Chipperfield Case
Before the successful prosecutions of the elephant keeper and two directors, Mary Chipperfield Promotions Ltd was one of Europe’s largest suppliers of animals for TV, advertising, movies, zoos, and circuses. From autumn 1997 to early 1998 ADI Field Officers worked undercover at Mary Chipperfield Promotions (MCP) in Hampshire, UK; this was the final assignment in an 18-month investigation. They recorded evidence of elephants, camels, and a baby chimpanzee being beaten. The chimp, Trudy, was seen being kicked, screamed at, and thrashed with a stick by the international trainer, Mary Chipperfield.
In 1998, ADI issued multiple summonses for cruelty against Mary Chipperfield Promotions Ltd., the MCP elephant keeper Steve Gills, Mary Chipperfield (née Cawley), and Roger Cawley and later that year Gills was convicted on multiple counts of cruelty and jailed because of his sustained and repeated attacks on the elephants in his care.
In 1999, the trial of Mary Chipperfield and Roger Cawley began. At the end of the trial, Mary Chipperfield was convicted of 13 counts of cruelty to the chimpanzee Trudy and Roger Cawley (at the time a government zoo inspector) was convicted of cruelty to an elephant called Flora.
The Mary Chipperfield trial remains the defining legal case in circus campaigning around the world. The video helped to prompt legislation on animal circuses, as well as local bans on animal use were introduced in many countries in Asia, Central and South America, the USA, Canada, and several European countries.
Some of the animals that featured in the trial disappeared, only Trudy was rescued. Chipperfield sold her farm in Hampshire, England, and moved to Spain. ADI continues to monitor her appearances in European circuses, as well as those of other Chipperfield family members.
Read more about this topic: Animal Defenders International
Famous quotes containing the word case:
“If someone does something we disapprove of, we regard him as bad if we believe we can deter him from persisting in his conduct, but we regard him as mad if we believe we cannot. In either case, the crucial issue is our control of the other: the more we lose control over him, and the more he assumes control over himself, the more, in case of conflict, we are likely to consider him mad rather than just bad.”
—Thomas Szasz (b. 1920)