Pic: RSPCA
A man from Neath has had his appeal against a ban imposed for failing to meet the needs of his pregnant dog dismissed at Swansea Crown Court.
Matthew Mark Andrews of Henry Street, Neath, pleaded guilty to one offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and was sentenced at Swansea Magistrates’ Court on July 2 this year. He was handed a 10-year ban from keeping animals and he was also sentenced to 12 weeks in custody, which was suspended for 12 months as well as being told to carry out 20 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) days.
The earlier court hearing was told how the PDSA received a call from Andrews with concerns that his shar-pei type dog, called Pandora, had not eaten for four or five days and had lost weight.
When she was taken to a vets Pandora was found to be extremely underweight with her spine, ribs and hips easily visible and weighed 18.4kg on November 21 last year when previous records showed she had weighed 25kg in August 2023.
The dog’s emaciation was so severe that it was impossible to tell that the dog was close to full-term pregnancy. A scan, undertaken as the vet suspected Pandora had a womb infection, showed she was carrying seven to nine puppies.
Her skin was also in a poor condition with evidence of a chronic yeast infection.
Pandora underwent emergency surgery as a section of her small intestines were twisted. But afterwards she developed another intestinal blockage and because of her chronic condition a decision was made to put her to sleep as she would have been very unlikely to have survived more major surgery. Sadly, this also resulted in the death of the puppies.
The vet said prompt veterinary treatment should have been sought earlier.
Matthews lodged an appeal against the sentence, specifically targeting the disqualification on the grounds that there was no need for it to be imposed.
But at a hearing at the crown court on September 18 the appeal was dismissed with the court agreeing with the sentence imposed by the district judge previously and stating that: “This was gross and long-standing neglect. The defendant should not have any animals for a significant period. We are concerned about a high probability of neglect in the future.”
The court also awarded £750 of additional costs against the defendant.
