A WOMAN who allegedly caused suffering to her pet terrier by failing to treat a chronic skin complaint has been banned from keeping dogs for three years.
Plymouth magistrates heard that the RSPCA rescued Bonny from owner Kelly Mooney because it had red, itchy skin.
Mother-of-three Miss Mooney told the court that she loved the seven-year-old dog but had become overwhelmed by family and financial problems.
But she admitted causing unnecessary suffering to the cross-bred terrier by failing to get her treated by a vet between July and August last year.
Mooney, aged 31, was given a conditional discharge for two years but ordered to pay £250 of the RSPCA's costs. She was also banned from keeping a dog for three years and ordered to sign Bonny over to the care of the charity.
The court heard that the dog had made a full recovery and was now ready to be re-homed.
Presiding magistrate John Matthews told Mooney: "Elements of this case are desperately sad but you clearly neglected care of the dog and suffering has resulted. Clearly in these circumstances the dog needs to be rehoused."
John Wyatt, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said: "An inspector attended at her house last August and found the dog to be in a poor condition, and suffering from skin loss and other problems."
He said that Bonny needed immediate treatment and she was taken to a veterinary hospital. Mr Wyatt added that blood tests found that she had suffered no internal damage and she improved after treatment.
Mr Wyatt said that Miss Mooney told the RSPCA in interview that she had last taken Bonny to the vet in 2006. She declined to sign the dog over to the care of the charity.
Julian Jefferson, for Mooney, said she was extremely distressed and "deeply sorry".
He added: "Her overwhelming feeling towards the dog is love."
But Mr Jefferson added that it would be better if the dog was rehomed.
The court heard that Bonny, who had been with Miss Mooney since she was a puppy, had a longstanding problem.
Mr Jefferson said that she had got the dog treated in the past through the PDSA charity.
But the court heard that Miss Mooney's brother died and she had to cope with the stress and cost of the bereavement, as well as looking after three children as a single mother.
Mr Jefferson said that ironically the RSPCA, which ended up prosecuting her, could have helped with Bonny's treatment.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Terrier-homed-owner-failed-seek-treatment/article-911648-detail/article.html
Plymouth magistrates heard that the RSPCA rescued Bonny from owner Kelly Mooney because it had red, itchy skin.
Mother-of-three Miss Mooney told the court that she loved the seven-year-old dog but had become overwhelmed by family and financial problems.
But she admitted causing unnecessary suffering to the cross-bred terrier by failing to get her treated by a vet between July and August last year.
Mooney, aged 31, was given a conditional discharge for two years but ordered to pay £250 of the RSPCA's costs. She was also banned from keeping a dog for three years and ordered to sign Bonny over to the care of the charity.
The court heard that the dog had made a full recovery and was now ready to be re-homed.
Presiding magistrate John Matthews told Mooney: "Elements of this case are desperately sad but you clearly neglected care of the dog and suffering has resulted. Clearly in these circumstances the dog needs to be rehoused."
John Wyatt, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said: "An inspector attended at her house last August and found the dog to be in a poor condition, and suffering from skin loss and other problems."
He said that Bonny needed immediate treatment and she was taken to a veterinary hospital. Mr Wyatt added that blood tests found that she had suffered no internal damage and she improved after treatment.
Mr Wyatt said that Miss Mooney told the RSPCA in interview that she had last taken Bonny to the vet in 2006. She declined to sign the dog over to the care of the charity.
Julian Jefferson, for Mooney, said she was extremely distressed and "deeply sorry".
He added: "Her overwhelming feeling towards the dog is love."
But Mr Jefferson added that it would be better if the dog was rehomed.
The court heard that Bonny, who had been with Miss Mooney since she was a puppy, had a longstanding problem.
Mr Jefferson said that she had got the dog treated in the past through the PDSA charity.
But the court heard that Miss Mooney's brother died and she had to cope with the stress and cost of the bereavement, as well as looking after three children as a single mother.
Mr Jefferson said that ironically the RSPCA, which ended up prosecuting her, could have helped with Bonny's treatment.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Terrier-homed-owner-failed-seek-treatment/article-911648-detail/article.html
1 comment:
When I first read the article comments were enabled and all those posted condemned Miss Mooney.
I posted a supportive comment to the moderation queue and since then all comments have disappeared and there is now no facility to submit comments available.
Perhaps they have some technical difficulty.
Here is the comment I submitted:
Magistrate John Matthews might be interested to know that his decision has qualified for the RSPCA Injustice blogspot!
http://rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/2009/04/kelly-is-31-year-old-single-mum-of-3.html
The whole point of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was to prevent prosecution where help and education would ensure that an animal could be safely left with the people who had failed to cope, either for family circumstances beyond their control or because of age or illness.
Indeed, the RSPCA could learn from the Cinnamon Trust http://www.cinnamon.org.uk/home.html who work to keep elderly and ill people and their animals TOGETHER!
But of course that would not produce the headlines designed to provide donations.
Question for The Herald - How much would a publicity piece of the same size as the above article have cost?
Questions for magistrate John Matthews:
Why does the dog need to be rehoused?
Is there any evidence that there would be any recurrence of these circumstances?
Why did you condemn the dog to lose the person he loves?
Why did you condemn Ms. Mooney when the RSPCA failed to go in and offer help as the Animal Welfare Act intended them to do?
Indeed, doesn't it concern you that the Animal Welfare Act empowered the police and local authority and NOT the RSPCA? Do you think that government was trying to tell you something with that decision?
Bearing in mind the fact that the RSPCA sell animals like Bonny, doesn't it at least concern you that the people asking you to confiscate the animal are the ones who stand to make from that confiscation?
Note that the RSPCA say they ask for a minmum donation when people adopt animals. A donation is voluntary. If there is a minimum then that is a price tag. In effect the RSPCA is selling animals and should be licensed and regulated by the local authority.
Finally, why did you issue a sentence that is clearly unlawful?
You have combined a discharge which can only be awarded if no punishment is appropriate (except in road traffic offences) with a disqualification which is a punishment and a confiscation.
See England and Wales section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_discharge
Anyone who has a visit from the RSPCA also ought to take a look at
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
SHG
http://the-shg.org
Post a Comment