Disabled woman left horses and donkeys to fend for themselves in Martley

The animals were in fields in Broadwas and Alfrick

The animals were in fields in Broadwas and Alfrick

First published in News
Last updated
by

HORSES and donkeys were left without water, in pain and to stray onto main roads by their owner, a court was told.

Mary Giblin, of St Peters Drive, in Martley, near Worcester, appeared at Worcester Magistrates Court on Monday, charged with nine offences relating to animal welfare between March and July of this year.

The 45-year-old pleaded guilty to the charges which related to the welfare of 10 horses and two donkeys on two fields in Broadwas and Alfrick.

The court was told the animals were not supplied with adequate water or veterinary care and were left to “fend for themselves” and to roam on to main roads.

Adrian Jones, prosecuting, said Giblin paid rent for the two sites and as part of the agreement was required to maintain the fencing which she failed to do.

Some of the fencing was low enough to step or jump over and there was no fencing at all along stretches of the A44 – a fast stretch of road with blind bends.

He also said gates were unsecured on the sites and officers were called several times to round-up the es-caped animals.

He said: “She confirmed the horses had been escaping and put this down to the thin hedges.

She said she was getting grief from local people and said farmers were taking fe-nces down and people were leaving gates open.”

Related links

The court was told veterinary surgeon David Denny was called out to put down one of the ponies but when he ar-rived the animal was al-ready dead.

“He was appalled by the conditions and had treated the animals before and said she did not have the facilities to care for the animals,” said Mr Jones.

On another occasion a me-mber of the public noted the horses’ tails were matted with diarrhoea and their hoofs were overgrown and split which meant they were struggling to walk.

During the hot summer months the horses were left without any water, said Mr Jones.

“One field had an auto-water filler but it was thick with algae and green and in the extreme temperatures it was vital to get water to the horses,” he said.

“They were left to fend for themselves in extreme temperatures.”

At the time Giblin was in Portsmouth and seemed “uninterested” in the horses’ well-being, said Mr Jones, although she did return a day earlier than planned.

Nick Roberts, in mitigation, said Giblin, who had now given up the horses and donkeys to a sanctuary, was disabled and confined to a wheelchair.

He said she had taken on the animals with her ex-partner and they had intended to provide horse and carriage rides and start up a charitable organisation, but the scheme ended.

“Once this ended she was driven out of their bungalow where she had lived for 13 years and lived in a caravan and at that point the horses were not going to be looked after properly,” he said.

She became aware he was not looking after the animals but Mr Roberts said because of her health she could not get around.

“She did her best, it wasn’t good enough and admits she wasn’t coping. It was on that basis she no longer owns the horses and donkeys.”

Chairman of the magistrates Julia Glossop said: “Had you been fit, the sentence would have been more harsh, and were you not on benefits, the fine more harsh.”

She fined Giblin a total of £650, and ordered her to pay £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge. She was banned from owning horses or donkeys for at least 10 years.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:20pm Wed 20 Nov 13

lilboo says...

God I wish we could dish out the same treatment to her!
God I wish we could dish out the same treatment to her! lilboo
  • Score: 5

1:53pm Wed 20 Nov 13

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

The sentence is a joke. 'Because she was on benefits the fine was lower'. 'Because she is disabled, the sentence was less harsh'. IT DOESN'T MATTER! She knowingly mistreated and neglected those animals and therefore the sentence should have been exactly the same as it would have been for anyone else.
The sentence is a joke. 'Because she was on benefits the fine was lower'. 'Because she is disabled, the sentence was less harsh'. IT DOESN'T MATTER! She knowingly mistreated and neglected those animals and therefore the sentence should have been exactly the same as it would have been for anyone else. Arthur Blenkinsop
  • Score: 14

2:13pm Wed 20 Nov 13

Keith B says...

Hang on - VICTIM SURCHARGE !!!!

The victims were horses - will the surcharge be paid in sugar lumps or go to the charity that has taken on the surviving horses? No, of course not - it goes to the Treasury. It's just another Government stealth tax.
Hang on - VICTIM SURCHARGE !!!! The victims were horses - will the surcharge be paid in sugar lumps or go to the charity that has taken on the surviving horses? No, of course not - it goes to the Treasury. It's just another Government stealth tax. Keith B
  • Score: 7

3:11pm Wed 20 Nov 13

goodygoody says...

Dreadful, wicked woman. If she couldn't manage then she needed to contact the RSPCA. She should never own animals again. I despair when the court is lenient. Her disabilities should not have been taken into account. A horse died because of her and others suffered God knows what stress and pain.
Dreadful, wicked woman. If she couldn't manage then she needed to contact the RSPCA. She should never own animals again. I despair when the court is lenient. Her disabilities should not have been taken into account. A horse died because of her and others suffered God knows what stress and pain. goodygoody
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree