Reserved judgment — animal welfare — dairy cattle — failure to ensure physical and behavioural needs — Animal Welfare Act 1999, ss 2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 164 & 165 — Dairy Cattle Code of Welfare 2016. The two defendants had been charged with failing to ensure physical and behavioural needs of cows. The first defendant was a dairy cattle farmer and the second defendant was the company directed by the first defendant. It was alleged that the number of cows with broken tails on the defendants' farm established that the elements of the charges had been satisfied. The prosecutor had the burden of establishing the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. For the prosecution, evidence was heard from various independent experts who stated that the percentage (36 per cent) of the defendants' cows with broken tails was unusually high in comparison to overseas studies, which suggested that the breaks occurred not simply as a result of accidental breakage. Evidence was also heard from various veterinarians employed by the defendants over many years who stated that they had not noticed an unusually high number of broken tails on their visits to the farm. The defendant admitted to a practice known as "cow jacking" which meant lifting the tail. The defendant in his evidence had initially used the word "twisting" but later said he had used the wrong terminology. As there was no actual evidence of the defendant mishandling the cows, the prosecution was asking the Court to draw an inference on the evidence; that the high percentage of broken tails meant that the defendants "had failed to ensure physical handling of the cows in the manner which minimised the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress". The Judge was satisfied that this inference could be made beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore all charges against the defendants had been established. Judgment Date: 17 August 2018.