
course, Ms Mellifont, my notes are always correct.
30
MS MELLIFONT: We'll have a very good look.
BENCH: Certainly 3, 4 and 5 are here-----
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: -----Ms Mellifont, when you're ready.
MS MELLIFONT: We'll take those and we'll try to work out
what's happened with - sorry, which exhibit's missing now; 3?
40
BENCH: 3.
MS MELLIFONT: I'll have inquiries made this afternoon and see
if Mr Towers-Hammond has accidentally taken the photographs
from-----
BENCH: Oh, I'll have to correct the record.
MS MELLIFONT: Exhibit 3's now turned up.
50
BENCH: I think it must be someone else's fault. It must be my
clerk's fault.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you. I call Laurence-----
BENCH: Before you do-----
74
60
14082008 D.5 T19-20/KLW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
MS MELLIFONT: I'm sorry?
1
BENCH: -----I can confirm that tomorrow morning I'm available
at this stage-----
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
BENCH: -----to sit until 12.30.
MS MELLIFONT: 12.30 would be the latest I'd have to-----
10
BENCH: 12.30.
MS MELLIFONT: -----get away. Mrs Robertson mentioned a third
day on top of the additional two. Are we still looking for an
additional day?
BENCH: Well, I wasn't going to go there until towards the end
of August, because we've got two days on the 27th and 28th of
August.
20
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour.
BENCH: I can if you wanted me to have a look, see if there's
a date after that?
MS MELLIFONT: It may be prudent, your Honour, given -
anticipating that the cross-examination of the witnesses may
be lengthy, even though the evidence-in-chief after today will
be short.
30
BENCH: After today. Uh-huh.
MS MELLIFONT: It may be prudent to try to lock in a day now,
as your Honour has indicated, if you don't lock it in now, the
dates get occupied.
BENCH: Look, I'm not - I'm not - I'm not for a moment
suggesting anything else other than that to me the most
important witnesses are Mr Towers-Hammond in respect of the
40
seizure on the 22nd and of course the inspector who made the
seizure on the 9th.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour. On that point, when you're -
when you're applying your mind to the discretion, it - and
looking for the threshold test of the reasonable belief of an
inspector, it can be any inspector, not necessarily the one
the Chief Executive relied on.
BENCH: Uh-huh.
50
MS MELLIFONT: That will be my submission, in any event.
BENCH: All right. Yes, Mrs Robertson?
APPELLANT: Your Honour, I personally feel that the three vets
from the RSPC's evidence is also very important.
75
60
14082008 D.5 T19-20/KLW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, of course. It's important about a
1
second issue that I'm looking at, but the first issue before I
get there is whether or not it's a recent belief. Yes, thanks.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour. I call Lawrence
Stageman.
LAWRENCE STAGEMAN, ON AFFIRMATION, EXAMINED:
10
MS MELLIFONT: Can you state your full name,
please?-- Lawrence Stageman.
Where do you work?-- RSPCA Queensland, Fairfield.
And in what role do you work there?-- I'm there as an
inspector under the Act.
20
Under the Animal Care and Protection Act?-- Yes.
How long have you worked at the RSPCA for?-- In total eight
years; three and a-half years as an animal ambulance officer,
and four and a-half years as an inspector.
Have you sworn an affidavit in these proceedings?-- Yes.
I just want you to have a look at this document, an affidavit
30
signed the 4th of August 2.30 p.m., four pages. Is that the
affidavit you've sworn in these proceedings?-- It is.
Is the information within that affidavit true and
correct?-- It is.
Can I ask you please to look at this document, which is the
affidavit of Ms Fiona Ferguson sworn the 29th of July 2008,
it's the one with 13 annexures. Have a look please at annexure
5 of that affidavit. Is that a statement you prepared in
40
respect of this matter?-- Yes it is.
Is that your signature which appears at the bottom of each
page?-- Yes.
And on what date did you sign the statement?-- The 4th of
February.
Is everything within that statement true and correct to the
best of your knowledge?-- It is.
50
Please turn over, still within the same affidavit, to Exhibit
6. That's a three-page document. Can you go to the third page
please? Is that your signature?-- It is, yes.
Can you explain the nature of this document, please?-- It's a
document requesting a forfeiture for the animals.
XN: MS MELLIFONT
76
WIT: STAGEMAN L
60
14082008 D.5 T19-20/KLW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
And is the information set out in that document true and
1
correct?-- It is, yes.
Can you go please to Exhibit 7? You'll see there is an
application for a warrant to enter dated the 8th of January
2008?-- Yes.
