Court case ref L11200992

Waiting for an internal review by HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland of their handling of this request.

Dear Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland,
This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information
(Scotland) Act 2002.

Please provide evidence given by the scottish spca to cps in
livingston court . court case referance number L11200992
the evidence required is 38 pics 2 vets reports 1 post mortom
results bloodwork /faecal tests
farrier report ? all relating to my property and also reports as to
why my property was given to a third party not within the sspca but
lasswade riding school 30 minutes after the spca free to use own
facilities?

Yours faithfully,

mandi mac

Dear Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland,

Written evidence from Amanda McGunnigle (AWF 11)

DOES THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006 WORK ?
The animal welfare act will never work whilst the organisations who use it are unmonitered .
Have no governing body to oversee thier day to day runnings are exempt from the foi act and are also not included in the data protection act ?
The act is misused and abused by charities using the act ?

on the 2/5/12 i had my horse seized by the scottish sspca straight seizure no care to comply no monitering just a straight we are having him ? and those was the exact words used by the inspector even before the vet arrived they had made the descision themselves they was taking the horse no ifs or buts .
no matter what i said she wasnt for being reasonable and i ended up collapsing in the field and was taken away in an ambulance even when asked by the ambulanceman to reassure me about my horses . the inspector replied the horses are fine but we are still taking them ? my partner was told by the inspector he wasnt allowed to leave the premises as the vet hadnt arrived yet so he was very upset and a few weeks later went on to have a nervous breakdown and had to be searched for and taken to hospital by the police .
when the vet arrived my family members was told to wait outside each stable as each horse was inspected and one horse and 2 shetlands was passed by the vet . when she came to last horse a 27 year old thoughbred she gave him a body score of two and they left the stable the vet was asked by family members whats going to happen now ?
she replied i will leave that upto the girls (sspca) and inspector said we are taking him
my partner said to them if you are taking horse A then you would need to take horse B
who had already passed the vetting done by the vet as no concern . they said no so was told you are taking an old horse away from everything he knows to a strange place and strange people hes a very stressy horse and prone to colic ?
and the other reason is if you leave horse B she will go looking for him and no stable or fence will hold her in so i am telling you now . so they agreed horse B would go as a companion only to horse A .
on the 4/512 the sspca came back to my house and i was cautioned in my livingroom by the 2 inspectors and after writing thier statements i was told i could get myself a lawyer or sign both horses over to the spca and the case would be dropped ?
i was phoning the sspca regulary and and was always told the same thing hes fine dont worry . last phone call was the 28/6/12 .
i was told on social media did i know horse A had died i asked the sspca about him on the last phone how is he and was told he was fine and i then stated i have been told he had actually died and was told we cant speak to you now so go thro your lawyer so i did and an mp both asked how and when did he die? but the sspca skirted around the issue . the fact was the scottish sspca had seized my horse and driven him past thier own free to use equine facility another 25 minutes to a very busy riding school
owned by an inspectors mother were after being in the sspcas care for 4 weeks 3 days he was found dead in a field ?
despite me telling them his routine and his feeds etc check ⅔ times a day and bring in every night as prone to colic . he had died in a field in the spcas care or rather a third parties care ? so he was seized on the 2/5/12 i was cautioned on the 4/5/12 he died on the 5/6/12 after being with sspca 4 weeks 3 days and i still awaited court papers but court papers wasnt lodged with the court until the 14/6/12 .9 days after he had died . so i began asking for horse B back as she wasnt a case and was no longer needed as a companion so thro lawyers letters and mps letters when could i get her back . i was sent a letter stating you can get her back after we have made sure its a secure enviroment for her and then i recieved another letter with a solo ownership form for me to sign her over to the sspca i declined that also and they was told she was never a case so i want her back . i had then decided she would go back to the person i got her from as she couldnt come back to my stables as no way would she stay in a field or a stable herself so the spca took her back to the person i had got her from on the 18/11/12. then lawyer showed me vets reports and the like . the first vet who came to the stables who had stated horse A was a body score of 2 had wrote on her report body score of 1 and then another second vet was supposed to have seen the horse on the 3/512 wrote the exact same wording on his report ? so went thro the court system and was advised by my own lawyer to accept the tethering charge which i did as i had tethered the horses so i could monitor hay intake of each horse they had spent 2 hours in one area then moved to another fresh area then the sspca came ? tethering is a code of practise not a law . i took the charge and then asked lawyer for full disclosure of my file so i could read thro it all properly instead of a quick look in his office .i received all my disclosure but none of the sspca evidence what was stated as 38 pictures all undated 2 vets reports faecal blood test results and post mortem . i have asked my own lawyer sspca cps oscr and charity commision and yet no one will give me disclosure about my own property ?after trial ended 14/11/14 i then contacted the vets practise and spoke to the practice partner and i told him his vet had changed her report to aid the sspca and also stated 2 horses was taken and the remaining ponies was in poor condition ? but they was left with me and the other practise partner had also been out to see the remaining ponies everything was passed and fine and he would write a statement saying so . so armed with the facts sent and spoken the vets practise had a meeting with both partners and the vet in question . that was on the 8/11/14 and i never heard back from practise until on the 3/12/14 the practise posted on their facebook page that the vet in question had left the practise. she started working at the practise 6 weeks before my horse was taken and left within ¾ weeks after ? i contacted the sspca regarding the vets reports etc but they are exempt from the foi act and the data protection act so was refused but they did send me a very edited statement and then it got intresting as the blood tests etc was done by the second vet and not by the first vet before seizure to determine suffering .
the second vet is actually the seizing inspectors own personnel vet .the sspca handed in undated photographs and could have been taken at any time as with it being an inspectors mums yard they have unlimited access to it .in the edited statement it states horse A was found dead after dying overnight in a field at the stables and he died of colic something he was prone to hence the check ⅔ times a day and bring in off the grass over night i had him nearly 15 years the sspca had him 4 weeks 3 days and despite being told all this .the information was ignored by the sspca so my horses suffered at the hands of the sspca one died and one was neglected in sspca care so that contravenes the awa they passed the horses onto a 3rd party so that breaches sec one of the theft act 1968 . they also infringed or breached human rights by thier actions
they also committed perjury or if in england/wales perverting the course of justice . they also stated in thier statement published after trial that 2 horses was cases again untrue and libel
the horse was seized under sec 19 of the awa 2006 which is too broad and easily abused and in in this case was abused by the sspca there was no public intrest in thier case but there is public intrest in this case as horse taken on the 2/5/12 i was cautioned in my livingroom on the 4/5/12 my horse died on the 5/6/12 but no papers was submitted until the 14/6/12 so imo a cover up on thier behalf
March 2016

