A man who wanted his 18-year-old crossbreed terrier to "die a natural death" was handed the maximum fine for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal yesterday.

Walter Brangman, a 45-year-old Studio Lane, Hamilton Parish man, pleaded guilty when the charges were put to him. He was ordered to pay the court $1,000.

Acting Senior Magistrate Carlisle Greaves said he was appalled when he saw the pictures of the dog, taken by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

The court heard that the SPCA Inspector had been called to Endsmeet Animal Hospital to examine the dog June 13.

"The dog's hair was dirty, extremely matted and covered in burrs. There was hair loss around the tail dock and his rectal area. Maggots were visibly seen on the dog's body and emerging from his rectum which was red and bloody," prosecutor Graveney Bannister told the court.

Veterinarians at the animal hospital decided to destroy the dog and put an end to its suffering.

Brangman told the magistrate that the dog had been seen by a veterinarian five months earlier and he was told that it only had a few months to live.

"I decided I wanted her to die at home." Brangman told the court.

"I would say so," he replied, when asked by Mr. Greaves if he had considered the dog his best friend.

"I must remember not to become your best friend," Mr. Greaves told Brangman. "This is not a natural death. These are ugly pictures. Is this how you would treat your grandmother ?"

He then instructed the court clerk to pass photographs of the dog around the courtroom to anyone who wanted to see them.

Contacted by The Royal Gazette, SPCA Inspector Charles Whited applauded the magistrate's decision.

"We are very fortunate the magistrate regards animal cruelty very seriously. Every magistrate I've been in front of has treated it very seriously."

He said that the dog was seen lying on the street by a female passer-by who was walking her dogs. She immediately alerted a neighbour and the pair took the dog to Endsmeet.

"It was pretty horrifying," said Mr. Whited.

"I hate to admit it but it was equally as bad as the other cases I have right now."

Mr. Whited said that he was currently investigating about half a dozen cases of animal cruelty. "It's not getting worse. It's just that the public are getting comfortable reporting what they see, knowing they won't be exposed. And that something will be done about it," he said.

"People are being held responsible and accountable for the condition their animals are in."

He added : "This gentleman's argument was that he had taken the dog to the veterinarian and he was informed it only had three months to live. He neglected to say that the reason it got to the vet was that we had received a complaint and I ordered him to take it to the veterinarian."

When asked what reasons people gave for neglecting their pets, he said many animal owners do not realise what the law requires of them. "Most of the time they don't care - it's just an animal to them," he continued.

The SPCA uses the law as a last resort, said Mr. Whited. "A lot of complaints get dealt with very quickly but there are those individuals you have to go back to so many times." The Brangman case, he added, was a "classic example" of receiving a complaint and giving the offender a chance to rectify the situation before taking legal action. "We are willing to work with people.We'd much rather go to somebody, highlight our concerns and educate them." But he added, "There's so much you can do to help people."

Mr. Whited told The Royal Gazette that when he first examined it, the dog was flea infested and constant scratching was leading to hair loss. He said as a result he instructed Brangman to take it to the veterinarian.

Seeing the terrier in such a condition five months later was "totally unacceptable," he said. "There was nothing he could tell me to explain it so I decided he would tell it to the magistrate."

More from the courts, Page 6