Agenda item

(This item contains personal information regarding applicants and licence holders which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Sub-Committee considered whether two licence holders were fit and proper

persons to hold Donkey Driver Licences, in respect of the following cases:

(i)                 S.T (Existing licence holder)

Mr Ratcliffe, Mr Dave Verity and Mr Ian Taylor, Public Protection Officers, who were also in attendance, presented the case on behalf of the authority.

ST was in attendance with a family friend and both provided representations to the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee was informed of an ongoing investigation by the RSPCA into suspected animal cruelty and abuse at the licence holder’s premises. The yard was used for the storage and exercise of various animals including donkeys and dogs of various breeds.

Mr Ratcliffe showed Members a series of CCTV video clips from the yard that had been used as evidence of cruelty. Some of the footage showed the licence holder participating in physical violence against donkeys. Mr Verity and Mr Taylor added that when they had visited the yard subsequently, some of the conditions they observed were below the standard expected of licence holders.

ST suggested that she had been in a relationship with a violent individual at the time of the incidents and that he had been the perpetrator of most of the violence shown in the CCTV footage. She also claimed to be unaware of his actions with the donkeys. Following the breakdown of their relationship, the licence holder claimed she had been the victim of a personal vendetta which had escalated to her former partner installing CCTV equipment on her premises. ST claimed to have an exemplary record looking after and transporting animals. She added that her actions in the video footage could be explained as coaxing the animals, which she said was necessary given their pack animal status.

The Sub-Committee considered the representations and evidence presented. Despite the licence holder’s explanation of events and the issue with a former partner, Members were convinced that wrongful treatment of animals had occurred and the licence holder had been both complicit and an active participant in the cruelty shown in the CCTV footage. Systematic abuse and excessive force were not in keeping with the standards expected of a licensed Donkey Driver.

Resolved:

That the Donkey Driver licence be revoked with immediate effect on the grounds that the safety of the public and welfare of animals could not be guaranteed.

(ii)               G.E.T (Existing licence holder)

The Sub-Committee was informed of an ongoing investigation by the RSPCA into suspected animal cruelty and abuse at the premises where the licence holder worked with members of her family. The yard was used for the storage and exercise of various animals including donkeys and dogs of various breeds. Members were shown CCTV footage which purported to display the licence holder involved in violence towards an animal in her care. Mr Verity and Mr Taylor also reported that during the course of a visit to the yard, they were troubled to find a number of animals being kept in poor conditions.

GET was in attendance with a family friend and both made representations to the Sub-Committee. In relation to the mistreatment of animals, the licence holder claimed she was not depicted in any section of the CCTV footage. She also claimed she had never taken part in or experienced any animal cruelty during the course of her normal duties. The licence holder claimed to be an animal lover and added that she had worked with various animals without incident for several years.

The Sub-Committee expressed concerns about the ongoing investigation into animal cruelty and the licence holder’s behaviour towards animals in her care. Members were equally unsatisfied by the explanation offered for the behaviour observed in the CCTV footage.

Resolved:

That the Donkey Driver licence not be renewed on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

Background papers: exempt