CONVICTED (2023) | James Hamill, born 1986, of Forge Close, Caerleon, Newport NP18 3PX – left his ailing Westie to suffer with multiple painful health conditions for nearly two years. James Hamill walked free from court with a community sentence and two-year ban despite the suffering he inflicted on a young dog Hamill, who works as a bus driver with Newport Bus, was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to the Westie, Bella, following a successful prosecution by Animal Welfare Investigations Project (AWIP). The little dog, who was just six years old, had endured severe neglect over a period of around two years, resulting in extensive fur loss, dry eye, and ultimately, blindness. Tragically her condition had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where euthanasia was the kindest option. Bella had endured severe neglect for just under two years. Image: AWIP The case came to light when Bella, whom Hamill had owned since she was a puppy, was surrendered to pet sanctuary The Original Westies Rescued UK (WRUK). In a statement to the court, one vet involved in Bella’s care said: “When I first saw Bella I was horrified at the state she was in. I rarely see a dog that is in such poor condition. My first observations were drawn to how little fur Bella had and her poor skin condition.” At just six years old, she’d become blind due to her owner’s callous complacency. Image: AWIP AWIP Investigator Serena James, who led the investigation, expressed her feelings on the case’s conclusion: “I am pleased with the outcome. This has been a lengthy investigation that has now resulted in a conviction.” Jacob Lloyd, Head of Investigations at AWIP, remarked on the collaboration that brought this case to light: “We are pleased to have supported our animal rescue colleagues at WRUK. We will always work with animal rescuers to bring those who harm animals to justice.” Sentencing | 180 hours of community service; £800 in costs and £95 victim surcharge. Banned from keeping animals for two years (expires November 2025). South Wales Argus Update | June 2024 The South Wales Argus reported that James Hamill’s application to reopen his case regarding the ‘severe’ neglect of his dog, was dismissed by the court. Hamill submitted an application to reopen the case, which was dismissed by Newport Magistrates Court on Thursday, June 20, 2024. Speaking after the hearing, Jacob Lloyd, executive director of the Animal Welfare Investigations Project (AWIP), said: “We will always look into concerns that are raised about animal welfare. We do not take the decision to prosecute lightly. “All of our prosecution decisions follow the same guidance as the Crown Prosecution Service. This requires there to be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and for it to be in the public interest to prosecute.” The application put through on Thursday, July 20, to reopen the case was made under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which allows magistrates to rectify errors by reopening cases. Hamill’s solicitors, KMC Legal & Finance, argued that he was under pressure to plead guilty, that evidence had not been properly considered, and that his previous legal representation was inadequate. District Judge Toms, after considering written representations from the prosecution, dismissed the application, stating it was effectively out of time. The judge said Hamill had adequate time to consider his plea, and reopening the case was not in the interest of justice. She concluded that no errors had occurred in the original proceedings. Serena James, the lead investigator from the Animal Welfare Investigations Project (AWIP), said: “Bella hadn’t received the veterinary care she so obviously needed, to the point where her euthanasia was necessary. “A responsible owner would have recognised the seriousness of the situation and acted in a timely manner, but Hamill failed to do so and Bella suffered unnecessarily for nearly two years as a result.” Mr Lloyd, of the Animal Welfare Investigations Project (AWIP), said: “This case was reviewed by a solicitor and a barrister who agreed, with the support of an independent veterinary surgeon, that the evidential test was met. We are glad that this case is now concluded.” Animal Welfare Investigations Project