A poultry breeder was cleared of shooting at a neighbour’s dogs when the unruly canines turned up at his farm three years ago, attempting to attack his turkeys.

Carmel Dimech had pleaded not guilty over the violent incident which took place in November 2017 at his farm in the limits of Rabat, when two of his neighbour’s dogs had ventured onto his lands for the umpteenth time.

The farmer had spotted the ferocious dogs, tugging at a gate in an attempt to get into his poultry shed.

In spite of shouting and clapping to scare them away, the dogs would not give up. 

At that point, he had fetched his hunting rifle and fired warning shots.

The dogs had finally fled off, one of them yelping but leaving no traces of blood.

It was only later that the farmer learnt that one of the animals had been hit by lead pellets fired from his rifle. 

Criminal action was instituted against him for animal cruelty, as well as for breaching the conditions of his hunting licence and for firing the rifle in a place that was not permissible. 

The man protested his innocence, telling police how he had long been suffering in silence repeated attacks on his animals by his neighbours’ dogs.

During the proceedings, the court, presided over by magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit, had heard how the neighbours had heard shots shortly before their dog, Blackie, had turned up wounded and bleeding. 

Under cross-examination, the dog’s owner confirmed that the accused sometimes played with his dogs and admitted that the animals did occasionally slip out and venture into the accused’s farm. 

In fact, Dimech had previously complained about the damage allegedly caused by the dogs.

The court had, indeed, heard how the canine attacks had resulted in the killing of seven kittens, six cats as well as chickens on the accused’s farm.

Following the latest incident near the turkey shed, a veterinarian had testified that X-rays of the wounded dog appeared to show lead pellets inside the body.

But since those pellets had not been extracted, vital forensic evidence that the dog had been hit by shots fired from the accused’s gun was missing. 

Moreover, the charge of animal cruelty did not make sense, the court observed, adding that the accused evidently had not intended to kill or wound the dog, but had merely wanted to protect his own animals. 

The other charges, relating to the breach of licence conditions and the site where the shooting took place, had not been sufficiently proven. 

In the light of such considerations, the court cleared the farmer of all criminal liability.

Lawyer Joe Giglio was defence counsel.