CONVICTED: Was justice served?
more information on voting
When you vote, you are voting on whether or not the punishment fit the crime, NOT on the severity of the case itself. If you feel the sentence was very weak, you would vote 1 star. If you feel the sentence was very strong, you would vote 5 stars.
Please vote honestly and realistically. These ratings will be used a a tool for many future programs, including a "People’s Choice" of best and worst sentencing, DA and judge "report cards", and more. Try to resist the temptation to vote 1 star on every case, even if you feel that 100 years in prison isn’t enough.
Case #8929 Rating: 4.0 out of 5
Neglect, failure to provide vet care
Sussex, EN (UK)Incident Date: Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006
County: England
Disposition: Convicted
Defendants/Suspects:
» Martin Paul Woodford
» Wilma Woodford
» Wilma Woodford
A family have been banned from owning a dog after a court saw shocking pictures of their neglected pet.
Martin Paul Woodford, 47, his wife Wilma, 46, and their 25-year-old son Stuart Paul Woodford, all of Burrell Court, Twyne Close, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
The family appeared at Horsham Magistrates' Court on Thursday after a tip-off in February led to RSPCA officer Becky Murray seizing the dog. The family pet, Tequila, a German Shepherd bitch, had been so neglected its spine, ribs and hip bones could all be seen. She had an untreated skin condition and ear infection and weighed nearly a third of what would be expected for a healthy dog.
David Buck, prosecuting, told the court the animal's skin and ear infections had gone untreated for some time. Mr Buck described how the family had admitted when inter-viewed that they failed to get the dog proper care and treatment. "Mr Woodford said the animal had been walked on a daily basis before she got really ill about a year previously. "He said he had then had to take the dog out at night so that people couldn't see her condition. "He said he didn't think the condition was acceptable but they had tried everything and had become stressed about her condition."
As Mrs Woodford cried in the dock, Mr Buck explained how the family had avoided taking Tequila back to a vet because they did not want to pay £70 in treatment as they had last year. Jeremy Booth, mitigating, said the dog was not deliberately mistreated. "The Woodford family acquired the dog when she was 11 months old. It had at that time been neglected and was in a bad condition."They took the dog and it was cared for, loved, fed and was in good health."
After the dog had developed a skin condition the family had tried to treat it but it kept returning.
He added that when the RSPCA took the dog away Mrs Woodford had assumed it was to help them. Mr Booth said: "Quite the opposite. The dog was taken away from them but in any event they would have taken the dog to see the vet but in a sense this option was deprived of them."
He added the family, who also own five cats,had never been bad owners before.
But magistrate Martin King disagreed with Mr Booth's claim that the RSPCA case was out of context as he handed out large fines and banning orders. He said: "We would like to say we do not believe this was a heavy-handed action by the RSPCA." As well as a two-year conditional discharge each member of the family was given a £614.92 fine to cover costs for the care and treatment of the dog. They were also banned from owning a dog for two years.
*The RSPCA is looking for a new home for the dog.
References
« More cases in England County, EN
|
