First published on 
In 2017 German shepherd dogs and pups were found in cages, on short leashes and choker chains on a kennel property owned by Barbara Glover and her daughter Janine Wallace. Photo: Supplied / SPCA
A German Shepherd breeder who was banned from owning dogs for almost a decade after she and her mother were caught neglecting the animals has tried to have the prohibition overturned.
Janine Wallace also attempted to have her convictions quashed, but following multiple appeals, she has been told the relitigation must come to an end, and the original sentence must stand.
Volkerson Kennels, based in Pōkeno, operated commercial kennels for the breeding, showing and sale of German Shepherd dogs.
The dogs were sometimes sold for up to $5000.
Wallace's mother, Barbara Glover, had been breeding the dogs for several years when Wallace became involved in the business after a failed real estate career.
Through the 2010s, Wallace was convicted of selling a $500,000 block of land and carparks in Auckland that she did not own.
In 2017, the SPCA began investigating Volkerson Kennels after receiving information regarding the mistreatment of animals.
On 12 October of that year, the SPCA walked the property with Wallace, observing dogs tethered to fences, housed in makeshift structures, or kept in unhygienic runs.
They had already issued statutory notices requiring improvements which had not been met and found there was no point issuing another.
The following day, they returned with police, a vet and animal welfare staff.
Janine Wallace, left, and her mother, Auckland dog breeder Barbara Glover, right, were banned from owning dogs for nine years in a case of neglect brought by the SPCA. Photo: NZME / Ellen Thompson
When Wallace asked whether they had a search warrant, inspectors told her they did not need one and cited the Animal Welfare Act, which allows warrantless entry for the purpose of inspecting animals.
The search uncovered some of the most troubling scenes in the case.
A pregnant dog, Debbie, was found locked in a small, dark utility shed, lying in her own faeces with an untreated ear infection.
A dog named Ritza was found in an even worse condition, tied up in a haybarn with a chain tangled around her leg, cutting off blood supply.
The dog was in such poor condition she had to be euthanised.
The discoveries formed the basis of 17 charges, of which Wallace was convicted following a three-month judge-alone trial in 2022.
Wallace was sentenced to 12 months' intensive supervision and 300 hours of community work, while Glover was sentenced to nine months' supervision.
Both were disqualified from owning or exercising ownership of dogs for nine years.
In 2023, Wallace took her case to the High Court, challenging both her convictions and sentence.
Her appeal centred on two arguments: that SPCA body-camera footage should be admitted as fresh evidence because it would show a "different narrative" about the dogs' condition, and that the trial judge had erred in preferring the SPCA inspectors' evidence over her own.
Justice Paul Davison rejected both points, finding the footage did not meet the test for fresh evidence and the District Court's findings were sound.
Wallace also appealed aspects of her sentence, arguing the nine-year disqualification from owning or controlling dogs was excessive and that the $20,000 costs order was unjustified.
The High Court dismissed those challenges.
Wallace later filed another appeal, submitting that the SPCA had breached her human rights during the second October 2017 search.
Her lawyer at the time, Grant Fletcher, advised that the prospects of success were low, she would incur another $50,000 in fees, and the practical option would be to apply to have her disqualification cancelled after two years.
Wallace told Fletcher the advice was "an excellent winning idea" and instructed him to abandon the second appeal.
However, it was that abandonment she recently tried to undo in the Court of Appeal.
In submissions, her new lawyer, Ian Brookie, maintained that the search warrant was unlawful, and Wallace did not receive proper legal advice regarding her appeal.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
In the recently released decision, the court ruled that Wallace had received detailed, competent legal advice which was understood and accepted.
"We have concluded Ms Wallace should be refused leave to withdraw her notice of abandonment," the court ruled.
"This is not a case where the applicant had an absolute defence which was overlooked at trial or on first appeal."
Wallace's convictions and sentence - including her nine‑year disqualification from owning or controlling dogs - remain in place.
This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
