Neva Fon: Queensland’s biggest golden retriever breeder involved in bitter legal battle with RSPCA

A bizarre stoush sparked by a golden retriever wandering across a rural South-East Queensland road has blown up in court with the State Government now threatening the dog’s owner with up to 100 criminal charges and a whopping $350,000 bill.

The dispute kicked off in April when a community member complained to the Lockyer Valley Regional Council about “dogs wandering onto the road and alleged poor condition of some dogs”.

The animals in question belonged to Neva Fon, who was — at the time — the largest breeder of golden retrievers in Queensland.

In response to the complaint, council officers visited Ms Fon’s Churchable property on April 5.

“The initial investigation found more than 100 dogs on the property,” a council spokesperson said.

“Council reported the matter to the RSPCA on the same day and the RSPCA led the investigation from there on.”

On April 23, about 40 officers from RSPCA Queensland, the council and Queensland Police turned up at Ms Fon’s home — even bringing their own food truck — and raided her 16-hectare farm.

After an alleged argument with Ms Fon about how many of the dogs they would remove, the RSPCA decided to take all 183 of her golden retriever dogs and puppies.

In May, the RSPCA shared a press release stating it had taken 183 dogs and puppies into custody from an “alleged South East Queensland puppy farm”.

“On Tuesday, April 23, RSPCA Queensland inspectors responded to an animal welfare complaint relating to a large number of dogs on a property allegedly living in poor conditions,” the media release said.

“Alongside RSPCA Inspectors, RSPCA animal care and veterinary staff assessed all animals located on the property accompanied by council and Queensland Police.

“As a result of investigations, 183 dogs and puppies were seized by RSPCA Queensland inspectors and transported to the RSPCA.

“The case is currently under investigation.”

More than six months after the raid, Ms Fon has neither been charged with any offence nor had any of her beloved dogs returned.

After seizing the dogs, RSPCA forfeited them to the State.

Ms Fon, who had bred the dogs for 15 years, immediately tried to get her animals back. She requested internal reviews of the decisions to seize and then forfeit the purebreds.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), which has oversight of the RSPCA’s operations to deliver services and exercise powers under the Act, subsequently took over the case and backed the animal welfare body’s original decisions.

Ms Fon engaged Salerno Law managing partner Cliff Savala, who briefed Matthew Kalyk from Sydney’s 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers, to appeal the dogs’ seizure and forfeiture.

The lawyers argued that both the seizure and forfeiture of the dogs were “unjustified”.

Ms Fon sought the DAF decisions to be set aside and the dogs returned to her.

Ipswich Magistrate Jason Schubert ordered the dogs’ forfeiture be stayed.

But last month the DAF applied for Magistrate Schubert’s stay order to be revoked while it “finalises criminal proceedings” against Ms Fon.

It is understood that an affidavit was filed which stated the department planned to commence prosecutions against Ms Fon for breaching her duty of care to the dogs under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.

The affidavit indicated the department would likely charge Ms Fon with “between 50 and 100 offences” by mid-December.

The details of Ms Fon’s alleged offences remain unclear other than allegations she “failed to provide for the needs of the dogs”.

The department said it would call 35 prosecution witnesses, including veterinarians, at an anticipated two-week trial which could be up to 18 months away.

The DAF also claimed in early October that Ms Fon was liable for the $353,000 it had so far cost the RSPCA to board and provide veterinary care for the golden retrievers.

Meanwhile, between the dogs being seized and Magistrate Schubert’s order to stay their forfeiture, the RSPCA desexed 96 of the dogs which meant that, even if they were returned to Ms Fon, they could no longer be used for breeding.

The RSPCA had also adopted out 67 dogs, transferred 16 to another rescue group and put 16 into foster care.

The RSPCA whelped 14 dogs and euthanised four dogs for veterinary reasons.

When contacted last week, the RSPCA said it could not comment on the case, as it was referred to the DAF, pursuant to legislative requirements.

The department also refused to answer questions.

“As this matter is still under investigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time,” a spokesperson said.

None of the statements or conduct of the RSPCA or DAF, nor any charges that might be laid, establish any wrongdoing on the part of Ms Fon.

Ms Fon declined to comment. Her lawyer, Mr Savala, provided a brief statement.

“I act on behalf of Ms Fon and she categorically denies the allegations made against her by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and RSPCA Queensland,” he said.

“Furthermore, any criminal charges brought will be fully defended.”