CONVICTED (2020) | Debi Ballantine-Brown, born c. 1967, of Ruskin Place, Mayfield, Dalkeith EH22 5QJ – starved and neglected two Weimaraner dogs
Debbi Ballantine-Brown failed to provide suitable veterinary treatment for her Weimaraner dogs Ember and Buckley between 1 January and 26 February 2019
A deprivation order was issued for Buckley, allowing him to be rehomed, but sadly Ember was put to sleep due to age-related health complaints before the case came to trial, the Scottish SPCA said.
Ballantine-Brown was found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 15 December 2020.
The case against her daughter Megan Charlotte Hollingsworth (born 19/03/1996) was not proven
Scottish SPCA Inspector Fiona Thorburn said, “We received a report from a concerned member of the public regarding dogs in the property shared by Ballantine-Brown and Hollingsworth, two of which were emaciated.
“On arrival at the address I had immediate concerns for the welfare of the dogs, particularly the female Weimaraner, Ember, who was so emaciated her pelvis, vertebrae and ribs were all clearly protruding. When she was examined by a vet she was found to weigh just 20kg, when she should have weighed over 26kg.
“Buckley, the male Weimaraner was also very underweight and his ribs and pelvis were clearly visible. On examination he was found to be 15.7kg when he should have been over 20kg.
“On further investigation it was found that Ember had not seen a vet at all despite her terrible condition and Buckley had not been examined since 22 October 2018.
“The dogs would have been caused to suffer considerably in becoming this thin and a responsible owner should have taken them to a vet much sooner. They gained weight rapidly in the care of the Scottish SPCA, with Buckley gaining 49 per cent and Ember gaining 37 per cent in the four weeks following their removal from Ruskin Place.”
She added: “We’re pleased that a ban on keeping multiple dogs has been issued and hope Ballantine-Brown will carefully consider her ability to look after any animal in the future
“We are glad a deprivation order has been issued for Buckley and he can now find the loving home he deserves after spending 22 months in our care.”
Sentencing: five-year ban on keeping more than one dog. Deprivation order on the surviving dog.
Scottish SPCA News
The Picture Of Those Dogs Is Absolutely Disgusting.
How can anyone allow such Cruelty.
Why name and publicise the details of someone not guilty ? Presumably the image of the people has been published without consdd went. This is bullying behaviour by an organisation acting in a narcissistic way .
‘Not proven’ is not the same as not guilty.
Exactly so why implicate an innocent person? Show empathy and remove her details from the article.
She lived at the property while the dogs starved and suffered. How could she NOT have been responsible?The courts have let animals down again, but we won’t. They’re the innocents, not this preening horror.
She may have been registered as living at that address but may not have stayed there at that time. Unfortunately you seem to assume your role is to name and shame innocent people which isn’t a stated purpose for this website. Grandiosity and lack of empathy are clear traits of narcissism. At a time when being kind to others as well as animals it would be a significant gesture of intelligence to remove the innocent girls details rather than promoting on line bullying.
She never would have been charged if she hadn’t been living at the property. We don’t make positive gestures towards animal abusers. You’re right, we don’t empathise with them and never will.
Not proven means that the Sheriff has not been able to determine guilt OR innocence, so stop saying she’s innocent. She certainly is not. All of the newspapers named her.
Not proven guilty is not guilty in law. Unfortunately, your stance makes it difficult to provide future support. You are acting beyond what you describe on your website and your decision makes future funding impossible.
Please do not tell me what to do, I am a neutral member of the public, humanitarian and animal lover.
In Scots Law not proven “is typically used by a jury when there is a belief that the defendant is guilty but the crown has not provided sufficient evidence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
Our criminal justice system operates on the principle of innocent until proven guilty . It is regrettable that this website appears to be operating on its own legal definitions , and as the other person commented bringing this forum into disrepute and damaging future support and funding for this important issue . May I suggest that you remove details of people who are under our legal system deemed to be innocent and take the time to educate your team .
Have you heard of alleged killer Francis Auld? The case against him was “not proven” but the newspapers published his name, multiple photographs, even traced his movements years down the line and reported it to the public. He’s now dead incidentally. Not proven means neither guilty nor innocent – never a satisfactory outcome for anyone, but it is what it is.
It is what it is, which is innocent. Doesn’t mean the papers were correct to publish his details.
If allegations are spread about you, by your definition, you’re not proven innocent or guilty with or without trial. You therefore choose to deem the person guilty. Have some empathy and some respect for the legal system.
I fear your requests for funding are set out falsely because you are doing more than you state. Someone could deem that fraud or misuse of funds. Obviously it’s not proven… how would you feel?
Why do you keep harping on about funding? Our donation button is essentially a tip jar – any money we receive (and it’s only a few pounds a week if we’re lucky) we put towards the cost of hosting the website and people finder subscription services. We all have full-time jobs and time spent collating these cases is done from a conviction that these people need to remain in the public eye. We’re certainly not doing it for money.
She lived at the property or wouldn’t have been charged. She’s on the electoral roll as living at that property. I can’t see what you’re struggling with here. The mother presents herself as an animal lover on her social media accounts. There was nothing like that on Hollingsworth’s page. Isn’t it then possible that the mother is actually covering for the daughter? Perhaps she trusted her to look after the dogs while she was away. All speculation of course. Hollingsworth and her friends are free to present her side. Why was she charged and summoned to court? What arguments did her lawyer present in court in order for the sheriff to deem her neither innocent nor guilty?
I think this guy knows her – sure has posted a lot defending her!
You are correct. No one would go to this much trouble for a stranger. He can argue the point about “innocence” (which she isn’t) until he’s blue in the face, we’re not budging.
Anyone without narcissistic intent and with compassion would make a point.
You’ve demonstrated your persona to prove beyond doubt what you are.
I have a tonne of compassion, just not for humans (my username is kind of a giveaway) and especially those that inflict pain and suffering on precious animals.
Should ve put her in jail on bread and water For 6 months an see what she would look like <<<Starve her see how shed like that ….
Truly disgusting. Perhaps more funds spent on dog food instead of lip gloss would have been a plan. I love my animal guests in my life. This made me weep. If you do fall on hard times and some people do, hand your animal over to people that are there to help. Absolutely no excuse for that.