A Scottish farmer who was set to lose his entire sheep coupled support payment due to a movement record being lost in the post has successfully appealed to the Scottish Land Court.
Malcolm Morrison, who lives in Thornhill, Dumfries, keeps sheep at John Mackenzie’s Westfield Farm, near Thurso, Caithness.
He appealed to the Scottish Land Court after Scottish Government rejected his 2015 application for support through the Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme (SUSSS).
Mr Morrison enrolled 426 ewe hoggs into the scheme, however an inspection on February 11, 2016, found that 94 were not eligible for support.
Of the group, 82 were deemed ineligible due to alleged failure to report their movement from one holding to another through the Scottish Animal Movement Unit at the Scottish Government’s Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (SGRPID) Dumfries office.
Mr Morrison appealed to the Government and said the movement document had been posted to the SGRPID office, however Government rejected the appeal and said Mr Morrison should have sent the document by recorded delivery and checked whether or not it had been received.
A case was then brought to the Scottish Land Court, which ruled in Mr Morrison’s favour.
The court ruling said: “In our view what is to be expected of animal keepers has to be seen in the context of the structure created by the legislators, both European and domestic. That structure allows for postal intimation of animal movements and contains no requirement (whatever the complementary advice may say) beyond that.
“In creating such a system it must have been foreseen that intimations would get lost in the post. Had it been desired to place the risk of such loss on the keeper that could have been made explicit in the legislation but that has not been done. Instead, the system appears to have operated on the basis that timeous posting of the intimation is all that is required.”
It added that Government could have made it a requirement of SUSSS that animal keepers have to check that the movement notice has been receieved.
“That would make clear that the inherent risk of things getting lost is to be borne by the keeper but that has not been done. In that situation where the keeper can satisfy the competent authority that he has posted the intimation timeously he cannot be said to be at fault: he has done all that is required of him,” added the court.
Legal experts say the ruling highlights the need for farmers and crofters to always “look twice” at decisions Government has taken against them, as the interpretation of the rules may not always be correct.