please read as this was evidence submitted regarding the awa2006
relating to my case numbe

Yours faithfully,

mandi mac

Dear Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland,

please find enclosed the dr henneke report . he is the man who started the body score charts for horses
and if you could read this enclosed as it states the miss use of the body score chart and things that should be done legally before removal of any animals ? before removal the vet onsite should take feacal and blood tests ?
this was not done so this was done after removal and by the inspectors own vet at a later date if you could read the below facts it would be appreciated

Over the past decade, the Body Condition Scoring System for Horses (BCS) has become, in many if not most cases, the sole reason for seizure for neglect or abuse. The problem with this is that the BCS was not designed to reflect the health or well-being of the horse. The BCS provides an estimate of stored body fat, period. From a physiological standpoint, as long as a horse has any fat reserves and is receiving a diet that meets its daily maintenance requirements, that horse can be healthy.

For example, The Minimum Standards of Horse Care in the State of California (2011) arbitrarily indicates that any horse with a BCS of less than 3 does not meet the minimum standard. By definition, a BCS 3 horse still has reserves of body fat. Once a horse gets below a BCS 3, then reserves are low. However, the health of the horse is only in jeopardy if it is breaking down non-fat tissue to provide for its basic energy needs. The BCS cannot measure this function.

Breakdown of non-adipose tissue for energy can be evaluated through blood analysis focusing on liver and kidney function, and the breakdown of structural tissue for energy. Blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and the ratio of blood urea nitrogen level to creatinine level are indicators of tissue breakdown. Analysis for hematocrit, serum concentrations of total protein solids, sodium, calcium, potassium, triglycerides, bilirubin, and albumin will also provide information concerning malnutrition and starvation. None of these tests are accurate on their own. However, evaluation of matching trends from the analysis can help confirm or disprove that the horse is nutritionally deprived.

In addition, the presence, or absence, of other physical indicators of inadequate energy intake should be used to evaluate alleged neglect. Energy deprived horses will be lethargic. Their reaction to stimuli will be depressed. They will usually show signs of dehydration: tacky gums, “tenting” of skin on the neck, concentrated urine with a very strong odor, and decreased fecal output. Coprophagy, the consumption of feces, is usually very pronounced in energy deprived horses, especially those kept in groups. Since energy deprivation is usually accompanied by protein deficits, the hair coat will dull and shaggy. It is imperative that a low BCS score be supported by other clinical signs of starvation to indicate nutritional neglect.

The presence, or absence, of feed and hay on the premises is an excellent indicator of the ability of the owner to meet the nutritional needs of their horses. If adequate feed and hay is present to meet the needs of the animals, then seizure is not warranted. Few, if any, horse owners will refuse to feed their horses if feed is available.

