Case Snapshot
Case ID: 14792
Classification: Neglect / Abandonment
Animal: dog (non pit-bull)
More cases in EN
Login to Watch this Case

New features are coming soon. Login with Facebook to get an early start and help us test them out!





Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008


Disposition: Convicted

Defendants/Suspects:
» Darren Cherry
» Danielle Fenwick

A Carlisle couple have been banned from keeping animals for life after allowing their pet dogs to suffer.

Darren Cherry and Danielle Fenwick failed to take Rusty, an English bull terrier, to the vets even though she had a broken leg.

Cherry, 33, and Fenwick, 26, who live together in Marks Avenue, Raffles, admitted failing to provide appropriate veterinary treatment for their pet when they appeared before city magistrates.

Both were banned from keeping animals for life and told they could only appeal against that ruling at a crown court after five years have passed.

The pair must each carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and pay 200 towards the cost of the prosecution by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Inspector Chris Towler of the RSPCA said after Tuesday's hearing that the outcome proved that the courts regarded ill-treatment of animals just as seriously as they did.

He pointed out that new legislation did not require them to prove that owners had caused injuries to their animals just that they had not sought appropriate treatment for them.

He said Cherry and Fenwick would have about a week to find new homes for Rusty and another dog they had which was in good health.

He said: "When people are thinking of buying dogs or other animals they must take into account whether they can afford vets bills. They are an inevitable fact of life when you have pets."

References

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.