Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland
Courts

Suffering dog had ears cut to look 'more fierce', court hears

Stuart Hill has been ordered to pay €3,000 over the incident.

A DUBLIN MAN who bought a bull terrier puppy suffering after its ears were cut off to appear “more fierce” has avoided jail but was ordered to pay €3,000.

Stuart Hill of Oliver Bond House, Dublin 8, was prosecuted by the Department of Agriculture at Dublin District Court.

He did not appear for the hearing but had legal representation. The accused faced a charge under the Animal Health and Welfare Act for neglecting his do on 2 November, 2021.

Dublin Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (DSPCA) inspector Tony McGovern told the court that the dog’s ears had been “cropped”.

He showed photos to Judge Anthony Halpin, who asked what the witness meant by the term cropped.

Prosecution counsel Matthew Holmes explained that the dog’s ears were “cut off”.

The DSPCA inspector explained: “It is for cosmetic purposes to make the dog look more fierce; there’s no reason for it whatsoever they should not be doing it.”

He added that the court that the bull terrier was given a new home after it received “a number of treatments”.

Defence counsel Luke O’Higgins explained his client had not come to court, but he had been given instructions.

O’Higgins BL told the court Hill bought the puppy two weeks beforehand at a halting site and “the ears were cropped at that stage”, and the veterinarian’s report echoed that.

It was accepted Hill should have “done more”.

The court heard that he had no prior convictions and was a devoted owner of two other dogs “kept in the correct manner”.

Judge Halpin noted the accused did not come to court but had briefed a solicitor and was represented by counsel. Judge Halpin refused to deal with the case by way of a charitable donation instead of a conviction and fine.

He said Hill knew about the hearing but did not attend.

The first thing he should have done was go to a vet who could have applied an antibiotic to the ears “to relieve the pain this dog was going through”.

He praised the “firm-minded” who reported it to the DSPCA about the dog who “continued to be in pain”.

He convicted and fined the accused €500 and also ordered him to pay €2,500 in prosecution costs.