A woman, Dilys Hadley, living on a very small monthly income, delayed taking her 16-year-old cat, Janet, to the vet for treatment for a bulging eye – an obvious illness requiring treatment.
There was a tumour under the eye forcing it out. She was successfully prosecuted under section nine of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and promptly became a criminal. Below is the wording of the beginning of section 9. You can see it is worded widely and so it is easy to be in breach of it…..
A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice….
The RSCPA prosecuted her. What the RSPCA did not do, and what they should have done, was to warn her before prosecuting her to allow her time to take remedial steps.
Dilys was about to take her cat to the vet, anyway. To prosecute her was unnecessary. She had delayed for too long because of money concerns. That is no excuse because people who have cats should factor in the cost. However, Dilys was of good character and long-term cat caretaker.
Also Janet, her cat, was not in pain, we are told. Dilys appealed the conviction for what was essentially a mild form of animal abuse. She lost the appeal but the judge criticised the RSPCA for being too eager to prosecute.
Apparently the RSPCA had given an undertaking to the British Parliament that they would not prosecute until they had given a warning and the warning had been ignored.
So, we have an interesting cat case in which we can see that it is possible to be prosecuted in the criminal courts for failing to take your cat to the vet for treatment when it is obvious that treatment is required. I presume someone – a neighbour perhaps – had reported the matter to the RSPCA. Beware cat owners. You could end up with a criminal record, a fine and even imprisonment for something that you might consider rather innocuous.
Also the case highlights the overzealous behavior of the RSCPA to get people into court so that they can create publicity which they believe acts as a deterrent to animal owners who might otherwise tend to act irresponsibly or neglegently with respect to their animals.
Final note: Janet had an inoperable tumour and was put to sleep. I expect her age was a factor – and the expense of the operation.
Original story.
so sad re rocky ;-( in reality the costs will have been much lower as pdsa vets I would think are salaried plus costs of medication will be cheaper as they likely have similar arrangements as franchise vets to bulk buy.
Oh I hope so Michael!
She sounds a very nice lady and very intelligent too and most of all, a cat lover!
Ruth, she is a retired professor. She lives in the US and she is planning to come over to the UK for a visit to meet me. I hope it works out.
The dog next door had the misfortune to need £400 stitching on a Friday evening (quoted by a private vet) but the owner ‘had no money’
So next day he took him to the nearest PDSA, must be at least 30 miles from us, where they kept him in saying he would be stitched on the Monday, that worried me when I heard because as we all know, wounds need stitching when they are fresh!
So of course an infection set in and the treatment was to cost at least £1000. Yesterday 10 days after the poor dog was injured, he was PTS.
According to his owner the PDSA vet said they had no more resources for further treatment for him, he’d either have to go to a private vet and pay or be PTS!
Now I don’t know if this is true or not as I don’t know much about the PDSA policies …maybe an article on them Michael as someone might know?
To me the logical thing would have been for the private vet to have stitched up that dog when it happened, the PDSA to pay the £400 bill, but instead at least £1000 of kind peoples donations to them has been wasted because the dog is now dead anyway!
In my vet nurse days, long ago now I know, but if an animal had been in dire need like that the vet would have treated him and the charge gone on the RSPCA account we sent out to them monthly.
I wouldn’t donate to the PDSA because the people who use them often have cars, sky TV, the latest gadgets etc and why should other people give to pay for their choice of having a pet?
In the end, as always it’s the animals who would suffer if everyone thought like me, but I’d rather donate to local cat charities and know the money will definitely help needy cats.
We think alike 🙂
I always find your comments very interesting Valley Girl
p.s., thanks Ruth for understanding my point about not being able to see into the future. (((Hug)))