Philip Johnston, of Drogan, Killadeas, appeared at Fermanagh Court last Friday at the end of a prolonged case lasting several days and featuring an horrific video showing a number of cattle on his farm which were clearly in pain and distress. The video was taken during a raid involving 30 police officers.

    However, the prosecution admitted that its case was fraught with difficulties and withdrew 16 of the original 19 charges against Johnston. The farmer, who had denied the offences, then pleaded to a single cruelty charge, of causing unnecessary pain or suffering to a limousin heifer. He also admitted failing to collect, pen and secure cattle for identification and of contravening tuberculosis control regulations by failing to present all his animals for testing.

    Mr. Brian McElholm, R.M., described the video as “hard evidence” and said he did not know the reason why he was only dealing with one animal, adding that it was difficult to banish those pictures from one’s mind.

    “I have to dismiss from my mind all the charges which have been withdrawn and the number of animals seen on the video which were clearly in pain, and suffering distress,” he stated.

    He said that what he did not have to dismiss from his mind was the fact that there was no sign of any food for the cattle. If Johnston was placed in a position where he could not afford to feed them then, in general, having seen the animals, the kindest thing would have been to put them down. He also referred to the under-foot conditions, pointing out that there were animals in a slatted area in which the effluent tanks below were overflowing. In another shed the amount of slurry and animal waste on the ground indicated it had not been cleaned in some time.

    Referring to the charge in relation to the heifer the R.M. said he considered it to be a “grave and serious” case of cruelty.

    The evidence, including the video, had been presented at previous sittings of the court and the prosecuting counsel said she did not wish to add to that.

    Johnston’s defence counsel suggested a lot of that evidence was in relation to the 16 charges which were withdrawn. He said Johnston farmed approximately 150 acres and would normally keep just over 400 cattle. At the time of this incident there was a number of factors which made his position very, very difficult. The Department of Agriculture had closed his herd, prohibiting the movement of cattle in or out of it. The herd would have had to have had two clear tuberculosis tests in two months to have the ban lifted. For some reason Johnston’s herd had to undergo five tests and he had to keep animals an extra six months. His supply of fodder was very quickly reduced and he had to buy in more and move stock to outlying farms. He spent in the region of £45,000 buying in silage and feed.

    Counsel said Johnston bought a further 60 cattle while his farm was closed but because he could not move them into his own herd, permitted them into his cousin’s herd. Under pressure from the Department the cousin made to move them into Johnston’s herd and the animals were then put in suspension. A total of 49 of these animals were later slaughtered. Johnston had paid around £35,000 for them.

    According to the defence counsel, since 1997 Johnston had cattle to the value of £75,000 culled but had not received compensation. If he had been paid this money he would have been solvent.

    “He is financially under extreme pressure from the bank,” said counsel. “He feels he has been singled out,” he added.

    Counsel said it was clear that these 60 cattle were put in suspension and could neither be sold nor dealt with. Referring to the breaches of the disease control regulations, counsel said that when we have an apparently very efficient computerised system on the one hand and semi-illiterate farmers on the other, that is a recipe for disaster.

    “They are between a rock and a hard place. If he breaches any of the regulations they will penalise him and behave in a very awkward manner,” counsel claimed.

    He said Johnston presented the animals for testing but fell out with the Department vet who was re-tagging suspect animals with a 1952 tag.

    The R.M. pointed out that this had come up before. He said that vets who go on to a farm and have suspicions about the ear tags on cattle use tags which are obviously impossible but are for internal record keeping only.

    Counsel said he was not quite sure the procedure was lawful. However, there was a row and the vet left. There was a truculent relationship and Johnston was truculent.

    Thirty police then arrived and maybe Johnston felt intimidated or angered.

    Referring to the video evidence of cruelty counsel conceded a camera cannot lie but said it was possible to manipulate photographs to make something look worse than it is. On the video the cattle appeared to be overcrowded which was something Johnston could not easily control. At that particular time of the year animals are rarely in good condition. Due to the financial pressure on Johnston through the non-payment of farm subsidies for a number of years he had virtually no income and was using up the value of his land to finance feeding the animals.

    The R.M. said what concerned him was that the disease control regulations were there for a purpose. The inspections were of vital importance to the traceability of animals which allowed export markets to be opened up.

    Johnston’s defence counsel again referred to the “excessively large number of police officers” involved in the operation, describing it as a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

    “There is nothing to justify that. He is the victim of this too. He may not have behaved entirely properly but was as much sinned against as sinner,” counsel argued.

    Prosecuting counsel conceded that the Crown case was frought with some difficulties, however, she pointed out that Johnston purchased the 60 cattle after his herd was closed and one could question why they were bought at all. She said the identity of these cattle was in question because they were not tagged.