Does your signature appear on that application?-- It does.
Were you in fact the applicant for the warrant?-- I was, yes.
10
And is the information within that application true and
correct?-- Yes.
Turning to the next page please, still within Exhibit 7, is
that the warrant that you received in respect of this
matter?-- It is, yes.
Take you please onto Exhibit 10 to the same affidavit,
document headed, "Receipt for seized property, number 4456."
20
Mr Stageman, what's this document a copy of?-- This is a copy
of the receipt for seized property that was issued to Mrs
Robertson's lawyers.
Can I have please the Court copy of Exhibit 16 and 17?
Starting with the receipt please, Exhibit 16, can you have a
look at the second page of the receipt. Have you got the
receipt there?-- The receipt for seized property? Yes.
All right. Now, attached to it is - it looks like a facsimile
30
cover sheet?-- Yes.
Now, who filled out that-----?-- I did.
-----piece of paper?-- I did.
When did you fax the receipt for seized property?-- On the
14th of the 1st.
All right. Can you have a look please at Exhibit 17, the
40
document headed, "Information note of seized property"? Now,
does your signature appear on that document?-- Yes, it does.
And how prepared this document?-- I did.
And is the information stated within it correct-----?-- Yes.
-----and true? Did you give that to Mrs Robertson or to her
solicitors?-- I faxed that to her solicitors as well.
50
On what date?-- On the 15th.
Of?-- Of the 1st.
This year?-- This year, yeah.
Thank you. If those documents could be returned, thank you.
I'll ask you now please to have a look at the second affidavit
XN: MS MELLIFONT
77
WIT: STAGEMAN L
60
14082008 D.5 T19-20/KLW(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
of Ms Ferguson. This is the one with 12 annexures also sworn
1
on the 29th of July 2008. And I'll ask you to look please at
annexure 9. Have you got annexure 9 there?-- Sorry?
Have you got annexure 9 there? There's a green tag on the
right-hand side of the-----?-- They're not in there-----
-----of the affidavit?-- -----yet.
All right. Can you open that up please? Do you have there a
10
two-page statement in your name?-- Yes.
Right. Looking at that statement please, can you tell me if
your signature appears at the bottom of each page?-- Yes, it
does.
And the date on which you signed it please?-- On the 25th of
the 2nd '08.
And is the information within that statement true and
20
correct?-- It is, yes.
Thank you. The first documents can be returned, please. Mr
Stageman, taking you please - thank you - taking you please back to the 9th of January 2008, did you attend Mrs
Robertson's premises on that day?-- I did, yes.
Did you activate a tape-recording device at Mrs Robertson's
premises?-- Yes, I did, a digital tape-recording.
30
At what point in time did you activate the recording?-- Before I entered the property I gave a description of the time that I
was entering and what I was entering for.
All right. And have you made a copy of that recording onto an
audiocassette with two sides on it?-- Yes, I have.
If you have a look at this tape, please?-- Yeah, that's the
tape.
40
Do you recognise that tape?-- That's the tape.
All right. Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I ask for that
tape to be played please.
BENCH: Yes.
MS MELLIFONT: Unfortunately it has to be played on the small
recorder, because it's recorded in double-time.
50
BENCH: I see.
TAPE PLAYED
XN: MS MELLIFONT
78
WIT: STAGEMAN L
60
14082008 D.5 T21-25/CG(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
MS MELLIFONT: Sorry, just stopping it there, who are you
1
speaking with at that point in time?-- Might have been
Inspector Barrond.
Okay.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
10
MS MELLIFONT: Just stopping it there. This is the stage
where you talk there about seizing dogs "down there" and you
mention one lady looking after - 50 dogs. You talk about
seizing some animals. Can I just show you, please, Exhibit 6?
I'll need the Court exhibit.
BENCH: Exhibit 6 did you say?
20
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, the sketch map.
BENCH: Oh, yes.
MS MELLIFONT: Oh, sorry. Now, Inspector, at that point in
time, you're talking about seizing dogs, from what location?-- From this...compound here.
In the middle of the page?-- Yeah, in the middle of the page
there, there was a lot of standard-bred dogs there with
30
dreadlocks and some of the dogs that were in, or most of the dogs that were in the back compound there.
All right. And at that point in time on the tape, where on
the property had you traversed?-- We had been - had a look at the - the animals inside the house. There - there was some
animals in this open area and-----
At the - at the - sorry?-- -----some animals down in the
centre.
40
You said in the open area, is that the - at the front?-- At
the front of the building, where the counter is, just in front
of the counter there's a - in front of the office there's a
bit of an alleyway, that was barricaded. There were some dogs
in there, and there was a few dogs in the open area, just to
the left, as you go through the door.
