Woman banned from keeping animals over puppy trade
Julie Taylor was sentenced at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court after admitting to selling puppies without a licence and failing to meet their basic welfare needs, pleading guilty on May 6 2025.
The Kilmarnock woman sold puppies without the required pet-selling licence and failed to properly care for 16 young dogs.
The puppies were kept in poor conditions, separated from their mothers too early, and denied appropriate veterinary care and vaccinations.
READ MORE: SSPCA forced entry into Glasgow home to find neglected dogs in cages
The animals were housed in 'unsuitable and unhygienic environments' that placed their health at serious risk.
In addition to the 10-year ban on owning animals, she was handed a 200-hour community payback order, a five-month restriction of liberty order, and ordered to carry out 240 hours of unpaid work.
The Scottish SPCA launched an investigation after a member of the public raised concerns about an online advert on the website Pets4Home in December 2023.
The listing offered King Charles Cavalier Spaniel puppies for sale in Kilmarnock and claimed the animals were microchipped and vet-checked.
READ MORE: SSPCA 'disappointed' with sentencing of woman after three dogs found starved
A Scottish SPCA inspector said: 'The buyer met Taylor, who handed over the puppy described as the last available. The witness immediately noted that the animal emitted a strong odour, appeared lethargic and frightened, and had a visibly distended stomach.
"When questioned, Taylor was unable to provide clear answers about the puppy's age or details about its mother.
'Within a day of purchase, the puppy's health deteriorated rapidly.
"A veterinary examination revealed the puppy was significantly younger than claimed—approximately 8 weeks old rather than 10—and suffering from a respiratory infection.
"The puppy had not been microchipped and showed signs of poor care consistent with having come from a puppy farm.
'The puppy was prescribed antibiotics and probiotics, but her condition worsened.
"Further veterinary treatment identified potential lung and ear infections, as well as internal parasites.
"Vets noted that the animal's suffering could have been avoided with proper health protocols and concluded the conditions were consistent with those found in illegal puppy farms.
'This case highlights the distressing consequences of the illegal puppy trade.
"Puppies raised in unlicensed, unregulated environments often suffer serious illness or even death due to early separation from their mothers, lack of proper care, and exposure to parasites.
'We receive frequent complaints from buyers whose new puppies are seriously ill shortly after purchase.
"Many sellers use online platforms while posing as private individuals to avoid scrutiny.
"The financial and emotional burden placed on unsuspecting buyers is huge, and there can also be serious health risks to humans from infections such as roundworms.
"We are satisfied with the sentencing outcome, as this individual played a significant role in the illegal and unethical puppy trade.
"The sentence sends a clear message to others engaged in this type of activity.
"The scale of suffering in cases like this is unacceptable and avoidable. Stronger deterrents are needed to combat the illegal puppy trade and protect both animals and the public.'
The Scottish SPCA continues to urge potential pet owners to adopt from reputable sources and to thoroughly research sellers when considering purchasing a pet online.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Westminster is set to decriminalise abortion - what about Scotland?
Abortion is still a crime in Scotland, England and Wales, under legislation which was passed in 1967. But in the Commons this week, an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. It comes after several high-profile cases where women have been arrested for illegal abortion offences. In Scotland, while the same 1960s legislation applies, and sets a number of limitations on the circumstances that allow an abortion can be granted, campaigners have said there is less 'urgency' for decriminalisation to be brought in north of the border. READ MORE: Holyrood governing body defends 'unfair' trans toilet ban Rachel Clarke, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), explained: 'In England and Wales we've got underlying statute dating to the 1800s which is being used against women on a sort of semi-regular basis. 'More than 100 women have been investigated in recent years, six have ended up in court. There are also quite a few of those women who are still in the system awaiting a decision from prosecutors on whether their case is going to be taken to court. 'So for us, that change is very urgent and essential.' In one instance, Nicola Packer was taken to a police cell from hospital after delivering a still born baby at home. She had taken prescribed abortion medication at around 26 weeks pregnant, later telling jurors that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The Westminster legislation, while decriminalising women, does not change the law relating to the provision of abortion services - such as the requirement to be approved by two doctors. Clarke explained that there hadn't been the same levels of criminalisation in Scotland, mostly due to the existence of common law that isn't 'used against women in the same way' as the Westminster statute. 'Because Scotland doesn't have that urgent problem, the work that we've been doing up there and that Back Off Scotland has been doing up there, has been about trying to do wholesale reform of the law as the first thing,' Clarke explained. 'To deal with the issues that we've got, but also to support some of the work that's going on around improved access, particularly at later gestations.' 