Breeder loses appeal
A woman who kept cats and dogs in cramped and dirty conditions has lost an appeal against her sentence.
Teresa Reynolds was banned from keeping any animal for eight years and given a community order and unpaid work by magistrates who heard she was supplementing her benefits by breeding the pets.
During a visit to the 56-year-old’s two-bedroomed council home in June 2017, 23 cats and dogs were discovered in terrible conditions by the council’s neighbourhood services team.
In the waste bin outside her home in Long Furlong Drive, Britwell, Slough, were two dead puppies.
The team found 16 dogs stacked up in dirty cages which were too small for them and some were being shared by two animals. These included Pugs, poodles, Cocker Spaniels, Yorkshire terriers, Shih Tzus and Chihuahuas. Dogs were also found in the garden and cats were found kept in an aviary with overflowing litter trays next to contaminated drinking water.
Many of the animals did not have access to fresh water and their hair was matted with urine and faeces the pungent smell of which overwhelmed police officers who went to the home.
The only clean crate found with bedding, food and water inside, contained no animal.
The ainmals were removed from the property and transported to a veterinary hospital, in Maidenhead, where it was noted that several dogs were heavily soiled and two of the female cats were pregnant.
It was believed 250 animals had been handled at Mrs Reynold’s home during a two year period and she was convicted of 11 offences of failing to ensure animal welfare of animals in her care and two counts of benefit fraud.
The council’s fraud team became involved when the investigation revealed she had failed to declare the income she was receiving from her trading the animals and had not provided updated information of the income which would have affected the level of her benefits.
She was sentenced by magistrates in Reading in July 2018 and was banned from owning any animal for eight years, ordered to complete a 12 month community order, undertake 120 hours unpaid work and attend 15 days of rehabilitation. She was also ordered to pay £2,000 costs.
During an appeal at Reading Crown Court on 9 December this year, chaired by Judge Angela Morris, the appeal against sentence was denied and was told she would have to complete her sentence.
All animals in this case were surrendered to the council and were given loving and caring homes soon after the original investigation.
Judge Morris said in dismissing the appeal and ordering Ms Reynolds to pay an additional £6,000 in council costs, said: “This has been a vast cost to the public purse in the local authority meeting its obligation to this appeal.”
Cllr Pavitar K Mann, cabinet member for planning and regulation, said: “This was a legitimate investigation and prosecution by the great work from the to resilience and enforcement team with dozens of animals ultimately needing veterinary treatment and rehoming.
“The animal’s owner has challenged the entire process at first trying to get the animals back from the council’s care, to appealing the sentence which she must now serve in full.
“She is also responsible for the additional council costs during this appeal so that the council is not out of pocket.”
Teresa Reynolds was banned from keeping any animal for eight years and given a community order and unpaid work by magistrates who heard she was supplementing her benefits by breeding the pets.
During a visit to the 56-year-old’s two-bedroomed council home in June 2017, 23 cats and dogs were discovered in terrible conditions by the council’s neighbourhood services team.
In the waste bin outside her home in Long Furlong Drive, Britwell, Slough, were two dead puppies.
The team found 16 dogs stacked up in dirty cages which were too small for them and some were being shared by two animals. These included Pugs, poodles, Cocker Spaniels, Yorkshire terriers, Shih Tzus and Chihuahuas. Dogs were also found in the garden and cats were found kept in an aviary with overflowing litter trays next to contaminated drinking water.
Many of the animals did not have access to fresh water and their hair was matted with urine and faeces the pungent smell of which overwhelmed police officers who went to the home.
The only clean crate found with bedding, food and water inside, contained no animal.
The ainmals were removed from the property and transported to a veterinary hospital, in Maidenhead, where it was noted that several dogs were heavily soiled and two of the female cats were pregnant.
It was believed 250 animals had been handled at Mrs Reynold’s home during a two year period and she was convicted of 11 offences of failing to ensure animal welfare of animals in her care and two counts of benefit fraud.
The council’s fraud team became involved when the investigation revealed she had failed to declare the income she was receiving from her trading the animals and had not provided updated information of the income which would have affected the level of her benefits.
She was sentenced by magistrates in Reading in July 2018 and was banned from owning any animal for eight years, ordered to complete a 12 month community order, undertake 120 hours unpaid work and attend 15 days of rehabilitation. She was also ordered to pay £2,000 costs.
During an appeal at Reading Crown Court on 9 December this year, chaired by Judge Angela Morris, the appeal against sentence was denied and was told she would have to complete her sentence.
All animals in this case were surrendered to the council and were given loving and caring homes soon after the original investigation.
Judge Morris said in dismissing the appeal and ordering Ms Reynolds to pay an additional £6,000 in council costs, said: “This has been a vast cost to the public purse in the local authority meeting its obligation to this appeal.”
Cllr Pavitar K Mann, cabinet member for planning and regulation, said: “This was a legitimate investigation and prosecution by the great work from the to resilience and enforcement team with dozens of animals ultimately needing veterinary treatment and rehoming.
“The animal’s owner has challenged the entire process at first trying to get the animals back from the council’s care, to appealing the sentence which she must now serve in full.
“She is also responsible for the additional council costs during this appeal so that the council is not out of pocket.”
