2011年5月29日 星期日

How council bureaucrats brought misery to a Welsh family farm

Over four generations the family farm had grown to 4,000 ewes, plus 2,000 lambs and 450 cattle grazing on more than 1,600 acres of north Wales countryside.

His dedication had won Henllys Farm in Abergele the respect of the agricultural community and a string of awards.

But the 52-year-old farmer's life was plunged into turmoil when council trading standards officials came calling in September 2008.

They scoured the farm and, among the huge flock of sheep, they found two that were dead.

Nothing unusual about that. But, to Mr Williams' horror, the council officers concluded from the state of the carcasses that the animals had been dead for a long time, possibly weeks, and that Mr Williams had failed to dispose of them within a "reasonable" period of time, usually a day or two after they had died.

Mr Williams strenuously denied their claims, saying that he made regular checks and the sheep could not have been dead for more than 48 hours. But he was charged under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act with failing properly to dispose of the carcasses.

The farmer's expert witness, a leading vet, told the court that foxes, crows, magpies and other predators could reduce an animal's corpse to little more than bones within hours of its death. The local authority finally admitted defeat and dropped the case in October 2009 before local magistrates delivered a verdict.

But Mr Williams' battle with the bureaucrats was not over: he still had to fight two charges of causing unnecessary suffering to lambs in a separate prosecution.

The trading standards officers had found one lamb with an eye infection and another with flystrike, a common condition in which flies lay eggs on a sheep's body.

Mr Williams explained that he knew about the infections and was treating both animals in a separate "hospital field". But the officers ignored his protestations and he was charged and found guilty at Prestatyn magistrates court in June last year.

The farmer appealed and the case dragged on until the council decided last week not to contest the appeal - finally clearing Mr Williams' name. His battle for justice had taken nearly three years.

Mr Williams, who runs the farm with his wife Edna and sons Berwyn, 27 and Selwyn, 29, said: "I've been farming all my life and I've never seen anything like this.

"We found ourselves being pursued on totally groundless charges and the cases have brought a lot of stress and heartache to my family for nearly three years.

"We work hard and are proud of what we do here but we have suffered because trading standards don't understand farming.

"Hopefully this case sends out a signal that families such as my own are not willing to roll over but instead will fight for our basic rights and freedoms."

Mr Williams said the council should "look into the background of the people who make these allegations against farmers".

His delight at finally gaining justice was marred by the fact that his father Douglas did not see his victory as he died in March aged 84.

Mr Williams' solicitor said the case was "one of the worst abuses of the law I have seen by a council against a respected and award-winning farming family".

David Kirwan, a farming specialist with Wirral-based Kirwans solicitors, said: "There was never any justification for bringing this case and it is a scandal that it has been allowed to drag on as long as it has.

"The Williams family has lived in fear for almost three years of the potentially catastrophic impact these groundless allegations could have on their financial well-being and on their reputation as sheep farmers."

"Councils like Conwy seem hell-bent on criminalising the hard-working farming community.

"Invading people's privacy and marching round with their clipboards, these officious people forget how vital the farming community is to the economy of this country."

The case sparked anger in the farming community, with the Farmers' Union of Wales calling for the resignation of Phil Rafferty, head of Conwy council's regulatory services.

Mr Williams is not the only farmer to find himself being prosecuted by "meddling and vindictive" officials under relatively new legislation, only for cases to be dropped after drawn-out and expensive proceedings which put farmers' livelihoods at risks.

Mr Kirwan said the case was just the "tip of the iceberg" of "pointless prosecutions". A series of cases have been brought then dropped in similar circumstances to Mr Williams' ordeal, including several in north Wales in the past few weeks alone.

The cases have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.

They include:

- Major Tom Smith, a deputy-Lieutenant of Gwynedd, his wife and son, who were prosecuted for seven alleged animal welfare offences by Conwy trading standards over the management of his flock of Welsh mountain sheep, tended by an experienced shepherd.

A trial date was set but, after more than six months and many expensive court appearances, the case against all three defendants was dropped this month (MAY) because it was not in the public interest. The case is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £75,000.

- Tomos (CORR) Bryn Jones, a farmer from Denbigh, was prosecuted for breaching cattle movement restrictions after he sold a young heifer for slaughter because it "went berserk" and attacked anybody who came near it or its calf. Cows are always protective of their calves but this animal was considered to be dangerous.

The defence argued that the case was exempt from the restrictions. The case went on for nearly nine months before the prosecution dropped the charges this month (MAY), a few weeks before the trial date. Mr Jones, who accepted a caution, was awarded costs.

- John Davies, a fourth-generation cattle and sheep farmer from Llanrwst, Conwy, was cleared by magistrates last October, and won costs, after being prosecuted for failing to provide his cattle with "fresh, golden-coloured straw" for dry bedding.

The defence said that the farmer would have to be with his animals every minute of the day to ensure such pristine straw. The court was asked: "Are farmers expected to stand behind cows in the barns with a 'pooper scooper' and replace the straw every time the animal defecates or urinates?"

沒有留言:

張貼留言