'The most urgent thing in Scotland at the moment is the lack of services post 20 weeks.' READ MORE: Israel accused of 'hypocrisy' after calling hospital strike 'war crime' Abortions are permitted until 24 weeks under the current law, but if a woman in Scotland requires one after 20 weeks, they have to travel to England for specialist care. The Scottish Greens have recently called for abortion to be decriminalised in Scotland, but with the clock counting down to the Holyrood elections in 2026, there is little time on the parliamentary agenda to get legislation scrutinised and passed. The power to update the law on abortion was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2016. There has been ample time to tackle the issue. In January, Scottish Labour MSP Carol Mochan asked the Scottish Government when it plans to review the current legal framework on abortion. Women's health minister Jenni Minto pointed to a commitment made by Scottish Government ministers in the 2023 programme for government to review the law. An expert group is due to send a report to ministers in the summer, but she notes that 'proposals for changes to abortion law would be subject to a public consultation'. With the topic of abortion likely to spark a heated debate, it will undoubtedly be a lengthy, contentious process, whatever the expert group suggests. It is clear that the current law is outdated and crying out for reform - but with the aforementioned tight deadline for Holyrood legislation, it could be a long time until Scotland modernises the law on abortion.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Scotland can lead the world with 'ecocide' bill currently in Holyrood
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Michaela Girvan and Tara Pierce of the Ocean Rights Coalition. IMAGINE the scene: a CEO sits handcuffed, silent, in the dock of a Scottish courtroom. He is not there because of a shareholder scandal or financial fraud but because the company he leads has caused widespread, long-term destruction of the marine environment through illegal bottom trawling in Scottish waters. Expert witnesses describe the devastation. Once-thriving seabeds flattened. Biodiversity lost. Species pushed to collapse. Carbon stores released from the seafloor, worsening climate change, communities along the coast left with the wreckage and coastal artisan fishermen struggling. The courtroom listens, and the law now recognises this harm for what it truly is – not an unfortunate side effect of business but a crime against nature. That scene may feel like fiction. However, it is exactly the kind of accountability the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament could make real. If passed, Scotland would become the first country in the world to criminalise ecocide in domestic law – a powerful and necessary step at a time of ecological crisis. The bill, brought forward by Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon (above), defines ecocide as the causing of severe environmental harm, whether intentional or through reckless disregard. The harm must be either widespread or long-term – measured not in headlines, but in habitats, ecosystems and years. If passed, the law would make individuals, companies and public bodies liable for the most serious kinds of environmental destruction. Punishments include up to 20 years in prison, fines and court-ordered restoration of the damaged ecosystems. Importantly, it introduces personal liability for directors and decision-makers. In a world where corporate impunity too often shields those at the top, this matters. What sets this legislation apart is not only its ambition but its timing. Just last week, world leaders gathered in Nice for the third United Nations Ocean Conference. Once again, they committed to reversing marine biodiversity loss and protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. The pledges are noble. But if we are honest, global action has repeatedly failed to match the scale or speed of the crisis. Here in Scotland, we have a rare opportunity to do something the international system has so far failed to do: make marine destruction legally actionable as a criminal crime. From deep-sea mining and industrial overfishing to oil spills, chemical dumping and plastic pollution, Scotland's marine environment is facing an onslaught of threats. Some of these are caused by foreign actors; others are permitted under existing UK or devolved policy. Either way, the law has not kept up with science, morality or the pace of destruction. That is why this bill matters so deeply to those of us working in ocean protection. It acknowledges that the sea is not an industrial buffer zone or economic abstraction. It is a living system on which we all depend. Its kelp forests and corals store carbon. Its species form fragile food webs. Its health is climate health, biodiversity health and human health. The bill does not mention the ocean by name, but its scope is broad enough to include it and serious marine harm. In doing so, it brings new hope to those who have campaigned for decades for stronger protections for the sea. It gives voice to communities who have watched polluters act with impunity. It sets a legal precedent that others can follow. Scotland is no stranger to progressive leadership. From banning smoking in public spaces to providing free period products, it has shown the courage to legislate ahead of the curve. With this bill, it can again lead – not just the UK, but the world – on environmental justice. There will be attempts to dilute this legislation as it moves through Parliament. Some will argue the definitions are too broad. Others will raise fears about economic impact. The truth is this: the cost of doing nothing is far greater. The science is clear, the damage is real and the legal gap is glaring. We must not allow this bill to be watered down into symbolism. It must retain the strength to do what it promises: hold powerful actors to account for the destruction of the natural world. This is not about stifling enterprise. It is about drawing a line. About saying, as a country, that we will no longer tolerate the wilful wrecking of our wild ecosystems that sustain life. The Ocean Rights Coalition is calling on MSPs to support this bill with integrity and urgency. We are asking members of the public to do the same. If you care about the future of our seas – about their resilience, their beauty and their survival – now is the time to act. Email your MSP. Tell them you support the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill. Tell them not to weaken it and to keep the lion's teeth, and remind them that Scotland has a chance, right now, to lead the world and make history. To make sure the Scotland their grandchildren will inherent is protected. The ocean is rising. It's time Scots law rose with it.
