Shuswap woman acquitted of animal cruelty charges

Nov 1, 2018 | 9:15 AM

KAMLOOPS — Although a Salmon Arm woman fell short of providing food, water and care for some of her 20 horses, a B.C. Supreme Court Justice has acquitted her of animal cruelty charges.

Supreme Court Justice Len Marchand found Charlene Robinson not guilty last week of causing her animals unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, referring to her as an “experienced and fiercely independent horsewoman.”

During the fall and winter of 2013, Robinson had 20 Arabian horses and one pig on her rural property in Salmon Arm. Marchand said there is no doubt she cared deeply about her animals.

Despite that, the SPCA executed a warrant on Robinson’s property on Dec. 19, 2013 after two complaints and several interactions with her. A veterinarian attended along with an SPCA special constable and an investigator.

The SPCA concluded that all of Robinson’s animals were in distress due to inadequate water, feed, shelter and care, and five of Robinson’s horses were seized.

On Jan. 9, 2014, the SPCA executed another warrant, and with input from the same veterinarian, it concluded that Robinson’s animals continued to be in distress. Six mares and two pony stallions were seized, and the SPCA left seven horses and the one pig with Robinson.

After that, Robinson was charged with wilfully causing unnecessary pain suffering or injury to animals, and wilfully neglecting or failing to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for them.

Some of the complaints that led to the SPCA investigation included observing underweight horses on Robinson’s property. During the investigation, some of the horses were observed to have low body condition scores, which is a scale used to determine the health of a horse.

Marchand acknowledged that some of the animals were lacking in food, shelter and water, but emphasized that Robinson had put her efforts toward the animals — although her work fell short.

“Ms. Robinson exercised poor judgment, her efforts fell short and she put her animals in jeopardy. Her conduct, however, did not reach the required level of recklessness,” Marchand said. “I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Robinson’s shortcomings were wilful. She did not intentionally harm her animals but she did exercise poor judgment. For example, it was careless of her not to prepare for a sudden turn in the weather. While Ms. Robinson’s conduct was concerning and problematic, she did not cross the line into recklessness.”

Read the full court decision here.