Couple still deny any neglect of farm stock

Far North farmers Bruce and Jan Jonson have already spent $35,000 trying to clear their name after being found guilty of failing to look after their animals properly.

The couple, from Rangiahua, 14km west of Okaihau, have just lost their High Court appeal against that conviction and are considering whether to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

In April, Bruce Riddell Jonson, 54, and Jan Dorothy Jonson, then 50, were sentenced in the Kaikohe District Court after being found guilty of breaching the Animal Welfare Act.

Judge Russell Johnson found the pair had failed to meet acceptable standards of animal husbandry by "failing to use good practice and science to foresee a flood risk which would endanger animals and therefore to take any steps to reduce or eliminate it". They were fined $2000 each and ordered to pay a total of $1900 in prosecution and SPCA costs.

The charge was laid after a flood on the Jonsons' property at Rangiahua, in the Waihau Valley, in 2003. The MetService had issued a heavy-rain warning and the Judge found the Jonsons did not try to move the cattle until the next morning, by which time the land was almost completely submerged. The animals survived but had to swim for their lives.

In his decision on the appeal, Justice Patrick Keane upheld the conviction, but reduced Mrs Jonson's fine to $1000 on the basis that she taking her sick mother to Whangarei Hospital.

Justice Keane said: "Mr and Mrs Jonson's stock, as the Judge held, were particularly vulnerable on the run- off and ought to have been moved sooner rather than later. The fact that the flood behaved atypically and cut off the usual line of retreat simply illustrates that nature never behaves completely predictably and that extremes must be anticipated and catered for."

He said the Judge was justified in concluding that their cattle and calves were left needlessly exposed.

Bay of Islands SPCA Inspector Jim Boyd, who took the prosecution, was pleased with the result.

Mr Boyd said it was important that farmers - professional, part-time and lifestyle - took seriously their duties to their animals.

But Mr Jonson is unhappy with the failure of the appeal and maintains they did all they could on the day to protect their stock.

He said the case had so far cost $35,000 to defend and appeal and he would have to talk to his lawyer before deciding whether to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

"We did everything we possibly could. The only thing we did wrong was leaving them to the (following) morning, but I was worried that it would be a problem getting the calves out (that evening)," Mr Jonson said.

"I've never lost an animal on this property to a flood. It would be silly to leave $20,000 worth of stock on land knowing it was going to flood. I can't afford to lose $20,000."

The flood entered the front of his property rather than from the back, which was where flooding normally occurred. He blamed the flooding on the collapse of the roading stopbank which let the floodwaters flow over the front of his property.

Mr Jonson said that could not have been predicted. Since the roading stopbank had been repaired there had been no flooding on the property.

- NORTHERN ADVOCATE (WHANGAREI)