A PONTYATES man was found guilty of stealing a pedigree dog following a trial at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court today (Jan 13).
Silas Jamie Lee, of Herberdeg Road, pleaded not guilty to a charge of theft by finding when he appeared in court at the start of December. He maintained that plea at his trial.
Magistrates considered Lee’s claim that he was acting in the interest of the dog’s welfare to be ‘difficult to believe and implausible’.
Prosecuting, Sian Vaughan said that the Crown’s position was that the complainant, Sandra Roberts, had her pet Pomeranian bitch, ‘Silky’ stolen from the grounds of her Llanybri house.
Ms Vaughan told the court that Ms Roberts had been at home on the morning of November 1, having returned from taking Silky to the vet in Swansea.
The dog had been scheduled to have an operation on a long-standing leg problem, but this had been cancelled because she had been unwell and had lost weight.
She had answered the door to Lee, who asked if she had any scrap batteries. Lee then noticed Silky ‘running around making herself known’.
Lee said that she was ‘a lovely dog’ before asking Ms Roberts if she bred them for sale. Ms Roberts said she did, and Lee asked her for a contact number so she could get in touch when any pups were ready for sale.
Ms Roberts went into the house at Lee’s request to get a pen and paper. While she was gone, Lee picked up the dog and handed it to the passenger in his pick-up truck.
Ms Roberts did not initially notice that the dog was missing, but after a short while became alarmed and watched cctv footage which clearly showed the theft.
After the complainant and her family ‘bombarded’ social media, the dog was returned at around 8.30pm.
In a police interview, Lee said he was concerned about the dog’s condition and had taken it to a vet in Carmarthen, only to find the practice had closed down. He then worried that if he took it to another vet they might think it was stolen, so returned Silky by dropping her outside her house.
In her statement, Ms Roberts, a registered breeder said that she had become concerned quickly because ‘Silky never leaves my side’.
After viewing the CCTV, Ms Roberts phoned her son, who posted an image of Lee taking the dog on social media.
PC Brown, who arrested Lee, said that when they arrived at his house he said ‘I’ve been waiting for you guys to turn up – I know what this is about’.
Under cross-examination in court, Lee said that he had visited a friend to try and get a waste car battery for an electric fence to protect his chickens. The friend had been out, and on the drive back he had stopped to ask Ms Roberts if she had any scrap batteries. When asked why he didn’t buy a new battery, he said “I’m not paying £80 for a battery for an electric fence”.
Ms Vaughan asked why, if Lee had concerns for the dog’s welfare, he had said nothing to Ms Roberts, he answered that he ‘wasn’t thinking straight.’
When Ms Vaughan asked why Lee was unwilling to pay £80 for a battery but took a dog for treatment which would have cost far more, he admitted that he was going to leave the dog at the vet.
“You were just going to give the dog to a stranger?” Ms Vaughan asked.
“No, I was going to give it to a vet,” he replied.
Ms Vaughan also pointed out that Silky could be seen on the CCTV footage ‘jumping around and wagging her tail’, which contradicted his claim that she was badly injured.
Lee disagreed. His claim that he was aware there was a cctv camera recording his actions was not accepted by the prosecution.
Lee accused Ms Vaughan of not believing what he was saying.
“I don’t believe it because it is a ridiculous story,” she replied.
However, Lee said that on this occasion he had taken the dog with good intentions. “When I have done wrong in the past I have always put my hand up,” he said.
Representing Lee, Richard Morgan said it was ‘important to consider what was going through Lee’s mind when he took the dog’.
He pointed out that Lee’s claim that the animal appeared injured was borne out by Ms Roberts, given that she was due to have had an operation that morning, and asked why Lee would have left his telephone number if he had been committing an offence of dishonesty.
Ms Vaughan pointed out that the mobile number Lee had left did not work.
Magistrates took an hour to find Lee guilty of dishonestly taking Silky. “The CCTV footage was compelling, and we do not accept you were aware of the CCTV,” they added.
“Your account is difficult to believe and implausible”.
A victim impact statement from Ms Roberts was read out, in which she said that ‘I believe that without the social media posts I believe this unscrupulous monster of a man would not have brought my dog back.
Ms Roberts added that she feared Lee or his associates would return and take her dog again.
After hearing a report from the probation service, Lee was given a 12 month community order, with a 15 day rehabilitation activity requirement, fined £120, ordered to pay Ms Roberts £100 compensation for distress caused, along with prosecution costs of £620.
Add Comment