All right. And you estimate, at that point in time, was about
50 dogs?-- Well, yeah I - I counted probably about 50, until I
50
got down the back and counted more of them.
And when did you count more of them?-- Well, judging by the
amount of dogs that were in the pens here, these one's here.
In the middle?-- At that point in time we were only going to
take some of the really bad ones, and leave Geraldine with
some of the good ones, but with an animal welfare direction.
XN: MS MELLIFONT
79
WIT: STAGEMAN L
60
14082008 D.5 T26-28/KFB(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
1
All right. But at what point in time did you work out that
there was more than 50 dogs?-- Oh, when we went down the back
and saw all those, and just had a - a quick observation that
there was more animals in this area, that area-----
In the centre and the back?-- -----in the compounds and in
here.
Right. So on a second look through?-- Yeah.
10
All right, thank you. That exhibit can be returned. Continue
with the tape please?
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
20
MS MELLIFONT: It'll just take me a minute to find the other side, your Honour, because it's been taped over another tape,
and there's a little bit of a patch, or something, that belongs to something entirely different.
TAPE CONTINUED TO BE PLAYED
30
MS MELLIFONT: Your Honour, I'd just like to stop it there given the time. Will we be back here in this Court tomorrow?
BENCH: We're back in this Court tomorrow.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
BENCH: So you can leave everything as it. How much more of
the tape?
40
MS MELLIFONT: My recollection is around 20 minutes.
BENCH: Another 20 minutes.
MS MELLIFONT: But you know about counsel's estimates of time.
BENCH: I do. I've been guilty of it myself. While you're on
your feet-----
50
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour.
BENCH: -----the bundle of documents that you gave me, I
think, on the first day, the folder - that folder of documents.
MS MELLIFONT: Oh, yes.
XN: MS MELLIFONT
80
WIT: STAGEMAN L
60
14082008 D.5 T29-30/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
BENCH: Do you have that with you?
1
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, I do.
BENCH: Could you go to the statement of - the affidavit of Ms
Ferguson?
MS MELLIFONT: There are in fact, of course, two affidavits of
Ms Ferguson's.
10
BENCH: Yes, sorry. The first - the very first affidavit of - sworn the 29th of July.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes, your Honour.
BENCH: Now, she is the manager of the Legislation Support
Unit, is that correct?
MS MELLIFONT: That's correct.
20
BENCH: Okay. I'll take you over the page to the first delegation that appears. The first instrument of delegation.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes.
BENCH: And it delegates powers under section 155, the first
thing on page 3 in the schedule of the instrument of delegation.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes.
30
BENCH: Power under 155, that's the first thing. Perhaps to - to someone other than the manager.
MS MELLIFONT: Except that - your Honour, I'll check that. I
think the position number is the same.
BENCH: 712 - 71029757, the same position number.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes.
40
BENCH: A different title.
MS MELLIFONT: Yes. I'll - I understand that she is a - I'll
check this-----
BENCH: All right.
MS MELLIFONT: -----but I understand she is a principal legal
officer and she just happens to be the manager, but I'll -
50
I'll have that checked.
BENCH: Oh, I thought she was the manager of the Legislative
Support Unit. That's her title.
MS MELLIFONT: That's her title, but as I understand it there
are categories of lawyers. There's principals, legal officer
81
60
14082008 D.5 T29-30/MT(CNS) M/T BRIS34 (Strofield, Magistrate)
and - and the train. Look, I'll have to check that. I - I
1
don't want to overstate my knowledge about it.
BENCH: No, I accept that, but can you also look at the power
that's been delegated there. Section 155 is about an
information notice, and the second instrument of delegation,
it's delegating powers under section 157(6) to the same
person. I suppose the - the other thing that I want to take
out of this is that it seems that - it seems on the face of
it, that's the instrument of delegation, is to someone other
10
than them - on the face of it to Ms Ferguson.
MS MELLIFONT: I'll - I'll look into that, your Honour.
BENCH: The second things is, she says she's got an instrument
of delegation under sections 154 and she may very well have,
but it's not an annexure to her-----
MS MELLIFONT: Her affidavit.
20
BENCH: -----her affidavit.
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour. Thank you.
BENCH: Well, we can leave everything as is. We will be back
here tomorrow morning-----
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you, your Honour.
BENCH: -----at 9 o'clock.
30
MS MELLIFONT: Thank you.
BENCH: Adjourn the Court please.
THE COURT ADJOURNED
40
50
82
60