Adding to the problem is that many “evaluators” have not received any formal training in the application of the BCS. They do not understand the physiology of fat deposition and utilization, they are not knowledgeable in conformation and breed characteristics that will influence the BCS, and most often they have personal biases that lower their estimate. The BCS is designed as a ranking system. It was never designed to be exact and it cannot be exact because of differences in breeds, size, age, and conformation between horses. It is a guideline. If the average lay horse owner gets within 1 body condition score, plus or minus, of the horses actual condition, they are doing a good job. Seizing a horse based solely on an untrained person’s estimated BCS is a very questionable practice.

I find it very disturbing that humane societies and local authorities have utilized the BCS in such a manner. There are definitely cases of neglect and abuse that need to be dealt with in a quick and decisive manner. However, care must be taken to be sure that the animals are truly being starved and that requires supporting evidence from their other physical parameters and blood analysis. My recommendation to all parties is that if neglect or abuse due to nutrition deprivation is suspected,
1.The evaluator must exhibit the ability to offer a trained, unbiased opinion based solely on the stored body fat of the animal. If seizure is to be considered, the evaluation of the animals by a qualified, impartial third person should be required.
2.A BCS of less than 3 is not cause for automatic seizure. The animals in question must exhibit altered metabolism confirmed by blood analysis or other physical signs consistent with malnutrition before they can be seized for inadequate body condition. If it is determined that the horse needs immediate attention, a veterinarian of the owner’s choosing should provide those supporting procedures. These procedures may be done with supervision by the legal authorities.
3.Only horses exhibiting altered metabolism and having inadequate feed stores on the premises should be seized. Removing healthy horses from their home is not necessary and may often result in adverse consequences due to stress created by a new environment and untrained handlers.
4.If at all possible, the alleged neglected horses should remain at the owner’s farm. Removing any horse from its familiar environment, drastically changing its diet, and exposing it to a new set of handlers will usually result in stress and a further loss of body condition. In the vast majority of cases, if the intent is truly the best care of the horse, that care can best be administered in familiar surroundings. If the legal authorities require, care can be conducted under their official guidance.

Yours faithfully,

mandi mac

Dear Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland's handling of my FOI request 'Court case ref L11200992'.

i am awaiting a reply from yourselves as the 20 day period has expired if you could look into this matter
it would be appreciated

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

mandi mac

Dear Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland,
if you could update me regarding my request it would be appreciated
as it seems the deadline has passed and you have not answered ?

Yours faithfully,

mandi mac

HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    attachment.delivery status

    0K Download DSN: 5.1.1 Bad destination mailbox address

  • Attachment

    Re Freedom of Information request Court case ref L11200992.txt

    1K Download View as HTML

Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

[1]FOI requests at Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland
([Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email])
The email address that you entered couldn't be found. Check the address
and try resending the message. If the problem continues, please contact
your helpdesk.

Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: scotland.gsi.gov.uk

[Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email]
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found
##rfc822;[Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email]

Original message headers:

Received: from s0220a.scotland.gov.uk (192.168.52.6) by s0402g.scotland.gov.uk
(10.8.144.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Sun, 19 Jun 2016
00:18:22 +0100
Received: from mc13unxa (unverified) by s0220a.scotland.gov.uk (Clearswift
SMTPRS 5.4.1) with ESMTP id
<[email address]> for
<[Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email]>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:18:22 +0100
Received: from mx.hosting-w.gsi.gov.uk ([51.63.241.41]) by mc13unxa with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:18:19 +0100
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by
mx.hosting-w.gsi.gov.uk with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.83) (envelope-from
<[FOI #320107 email]>) id 1bEPVO-0000Ae-KD for
[Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email]; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:18:22 +0100
Received: from [193.109.254.3] by server-6.bemta-14.messagelabs.com id
CE/E2-30934-EB6D5675; Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:18:22 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNLMWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsWip60epLvvWmq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X-Env-Sender: [FOI #320107 email]
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-184.messagelabs.com!1466291902!43786815!1
X-Originating-IP: [46.43.39.82]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 8.46; banners=-,-,scotland.gsi.gov.uk
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 9868 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2016 23:18:22 -0000
Received: from titan.ukcod.org.uk (HELO titan.ukcod.org.uk) (46.43.39.82) by
server-8.tower-184.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted
SMTP; 18 Jun 2016 23:18:22 -0000
Received: from foi by titan.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <[FOI #320107 email]>) id
1bEPVN-0008Po-BB; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:18:21 +0100
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:18:21 +0100
From: mandi mac <[FOI #320107 email]>
To: FOI requests at Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland
<[Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email]>
Message-ID: <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Court case ref L11200992
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-Path: [FOI #320107 email]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2016 23:18:19.0775 (UTC)
FILETIME=[B379B0F0:01D1C9B7]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland request email]