A man was cleared of animal cruelty after the prosecution failed to prove a material link between the accused and two undernourished horses at a Gudja farm where the accused’s father lived.

Investigations by the Animal Welfare Department were triggered by a report about the two animals that were allegedly being kept at the farm “in a poor state of health”.

On May 1, 2022, two animal welfare officers called Oswald Scicluna, a 50-year-old Luqa resident, asking to inspect the farmhouse that evening. 

Scicluna responded to that request for a spot check and accompanied the officers who came across the two horses which, though rather thin, appeared otherwise healthy, as they galloped and jumped about. 

The horses were not tied but roamed around their paddock which had a sandy floor and ample space, with access to rooms with open doors so that the animals could take shelter inside. 

They had food and water, but no bedding. 

During that inspection, Scicluna told them that the horses were over 13 years old.

He fed them daily and also gave them deworming pills but could not recall when he had last called in the vet. 

After calling their superior, the officers confiscated the animals which were taken to RMJ Horse Rescue and examined by a vet who confirmed that although they were suffering from no particular illness, they were undernourished, underweight and lacking basic care. 

They were dewormed, had their teeth cleaned, administered vitamins and allowed to rest. 

Within weeks, their condition improved. 

Criminal charges were issued against Scicluna for alleged animal cruelty and not providing the horses adequate treatment in terms of law. 

The accused pleaded not guilty. 

Statements made during spot check discarded

When delivering judgment, the court, presided over by Magistrate Rachel Montebello, discarded the statements made by the accused during the spot check when, although considered a suspect, he was not given his legal right to seek legal advice. 

It was clear that, at that stage, Scicluna was deemed a suspect and that investigations were ongoing in his regard. 

Therefore, the welfare officers should have warned him of his right to remain silent and not answer any questions which could incriminate him. 

Instead, when saying that he cared for the horses, he drew upon himself responsibility for the horses making declarations that could, and effectively did, result in criminal action against him. 

In light of the established case law, the court discarded those statements since they had been given without the accused being legally assisted. 

Even if that extrajudicial confession were to be considered in evidence, the prosecution had to produce additional evidence to corroborate it. 

Yet, when all was considered, the court could find no evidence linking the accused to the horses. 

Save for the fact that the farm belonged to the accused’s father, who passed away merely months after the inspection, there was nothing linking Scicluna to the animals. 

Although he was the person who answered the call from Animal Welfare, it was not clear how the department obtained his number nor why he was referred to as the “owner” of the place where the horses were kept. 

The fact that he went on site was not enough to place obligations upon the accused in terms of law. 

The law speaks of responsibility for animals not for the place where the animals are kept.

The accused’s lawyers produced evidence that his father had lived there for years and even had a licence to rear cows, goats and sheep. 

The accused’s brother testified that his father used to live at the farmhouse until his death and that the horses belonged to him. 

In light of such evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had not sufficiently proved that the accused was linked to the farmhouse and more so to the horses. 

Save for his statements to the welfare officers, which were not admissible in evidence, there was no material link between the accused and the horses.

That was one of the elements making up the offences with which he was charged and thus the court pronounced an acquittal. 

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Charlton Falzon Cascun were defence lawyers.