Mansfield mother and son banned from keeping animals for life over Staffie’s eye injury

Luke Prince, aged 34, and Julie Ann Weston, 64, of Booth Crescent, were also handed suspended jail terms.

Mansfield Magistrates’ Court heard Staffordshire bull terrier Tia was denied a visit to the vet’s despite having a ruptured eye, very low body condition, fleas, sores and overgrown claws.

RSPCA investigators were able to recover her, but vets believed she faced a future of pain and medical operations, so they decided it was in her best interests to be put to sleep.

At a sentencing hearing on 6 November, magistrates gave Prince a 26-week jail term suspended for a year, and Weston 18 weeks suspended for a year.

Both were ordered to pay £200 costs and £154 victim surcharge and he was also told to carry out Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Days.

They pleaded guilty to causing Tia unnecessary suffering by failing to deal with the eye injury, under the Animal Welfare Act.

Prince also admitted not taking steps to protect her from pain and suffering by having her weight loss checked out.

RSPCA Inspector Daniel Bradshaw said in a statement that he went to the defendants’ home last December and asked to see Tia following a complaint to the charity.

He said Prince became aggressive and refused, but his mother and aunt intervened and persuaded him to bring Tia to the door.

“I could see that all Tia’s ribs, hips and her spine were easily visible, despite Luke trying to shield my view.

“Tia’s eye appeared to be hanging out of its socket, it looked very infected and was bleeding slightly. I noticed that Tia’s other eye also had blood around the edges. “

Weston agreed to sign Tia over into RSPCA care and she was taken to a vet, who decided it was the kindest thing to put her to sleep.

The report said she was “severely emaciated, uncomfortable and agitated”, and she had flaking skin and inflammation.

“The most significant abnormality was the ruptured right eye. The globe had progressed to a protruding ‘stalk like’ appearance with concerning signs of inflammation, infection and necrosis in this area.”

The eye was believed to be “beyond the limits of medical treatment” and surgery would come with the risk of infection and other complications.

“I advised it was my professional opinion that euthanasia would be kinder than a

major surgical procedure in a dog with these complications.”

In mitigation, it was said they had pleaded guilty early on, were both suffering with mental health issues and had no other animals.

They were said to have not acted maliciously but were guilty of a “serious error of judgement”. Both realise they are incapable of looking after animals.