Seven puppies were deliberately drowned by a man from Whitehaven � but he has been cleared of animal cruelty.
John Woolighan, 47, decided to kill the 10-day-old Staffordshire Bull Terrier pups because they �got on his nerves�.
He filled a plastic box with water, dropped in the dogs, then placed another box on top so they could not escape.
An RSPCA inspector found the animals buried in a mass grave in Woolighan�s garden, in Fleswick Avenue, Woodhouse, Whitehaven.
But Woolighan was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to animals when he appeared in Whitehaven Magistrates Court yesterday.
Experts working on behalf of the RSPCA could not prove that the dogs had suffered more from drowning than they would have had they been put down by a vet.
Speaking after the hearing, Martyn Fletcher, RSPCA inspector for West Cumbria, said: �We are very disappointed. We spend millions every year on neutering and re-housing animals so there is no excuse for what Mr Woolighan did.�
Prosecutor Keith Thomas said a member of the public called the RSPCA and an inspector visited Woolighan�s home.
An interview had to be stopped when Woolighan revealed he had mental health problems. He is of �limited intelligence� and cannot read or write because of medication he is taking, the court heard.
But questioning resumed when psychiatric nurse Mark Campbell was available to supervise.
Woolighan said: �They were yapping all day long. They were really getting on my nerves and their mother was rejecting them. I did not know whether I could look after seven puppies.
�I don�t know what really happened. I panicked. My head went funny and I just drowned them. I could not help myself.
�I thought it was wrong after I did it. I could not sleep for a few days because I was having nightmares about it.�
He had contacted eight organisations for help with the puppies but felt he had been passed from pillar to post, magistrates were told.
Mr Roberts said that the very act of drowning puppies caused unnecessary suffering.
Vets David Martin from Cockermouth and John Boyle from Shropshire agreed, claiming the dogs would have tried to escape for air and could experience muscle cramps due to lack of oxygen.
But David Roberts, defending Woolighan, said there is no evidence that 10-day-old puppies experience pain. And he said it was Woolighan�s right to decide whether or not to keep animals he owned.
His view was supported by Steven Lomax � a vet with 28 years� experience, who said: �I have heard no evidence to hear that the drowning of a puppy is inhumane. He wanted a solution now. The average dog owner with surplus puppies drowns them.�
He claimed to have seen someone drown a puppy when he was a teenager and that the animal �did not suffer.�
But he admitted: �The obvious thing a caring dog owner would have done would be to contact a vet.�
Both sides disagreed on whether the dogs would have felt pain and whether giving a �lethal injection� to a puppy was more or less cruel than drowning it � which was a crucial issue in determining whether the puppies� suffering had been �unreasonable.�
In his closing speech, Mr Roberts urged magistrates to put feelings aside.
�We are not here to decide whether he is a bad person because he wanted them to die. He was entitled to have them put down; your issue is the methodology.�
Chief magistrate Jackson said the only evidence before the bench was conflicting expert opinions because the defendant did not wish to give evidence.
The bench was satisfied the puppies would have experienced some suffering and pain. But it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was unreasonable pain. They recorded a not guilty verdict.
�We decided this on the evidence today. We are not making any general finding that drowning puppies is an acceptable practice.� References
|
