On 17 November 1997, guilty pleas were entered on Daniel Quinn’s behalf to five charges concerning the treatment and management of cattle at Powhillon Farm. Daniel later challenged the convictions, maintaining that he had not authorised those pleas. One of the charges involved a Simmental-cross heifer calf which Daniel had been feeding with Volac Volostrum, a manufactured colostrum substitute. The proceedings were recorded in a signed report by Temporary Sheriff Jamie Gilmour. Daniel’s challenge to the pleas is described in Malicious Conviction.

During the hearing, Procurator Fiscal David Howdle made a statement about the antibodies in Volostrum. In 2003, R Hill & Co obtained information from Volac about the product and raised Howdle’s statement with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the Crown Office.

Background

In charge 9 of the criminal complaint, the Procurator Fiscal alleged that Daniel had allowed an undersized Simmental-cross heifer to breed, that the cow had become emaciated and ill, and that her calf had suffered unnecessarily as a result. In his signed report of the subsequent proceedings, Temporary Sheriff Jamie Gilmour recorded the Procurator Fiscal's account of the calf's illness and the treatment Daniel had provided, rather than developing the original allegation concerning the mother's breeding and condition.

On 14 March 1997, veterinary officer Kathryn Kerr and a colleague visited Powhillon and found the calf lying in mud beside the farm track. As recorded in Gilmour’s report, it had white scour, dehydration and an acid-base imbalance. Kerr considered that the calf needed warmth, shelter and veterinary treatment.

These symptoms were compatible with infectious diarrhoea, including bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD), although they did not identify the cause of the calf’s illness. BVD had previously caused serious losses at Powhillon. In a letter dated 17 May 2004, veterinary surgeon G. A. Baxter of Firth Veterinary Centre confirmed that an outbreak in spring 1986 had resulted in numerous calf deaths. R Hill & Co says the disease continued to affect the herd in later years.

R Hill & Co says that Firth Veterinary Centre had trained Daniel to administer antibiotics because so many calves required treatment, and supplied the medicines on prescription. Gilmour recorded that Daniel had been treating this calf with Depomycin, an antibiotic, but had not called a veterinary surgeon to examine that particular animal. Antibiotics can treat bacterial infections; they do not treat the BVD virus itself.

Gilmour’s report does not mention BVD or record whether it was investigated as a possible cause of the calf’s illness. His account of charge 9 also does not explain how the calf’s condition was connected to the complaint’s allegation that its mother had been bred while undersized. The prosecution’s account as recorded by Gilmour concentrated on the calf’s illness, colostrum and veterinary treatment.

During the sentencing proceedings, Daniel’s solicitor put forward his explanation that the calf was being given Volac Volostrum as a substitute for its mother’s colostrum. Gilmour recorded Howdle’s response: “volostrum used as a substitute for colostrum did not contain antibodies which might be required by a calf.”

The court deferred sentence until 8 December 1997. Daniel was fined £600 in respect of charge 9, with fines totalling £3,700 across the five charges, and disqualified from keeping livestock for three years. Powhillon’s cattle had already been removed in March under a warrant granted by Sheriff Michael Fletcher. The removal and subsequent disposal of the herd are described in Cattle Stolen.

Colostrum substitute

Colostrum is the first milk a cow produces after calving. It supplies the newborn calf with antibodies, known as immunoglobulins, which help protect it against infection. When a calf cannot receive enough colostrum from its mother, farmers may provide a prepared substitute. R Hill & Co used Volac’s Volostrum on veterinary advice for calves needing supplementary feeding.

In July 2003, R Hill & Co contacted Volac to establish what the product contained. On 23 July 2003, Conor Rudden, Technical Director of Volac International Limited, confirmed in writing that Volostrum contained immunoglobulin. He enclosed a specification dated 22 February 1993, a certificate of analysis dated 22 January 1997 and a certificate of approval dated 23 January 1997. Those documents predated the November 1997 court proceedings.

The police correspondence and Crown Office response

R Hill & Co reported Howdle’s statement to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, alleging that he had misled the court. The correspondence includes Chief Inspector Kate Thomson’s letter of 11 September 2003 and further letter of 16 September. Thomson passed the complaint to the Crown Office. R Hill & Co had previously received correspondence from Andrew Richardson at the Crown Office concerning the investigation of allegations of criminality.

On 10 October 2003, Deputy Crown Agent Bill Gilchrist replied to R Hill & Co’s complaint about Howdle’s court statement. He acknowledged Volac’s confirmation that Volostrum contained immunoglobulin, but said it was unclear whether the product was an adequate substitute for colostrum. Gilchrist distinguished between saying that Volostrum contained no antibodies and saying it did not contain the antibodies a calf might require. He maintained that Gilmour had recorded the latter statement.

Gilchrist quoted a joint report submitted to Howdle by veterinary experts. It described a greater risk of enteritis in a newborn calf if its mother was very thin and produced scant or poor-quality colostrum. It also described the protection colostrum provides during the first six hours after birth. These passages concerned the mother’s colostrum, which was central to the original allegation in charge 9 about the cow’s condition and her calf’s suffering.

During the sentencing proceedings, Daniel’s solicitor had put forward his explanation that the calf was being fed Volac Volostrum as a substitute for maternal colostrum. Howdle responded by saying the product did not contain antibodies which might be required by a calf. Gilchrist’s letter identified no product-specific veterinary analysis establishing which antibodies this calf required or that Volostrum lacked them. Volac had confirmed that Volostrum contained immunoglobulin, but Gilchrist did not establish the basis for Howdle’s more specific assertion.

The veterinary passages quoted by Gilchrist did not address Powhillon’s history of bovine viral diarrhoea or indicate whether infection had been investigated as a possible cause of the calf’s illness. Gilmour’s report described white scour, dehydration and an acid-base imbalance but did not mention BVD.

Gilchrist wrote that Howdle was not a veterinary expert and that anything he said to the court would have been based on advice supplied by veterinary experts. He declined further investigation, stating that there was no evidence Howdle had misled the court, deliberately or otherwise, and no basis for believing the matter was of great significance to the outcome of the case. His letter did not explain how the manufacturer’s information had been assessed against Howdle’s statement or how the statement’s relevance to the calf’s treatment and the subsequent sentencing proceedings had been considered.