Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 16th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Peterborough ET site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Owner failed to treat sick dog



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 April 2008
A DOG whose face became distorted with a massive tumour had to be put down after her owner failed to get her treatment.
Justin Clarke (31) allowed the 5cm lump to grow on crossbreed Brandy's left cheek for several months.

Yesterday, he appeared at Peterborough Crown Court, where he admitted causing unnecessary cruelty to the family pet.

Prosecuting, Robert Starr told the court that RSPCA officers had visited Clarke's house, in Hinchcliffe, Orton Goldhay, Peterborough, in November last year, where they discovered the dog in a terrible state.

Mr Starr said: "The dog had a visible lump on it's cheek.

"When vets examined the dog, it was discovered that the lump occasionally dripped blood, and there was discharge in the left eye.

"There was also swollen tissue inside the mouth, and putting pressure on the tumour caused the dog to yelp in pain.

"Pain killers were injected, but two days later the dog had to be euthanised."

Clarke, who had owned the dog for several years, had the tumour treated in 2006, but it had reappeared a year later.

But the next time he could not afford to pay vets bills, and said he did not know there were services which could have helped him.

Mitigating, Rebecca Keogh told the court: "There is no doubt he loved and cared for the dog.

"There were no other problems with the dog, and Mr Clarke owns another pet, which is perfectly healthy. Brandy was a much-loved family pet, which got a condition the family could not afford to treat.

"The last time the dog needed an operation, he had to borrow £300 from a friend, and this time he did not think the dog was in any pain."

When Clarke was told by the RSPCA that the dog was in pain, Clarke said: 'I just want what is best for Brandy.'

Chairman of the magistrates Phil Collins sentenced a sobbing Clarke to a conditional discharge for a year.

Mr Collins said: "This is a slightly unusual case. We often get cases where animals have been beaten, but this is a case where a misguided young man let something go on when it shouldn't have.

"It was a horrendous tumour, but he clearly loved his dog."

Along with the discharge, Clarke was ordered to pay £100 costs.

The full article contains 392 words and appears in Peterborough ET newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 April 2008 8:52 AM
  • Source: Peterborough ET
  • Location: Peterborough
 
Prev
1
Next
1

yasmobile,

saffron walden 04/04/2008 20:33:21
this is a case,ware threw no fault of his own,just he could not afford the vet bill,the dog suffered, yes it is wrong, but the question you need to ask is? what is a man or family supposed to do in this position...............have you ever seen a poor vet, im sorry but i love animals but would not get another dog,as it makes me sick what the vets charge,they hold an open cheque book, and yes you can get pet insurance, but this can be costly for low earners etc, i blame the vet prices, and yes i no they go to colledge for years to learn etc..but they are just a rip of, if the man had gone to the vet and said ,please treat my dog but i cant afford to pay, i bet the vet would not have the dogs best interest at heart then....please someone possibly from a vets ,TELL ME WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO....we would all like to no the answer???????thankyou
2

yasmobile,

saffron walden 04/04/2008 20:42:03
ever seen a poor vet?????????also the vet ware the young man originally got the dog to have a operation to remove the tumour, must be partley to blame, as they should have made it quite clear, that if the tumour re appeared to take it back,and they could re assess the situation, and possibly sort out a fair deal for the man.sorry but you can see,this man loved his dog..and if youre reading this dont hold youre head down low,you tried youre best..lets see if someone can answer my original question above...ps i will gladley pay 10.00 to help with you bill, and im sure many reading this would as well...
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.