Northumberland County sheep case returns to court in May

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

by SUSAN MANN

Four people charged in connection with the disappearance of 31 Shropshire sheep from a quarantined Northumberland County farm last year are scheduled to make another court appearance in Cobourg later this spring.

Linda Frances (Montana) Jones of Northumberland County, Michael Schmidt of Grey County, Suzanne Atkinson of Northumberland County and Robert Pinnell of Durham County face charges of conspiracy to commit obstruction of a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspector, to transport or causing to transport an animal under quarantine and conspiracy to defraud the public of a service over $5,000 under the Criminal Code along with obstructing a CFIA inspector and transport or causing to transport an animal under quarantine under the Health of Animals Act and Regulations. Jones is also charged with obstructing a CFIA inspection under the Health of Animals Act. Pinnell faces a further charge of attempting to obstruct justice and another for obstructing a police officer, both under the Criminal Code.

The four people appeared in Ontario Court of Justice, Cobourg, March 27 and are due to come back to court on May 15. The Canadian Constitution Foundation is representing Jones and Schmidt. The foundation says on its website it works to protect Canadians’ constitutional freedoms through education, communication and litigation.

About what happened in court on last week, foundation litigation director Karen Selick says “the crown provided some further disclosure about their case.”

Schmidt and Jones are under movement and communication restrictions as part of their bail conditions and Selick says they had planned to seek changes to those conditions. She says, however, that on March 27 the judge noted “it was beyond his jurisdiction to do that and we would have to go to a Superior Court justice to get that changed.”

Selick says they’re considering their options about getting the bail conditions for Schmidt and Jones altered. She described the conditions as more restrictive “than ultimately we’d like to see” but they are not completely restrictive.

As for what happens now, Selick says they’re continuing to wait “to see the strength of the crown’s case. They have the obligation to show us everything that they’re relying on before we’re even required to enter a plea and so we’re still waiting for additional information from them.” BF