Daily Record
4 hours ago
- Daily Record
Rangers eviscerate SFA over 'lack of consistency' as John Brown commentary claim lands financial penalty
The comments from the Ibrox icon were made on air during the end of season draw with Hibs Raging Rangers chiefs have warned the SFA the decision to fine the club over John Brown 's Easter Road outburst threatens the credibility of the Hampden rulebook. The Ibrox outfit have been fined £3000 for comments made by the Gers legend as he co-commented for the club's official TV channel during last month's Premiership draw with Hibs. The retired defender lashed out at the decision by referee Nick Walsh and his VAR assistants not to award Nico Raskin 's Leith 'ghost goal', branding the incident 'corrupt'. That was enough for the SFA to charge Rangers with a breach of Disciplinary Rule 38, which prohibits clubs publishing material that 'indicates bias or incompetence on the part of such match official'. But furious Ibrox bosses have been left stunned after the charge was upheld by an SFA judicial panel. And they are now demanding an explanation of why other clubs have not been punished for a string of similar incidents. As part of their defence, the Light Blues lawyers provided numerous examples of rival commentary teams stepping out of line while broadcasting on live games. But that wasn't enough to get Gers off the hook. Now the Ibrox outfit have released a stinging statement which says: 'Rangers FC today has been found by a Scottish FA judicial panel to have been in breach of Disciplinary Rule 38, following a remark made during commentary of the Hibernian v Rangers game in May. The club has been fined £3,000. 'We feel it is necessary to highlight the broader concerns this outcome raises and the wider implications this has for clarity and confidence in their regulatory processes. 'John Brown spoke emotionally and spontaneously as someone who cares deeply about the club. His words were not scripted, and they were not an official club comment. 'The ruling however sets a precedent where even spontaneous, corrected remarks made during live coverage of a clear refereeing error are enough to trigger a formal sanction. "That is neither proportionate nor consistent, especially when other clubs have made stronger comments on official platforms without consequence. 'As part of our defence today, we flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels. "These incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how consistently they are enforced. To our knowledge, none of these cases appear to have resulted in charges against the respective clubs. 'The lack of consistency with the Scottish FA's policing of similar incidents leaves more questions than answers. 'That is why we will be contacting the Scottish FA chief executive and president to seek clarity on what policies and processes the Compliance Officer has in place, if any, to ensure a consistent and proportionate approach to enforcement and the equal treatment of member clubs. 'We shall also be asking the Scottish FA whether they accept that a rule that cannot be applied consistently across all clubs and all platforms risks losing credibility as a fair and enforceable regulation. 'Our aim here is to understand the rationale behind the differing outcomes. A lack of consistency, or the perception of it, undermines confidence in the disciplinary process and exposes all member clubs to uncertainty about what is and is not allowed. 'There remains no clear guidance on how clubs are expected to manage live broadcast content, though we note the panel acknowledged that the club's internal editorial guidelines may serve as a constructive step for others going forward. 'To be clear, we referenced these other examples not to suggest they should have resulted in sanctions, but to highlight the clear inconsistency in how similar incidents have been handled. 'Club media channels are, by nature, passionate and partisan. Informal, tongue-in-cheek and emotional commentary comes with the territory, especially in live settings. 'But, in choosing to pursue this case, the Scottish FA has opened the door to closer scrutiny of how similar situations are handled going forward. If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour.' Gers were served a notice of complaint from the Hampden hierarchy after Brown's lashed out with his on-air tirade. Raskin's effort in the 2-2 last day n draw clearly looked over the line but referee Walsh waved play on. Hibs went up the pitch and scored, prompting Rangers TV co-commentator Brown to question the integrity of the decision. When offered the chance to clarify the comments, Brown stood by them. The SFA's own KMI panel has since agreed that Raskin's goal should have stood in Edinburgh, despite referee chief Willie Collum backing Walsh's call not to award it.
