According to the Court of Appeal, Nordin did not leave animals without the necessary treatment.
Maria Nordin’s charges were dismissed in the Court of Appeal. Pink bröijer
The Helsinki Court of Appeal has rejected the charges of Maria Nordin’s animal welfare crime.
The Helsinki District Court sentenced Nordin to the crime for the crime, but the Court of Appeal concluded the opposite of the case. The state was ordered to pay Nordin at two legal costs of nearly EUR 15,000.
The event was largely undisputed. In the summer of 2020, the Nordin chicken was likely to be bitten by a dog and a family cat. Neither animal was taken to the vet.
The chicken wounds had been washed and treated with resin cream. The mouth of the cat who was bitten suspected, on the other hand, had been moistened with a spray bottle, had been given food and carried to the sandbox and had been allowed to rest.
Nordin’s spouse, singer Reino Nordin, had called the cat to a veterinarian whose treatment recommendations were mainly followed. The only non -compliant recommendation concerned the animal’s export to the veterinarian.
According to Reino Nordin, who was a witness in court, the veterinarian’s instructions were contradictory because they were forbidden to move the cat to prevent the poison from spreading. In court, two different veterinarians were consulted as experts whose statements were partially contradictory.
According to the Court of Appeal, the animals recovered from their injuries. According to Nordin, the cat recovered in a few days. The chicken bite ulcer also seemed to improve in a few weeks on the basis of the picture.
The Court of Appeal considered that Maria Nord had not left the treatment necessary for animals. Nor did he cause them unnecessary suffering, pain or pain.
Maria Nordin said she had decided to stop the chicken, but this was not the case because Reino Nordin decided that the chicken would be taken care of. According to Mary, the chicken belonged to Reino.
According to the Court of Appeal, who the actual owner of the chicken was irrelevant in the decision. Maria Nordin was considered to have been in such a responsibility that she had to take care of the necessary treatment of the chicken.
Nordin has commented on the Court of Appeal’s solution On their Instagram account.
– I, common sense, and alternative and complementary treatments won! writes Nordin.