An earlier legal blunder resulted in the council’s earlier bid to abolish Ms Noble’s rights to the animal being thrown out by a sheriff.

The council now wants to obtain legal ownership so it can sell the horse.

The council effectively took the animal into care and legally removed it without Ms Noble’ permission after the vet certified the make- shift stables were unsuitable.

It went to a vet known to have concerns about the adult Connemara pony rather than seek an independent, unbiased, opinion about the animal being kept in allegedly cramped living conditions in Stephanie Ann Noble’s front room at Broadbay View, Back, Lewis, Stornoway Sheriff Court was told.

The Comhairle acted wrongly when they seized a horse which lived in a residential house for two years, it has been alleged in court.

When the long- running saga returned to court, advocate Stewart Buchanan - representing Ms Noble - maintained the Comhairle was in the wrong by failing to hire a vet who was not involved in the case.

Giving evidence, council animal inspector Kenny Macleod agreed with the lawyer he knew in advance that the vet was unhappy with the horse’s accommodation.

Mr Buchanan said: "You know what the opinion was going to be if you go to the same vet."

The council was not "fair and impartial," he stressed.

Mr Macleod insisted the vet would act professionally and unbiased to "give an honest opinion."

Contrary to council's own rules, Ms Noble was not informed she had a right of appeal, when it took the horse, alleged the lawyer.

The animal inspector stated in evidence she could have “gone to the courts to get the animal back” when quizzed about the issue.

Advocate Mark Mohammed for the council insisted there was no right of appeal under the animal health act “so I don‘t know what Mr Buchanan is talking about.”

Mr Buchanan told Mr Macleod that council, as a corporate body, “does not have the power to take the action you said you did on their behalf“ to seize the horse.

Mr Macleod replied: “I also said I am an authorised inspector.”

Mr Buchanan pointed out that - if the horse was suffering then Mr Macleod had legal powers to take it away without getting a vet’s opinion.

The advocate stated the vet was known to have concerns in 2012 but the animal inspector did not remove the horse then.

Mr Buchanan stated: "There can be no doubt to this court that the horse was not suffering" at that time.

If it was "you don't need to wait for a vet to alleviate an animal's suffering," he added.

People involved in a dispute with the council should be treated with fairness, consistency, and impartially. In addition, council records and letters should be accurate, stressed the lawyer.

Mr Macleod agreed these things were "fundamental."

The lawyer said the council sent Ms Noble letters stressing it had received "representations" from a vet about his concern over the horse's welfare.

However, these were verbal comments and not a formal complaint from the vet, the court heard.

Thus, council's letters were neither fair or accurate, suggested Mr Buchanan.

He said: "What is recorded here is a misrepresentation."

He pointed out the evicted animal could have been rehoused at a livery stable in Lewis rather than sent a distance to a different island where Ms Noble “could not get ready access to it.”

That was to prevent her from interfering in its care, responded the animal inspector.

Though Ms Noble is still the official owner, the local authority is forced to pay thousands of pounds in looking after it.

Mr Macleod said the horse was in danger of "not leaving that house alive" if anything happened as the front room was "not a safe environment" with its wooden floor, electrical sockets, unprotected windows and difficult access and exits.

In a previous court sitting, Mr Macleod said the local authority was only interested in the long term health and welfare of the horse.

He agreed with the advocate that was why it did not try to pursue Ms Noble for a potential criminal offence when she allegedly refused to obey an official care notice serviced on her to ensure proper housing for the animal.

The council had “no problems” in handing back the animal if the owner made “alternative arrangements,” he stressed.