Distressing image warning: Pontefract couple banned from keeping animals after Bulldog’s severe skin condition was 'the worst RSPCA inspector had ever seen'

Shaun Wray and Collette Wray, both aged 45, were prosecuted by the RSPCA after their neglected American bulldog Eric was discovered in their house in Pine Street, Pontefract, in June last year.

The couple said they had been self treating Eric for his skin condition because they couldn’t afford to take him to a vet, despite having brought a nine month old spaniel type puppy to keep him company.

The six-year-old bulldog also had three open wounds on his body and a large growth on his leg which was preventing him from walking properly, and was sadly put to sleep on veterinary advice.

At a sentencing hearing at Barnsley Magistrates Court on Thursday, January 2, the bench described it as a case of ‘exceptional suffering’ and one of the worst they had ever seen.

Shaun and Collette Wray, who had both pleaded guilty to one Animal Welfare Act offence at an earlier hearing, were each given 16 week prison sentences, suspended for 12 months, and disqualified from keeping animals for life.

Magistrates were told that RSPCA Inspector Leanne Booth had gone to the property on June 23 last year after the charity had received a call about a dog with an injured leg.

In her written statement to the court, she said: “In the corner of the kitchen by the back door curled up in a bed was Eric, a large brindle and white American bulldog.

"It was immediately obvious that this dog was not well, he had very little fur on his body, his skin looked irritated and sore in places and he had a visible open wound on his right side.

“The bed he was laid in was very dirty and the walls around it were covered in blood and discharge.

“With encouragement Eric slowly stood up and this revealed the horrific state he was actually in.

"Along with the open wound on his side he had two, big very deep wounds at the base of his tail, the larger of these had an almost continuous trickle of discharge that was leaking from it every time he moved.

“He also had a couple of smaller sores on his body and his front left leg had a large growth on the wrist area which made his foot splay out to the side making it difficult and painful to walk.”

The couple were asked if Eric was under the care of a vet to which they replied no, because they were treating him themselves and vet consultations and treatments were too expensive.

They said they had thought about having him put to sleep but hadn’t discussed this with a vet.

With their agreement Eric was taken for urgent treatment by the inspector, where he was sedated prior to examination because of the pain he was in.

In her written evidence to the court the vet who saw him said: “His hind legs were very stiff and his movement seemed very restricted.

"I felt that his legs were painful when moving. He was very itchy all over, when touched his skin was immediately twitching and he was trying to scratch with his hind legs.

“He had lost a significant amount of fur over his entire body and had pink skin exposed over his face, back feet and legs. This had likely been occurring for more than 12 months."

The court was told that the largest lesion on the dog’s tail was nearly 3cm deep and 9cm long and had been forming over the past four to five months.

The vet said she could feel a significant amount of bone crunching when moving his wrist joint and it was likely a type of bone tumour and had probably been growing for at least three months.

She said: “Eric was in a significant amount of pain and had been for at least four to five months.

"The itchy skin had likely been a problem for longer and had been causing significant irritation. The lesions were too large and there were too many to treat, so I felt that euthanasia was the only option.”

Both defendants, who will not be able to contest their bans for 15 years, were also ordered to carry out up to 15 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Days and 40 hours of unpaid work and each pay costs of £400 and a £154 victim surcharge.

In sentencing the couple, magistrates described it as a case of “exceptional suffering, one of the worst we have ever seen as a bench of magistrates.

" We found the facts to be very upsetting. We have seen the images and this was horrific suffering over a very long term period.”

In mitigation the court heard the couple had shown genuine remorse and had a ‘bond of care’ with Eric.

They were said to have accrued debt as a result of the Covid pandemic which had led them to try and treat the dog’s condition themselves.

Neither of them had set out to cause him intentional harm and he had lived a ‘happy’ and ‘healthy’ life up until the last 12 months where there had been some deterioration.

It was said the defendants had made a poor judgement call in buying the puppy as a companion for Eric without thinking through how that money could have been spent to treat him.

Speaking after the case Inspector Booth said: “In 19 years as an RSPCA inspector and six working in kennels looking after dogs I have never seen a skin condition this severe.

"Eric was in a pitiful state and it would have been obvious to anyone that he needed urgent veterinary care.

"His sore skin and open wounds were very difficult to look at, and it’s hard to comprehend the suffering he went through over a prolonged period of time, to the point where sadly his life couldn't be saved.”