Telford man got death threats over dog case, court told
A Telford dog-owner had his car torched and got death threats after he was mistakenly thought to be guilty of dog fighting, a court heard.
There is no evidence Samuel Boylett, who is appealing a jail sentence for causing suffering to dogs in his care, was involved in illegal animal fighting or hunting, Shrewsbury Crown Court heard.
His terrier and lurcher-type working dogs were instead used for legal pest control, or “ratting”, lawyer Sara-Lise Howe claimed.
Boylett, 34, of Burtondale, Brookside, , was sentenced to 24 weeks in jail last year over five charges of causing suffering by not getting his dogs appropriate veterinary treatment for bite and scratch wounds. He is on bail pending the appeal.
He is now appealing the verdict along with Mark Paddock, 46, of no fixed abode, who shared one of the charges and was given a 12-week suspended sentence.
But two days into what supposed to be a four-day hearing, Judge Jim Tindal agreed to adjourn and reschedule the case to give it more time.
When the case was heard in January 2016, extra charges suggesting the pair had encouraged the dogs to fight wild animals were dropped, with the two convicted only on not seeking treatment for the dogs.
But Ms Howe, representing Boylett, said the RSPCA was asking the court to speculate on such things even though any such charges had been dismissed.
She said: “It seems the prosecution is determined to pursue the suggestion that some form of dog fighting was responsible for the injuries, which is irrelevant.”
She said the suggestion was that there was “something unlawful going on which is why the defendant would not take the dogs to the vet.”
But presenting the injuries as if from dog fighting or illegal hunting was “prejudicial to the press and courts and has led to my client getting death threats when this was heard in magistrates court,” she said, adding that his car had also been “burnt out”.
She said the injuries were in fact “caused in the normal activity of working dogs in the course of ratting, etc.”
Paul Taylor, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said his case was that the two men avoided the vet deliberately, but said he resented any claim that he was “campaigning” or acting inappropriately.
He said whether the injuries were from rats, foxes or badgers, it could still be the case that the dogs were not taken to the vets “because questions might be asked”.
With no evidence yet heard, Judge Tindal said he was “pessimistic” the case would finish on time by Friday, so agreed to reschedule for a possible further five days starting November 27.
