RSPCA settles million-dollar Supreme Court stoush with Sydney grandmother Mary Grima over poodle raids

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has struck a significant settlement with an 81-year-old woman after its employees wrongfully seized dozens of poodles and launched a failed attempt to prosecute her.

After two court-ordered mediations and years of legal action, the RSPCA has finally reached a confidential settlement with Western Sydney grandmother Mary Grima.

She sued the animal welfare charity and three of its employees claiming trespass, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office for more than $1m.

The Supreme Court win is the second legal fight with the New South Wales branch of the RSPCA that Mrs Grima, a licenced dog breeder, has won since a bungled raid on her Western Sydney property almost five years ago.

The elderly and religious Maltese woman was breeding Maltese poodles as a hobby from her small farm when the RSPCA received an online complaint from a prospective puppy-purchaser on November 17, 2019.

The complaint said that the informant had attended Mrs Grima’s Bringelly property that morning to look at puppies that were for sale.

“The owner did not seem to care about breeding female dogs and openly admitted she keeps them on heat until they no longer can produce then takes them to the pound,” the RSPCA recorded the complainant as saying.

“Informant sighted three puppies. They looked in OK BC [body condition] but all had different mothers.

“Informant did not witness their living conditions or sight the parents of these puppies.

“Informants asked questions about documentation, if the pups had been taken to the vet. Person of interest advised that they have but did not supply any evidence and seemed very vague and ‘lack of concerns for the dogs’.

“Informant could not go on with the purchase.”

A few days later — at about 1pm on November 20 — RSPCA officers Claudia Jones and Annemarie Hopcroft attended Mrs Grima’s home with the intention of entering and searching it.

Mrs Grima’s son, who was at the property when they arrived, phoned his mum and passed the phone to Ms Jones.

Mrs Grima, who was not home, told Ms Jones she did not consent to them entering her property, asked them to make an appointment to return later and stated that she would be home at 4pm but Jones said they could not wait until then.

The two RSPCA officers briefly left the property and returned at about 2.30pm with RSPCA Inspector Tania Dominguez, who has additional powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

By this time Ms Grima had returned home but maintained that she did not consent to them entering or searching her property.

The inspector noted at the time “a cream poodle loose in the yarn in reasonable body condition”.

“Three poodle cross puppies in a small raised cage (were also sighted).”

Ms Dominguez told Mrs Grima it was an offence to interfere with an RSPCA inspector who was carrying out their duties and called NSW police to assist, with two police officers arriving soon after.

By about 4pm, the RSPCA had seized six dogs and left the property.

A couple of days later, on November 22, six RSPCA officers — including the three who attended on November 20 — returned to Ms Grima’s property and executed a search warrant that had been obtained with “various material illegally obtained” during the first visit.

On this occasion, they seized the remaining 22 dogs at the property, which included three Rottweilers that were Mrs Grima’s last remaining possessions of her deceased son, and also took them to the RSPCA shelter in Yagoona.

The next day Ms Grima attended the Yagoona shelter, where the dogs had been taken, but was refused permission to see or retrieve the dogs.

Between late November 2019 and March 2020, Ms Grima — through her lawyers — repeatedly asked the RSPCA to return her dogs but her requests were refused.

In January 2020 the RSPCA charged Mrs Grima with 17 animal cruelty offences which are understood to have included keeping dogs that had matted fur.

At her first mention in the Liverpool Local Court in February 2020, Ms Grima — represented by Salerno Law managing partner Cliff Savala and Barrister Matthew Kalyk from 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers — pleaded not guilty to all charges.

While the court case was ongoing, the RSPCA sent bills to Mrs Grima totalling about $100,000 for the costs incurred in the RSPCA looking after her 28 dogs.

The dogs, which Ms Grima had bred over many years, were not returned to her and their fate remains unknown.

In May 2021 Magistrate Roger Prowse found there was no prima facie case against Mrs Grima and dismissed all charges against her.

In his written judgment, Magistrate Prowse was scathing about the conduct of the RSPCA officers and inspectors.

Magistrate Prowse said evidence for the search warrant, and the subsequent criminal charges, had been obtained improperly.

He said the RSPCA officers had demonstrated little regard for their powers or Mrs Grima’s rights.

“I’m clearly of the opinion that the evidence was obtained improperly … because it was a misapprehension of the power and misapprehension that grounds existed to exercise that power,” he said.

A transcript of Magistrate Prowse’s decision mentioned that the mother dog had an injury and that prescribed ear drops had not been used, but there were no other details of the animals’ conditions.

The Nightly has applied to both the Local and Supreme Courts for video and photographic evidence from the two court cases but both requests were refused.

Magistrate Prowse dismissed all 17 charges and in June 2021 the RSPCA was ordered to pay Mrs Grima for her entire costs of the criminal proceedings.

In May 2022, Ms Grima launched civil proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court — against the RSPCA NSW, Ms Dominguez, Ms Jones and Ms Hopcroft — seeking $1,032,800 in damages.

Mrs Grima sought compensation for general damages including shock, hurt, humiliation, distress, embarrassment, fear, psychological harm, damage to reputation, deprivation of the use and enjoyment of dogs.

She sought aggravated damages for additional hurt, humiliation and distress caused by the “gratuitous, belittling, condescending and derisive comments” made by the RSPCA officers while searching her home and exemplary damages for the RSPCA’s conduct.

She also sought compensation for economic harm, lost value of the dogs seized, lost opportunity to breed further dogs, her legal costs and interest.

The RSPCA — a not-for-profit organisation that cares for, treats, protects and re-homes animals across the country — had initially indicated it would defend the claim and denied Mrs Grima was “entitled to the relief claimed”.

However, after two years of litigation, that position changed last week when the charity reached a confidential settlement.

A spokesperson for the RSPCA told The Nightly it stood by the actions of its staff.

“RSPCA NSW supports our inspectors who perform a vital role in investigating animal cruelty every day,” they said.

“The RSPCA NSW did not fund the litigation. It was handled by solicitors and counsel for our insurer.

“The matter has been resolved in principle under confidential settlement terms following mediation ordered by the Court.

“In those circumstances and in accordance with our own confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment further.”

On Tuesday Mrs Grima’s lawyer Cliff Savala confirmed the Supreme Court proceedings resolved last week with a confidential settlement.

“Accordingly, no comment can be provided in relation to the settlement achieved,” he said.

“The settlement does however bring to an end a near five-year nightmare that Mrs Grima has had to endure in relation to the initial actions of RSPCA (NSW) officers entering her property and removing her dogs on two separate occasions.

“These actions being found by Magistrate Prowse in the Liverpool Local Court to have been performed illegally and without any basis.”