Puppy business Little Rascals’ breeding manager Edward Swindells, of Brant Broughton, found guilty causing “unnecessary suffering” to more than 80 dogs

A breeding manager at a puppy business has been found guilty of multiple charges of causing dogs unnecessary suffering and animal welfare failings.

The trial of Edward Swindells, 50, of The Clays, Brant Broughton, concluded at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court today, when the judge returned a guilty verdict for all seven charges.

These included five counts of causing “unnecessary suffering to a protected animal”, which were due to failing to provide veterinary care for eye, ear, skin, and dental conditions affecting between five and 11 dogs, and failing to address the emotional and behavioural needs of 84 dogs.

He also faced two counts of breaching his duty as a person responsible for ensuring the welfare of the animals, due to 30 dogs being housed on wood shavings which caused adverse physical effects, and failing to provide veterinary care for 52 dogs.

It related to Brant Broughton-based puppy business Little Rascals — also known as Puppies At Home — for which local authority breeding licensing applications showed Swindells to be ‘breeding manager’ for the operation.

A warrant was executed at the The Dairies farm, the location of the kennels, in on November 13, 2018, by Lincolnshire Police and the RSPCA, following video and image intelligence supplied to the animal society earlier that year.

A total of 374 of dogs were on the property and examined, with 95 seized as they were found to be suffering.

The court heard that 22 dogs were in need of treatment under general anaesthetic, with a total of one in five dogs were found to be in need of an urgent veterinary check-up.

Evidence from RSPCA inspectors, a police officer, vets, and an animal behaviourist highlighted conditions affecting the dogs included dental disease, mites, infections, and concerning behaviour including fear responses to the kennel staff, and OCD-like compulsions.

Inconsistencies with record keeping, poor cleanliness and bio-security measures, lack of puppy socialisation, and apparently ‘impossible’ exercise schedules were also highlighted during the trial.

Swindells’ co-defendants Amy Allen, 42, of Jericho Road, Balderton; Bridgett Dickens, 62, of The Clays, Brant Broughton; and Peter Dickens, 66, of Yeadley, Ashbourne, pleaded guilty earlier in the trial — each to two modified charges of failing in their duty as a person responsible for ensuring the welfare of the animals, by failing to provide and suitable environment and veterinary care, and failing to address 84 dogs’ emotional and behavioural needs.

All four are due to be sentenced at a later date.

Allen, Dickens, and Dickens all appeared in court again today, while Swindells remained absent.

He has not been present at his trial since Monday (June 16), when he appeared to request an adjournment to find new counsel to replace his legal team who had stepped down due to ‘professional embarrassment’. This was denied to the case’s history of delay and failed trials, and the unlikelihood of Swindells finding a replacement at short notice.

Swindells then further failed to appear on Tuesday (June 17) due to a 'self-reported' hospital visit, and a subsequent doctor’s note supplied on Wednesday (June 18) morning was deemed not to meet the requirements of the court to prove his unfitness to stand trial and it was agreed to continue with the case.

He was offered adjustments such as appearing via video link, being allowed to remain seated, and taking more frequent breaks during evidence wile representing himself, but he did not take up the offers and did not call any evidence for the defence.

Swindells has also requested a judicial review, which the court became aware of earlier this week, alleging the judge was biased, used hostile language and intimidation, refused to provide reasons for refusal of adjournment, was breaching the Equality Act by not allowing him to park at the court, and that his adjournment requests should not have been refused.

The judge denies the claims, noting in particular that Swindells never asked for the reasons for the refusal, and that the case must be viewed in light of its lengthy troubled history in getting to a successful trial — with this dating back to a first hearing in 2019.

The outcome of the review is awaited.