Couple banned from caring for animals lose appeal

Dog breeders Daryl and David Balfour leave the Dannevirke District Court after one of their earlier court appearances. Photo / File

A former New Zealand Kennel Club judge and his wife have lost their appeal against conviction and sentence for mistreating scores of animals, but will no longer have to pay nearly $28,000 in court costs.

David and Daryl Balfour were convicted in December 2011 on three animal cruelty charges after the SPCA found 87 dogs and 161 cats in cramped conditions with insufficient shelter, water, light and ventilation on a property near Dannevirke in 2007.

They were ordered to pay fines of $12,500 each, disqualified from owning or caring for animals for 20 years and ordered to pay $27,818 in costs.

The couple lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal in July on several grounds.

They argued that video footage of the SPCA raid on their property, which was deemed inadmissible during their trial, should have been allowed because it showed the allegations were not accurate.

They claimed they were not given adequate time to respond to developments in the trial, which they said involved a number of legal errors.

They further submitted that expert evidence of two veterinarians called by the Crown should have been excluded because one was biased against them and the other was in breach of disclosure obligations.

The couple, who had applied to be discharged without conviction, also said their sentence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal, which released its decision today, upheld the earlier District Court decision and dismissed the appeal, with the exception of the order to pay court costs.

It found that the order was not just and reasonable, for reasons including the Balfours being unable to pay it.

Half of the animals were put down as a result of the ill-treatment and about 50 cats had to be treated by a veterinary surgeon. Some of the cats took up to three years to recover fully from the abuse.

During the couple's sentencing in Palmerston North District Court in June last year, Judge Grant Fraser said he accepted that the pair were of good character and that their offending "came about as a consequence of circumstances".

Nevertheless, it had a major impact on the animals, he said.

"There can be absolutely no doubt that this is serious offending of its type.

"Your behaviour was not wilful but fell well short of the standards expected, and animals suffered. It is necessary for the court to make you accountable for the harm you did the animals."