This was a case relating to animal welfare. The court commented that there was no doubt that some ofthe dogs which appellant took in were sick or simply abandoned. However, in order to be able to cater for the number of animals' needs she had to rely on volunteers. Clearly she did not have enough volunteers and this resulted in the lack of a well-organised regime to cater for the general needs and in some cases the particular needs of individual dogs. The fact that she had been abroad just before the second inspection was carried out does not absolve her from the responsibility she had to look after the dogs which were in her care. It was certainly not enough to entrust her father with providing food and water. Who was entrusted with exercising the dogs? Who was entrusted with providing the medication? Why was the cleaning not done regularly and meticulously? Moreover, if there were dogowners who were boarding their dogs at the Farm against payment, appellant could not expect the necessary chores to be performed by volunteers. In the circumstances the court found appellant guilty.