8.389 NEEDED
William, a 4-month-old lurcher, was handed over to the RSPCA after NHS workers Christopher Rushton and Kirsty Hales told authorities they had found the emaciated puppy on the streets of Coventry, England.
RSPCA inspectors quickly discovered this was a lie and that the dog belonged, in fact, to the couple.
The inspector in charge claimed this was the worst case he had investigated in ten years.
37-year-old Ruhston and 29-year-old Hales bought William after seeing the dog advertised online. But the couple had basically no idea on how to look after a pet and left the poor animal without food for days and days. William lost so much weight he ended up getting seriously ill. Asides emaciation, William also suffered from anaemia and dehydration.
The couple, parents of two, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to the puppy, but despite everything William had to endure, his owners only received a SUSPENDED prison sentence of 12 weeks (since the senence was suspended, this effectively means that the couple will not spend a single day behind bars); they were also fined £889 and forced to pay £80 victim surcharge. In addition, an indefinite ban on owning animals has been dictated (however, the couple can appeal the decision after five years).
The couple had other two pets in their home – a cat and a dog. They will be forced to give them up amid the ban.
We, the undersigned, believe that given the pain William had to go through the sentence is lenient and unfair and we hereby ask a retrial that will se a real penalty imposed. We feel that a stiff jail penalty would be a more appropriate sentence in this case, as it will send a message that hurting animals is not tolerated in the British society. Letting such people get away with a slap on the wrist is certainly not an encouraging message.