Bradford couple sentenced over neglect of two dogs

Andrew Leefe, 45, and Louise Reynolds, 39, both pleaded guilty to two counts of causing unnecessary suffering by failing to provide veterinary care for a young pocket bully called Nation who had a prolapsed vagina, and a pocket bully puppy called Rose who had a severe skin condition.

Both dogs have since made a full recovery.

At a hearing at Bradford Magistrates' Court last Thursday the pair were also given 12-month community orders.

The skin condition is pictured in an image shared by the RSPCA (Image: RSPCA)

The RSPCA brought a prosecution after a dog warden visited the couple’s home at Ranelagh Avenue, Ravenscliffe, on December 6, 2022, and removed one of the pocket bullies, Nation, who had an untreated vaginal prolapse.

In a statement to the court, RSPCA inspector Demi Hodby, who attended the veterinary surgery where the warden had taken the dog, said Nation’s vaginal prolapse was “infected and oozing".

They added: “She was unable to sit and appeared very uncomfortable.”

The prolapse had been present for two to three weeks.

She has subsequently received corrective surgery.

The court heard Leefe and Reynolds repeatedly denied Nation was their dog and claimed she belonged to a friend who would not give them any money to treat her.

There were numerous other dogs at the property, and the pair refused to reveal which of the dogs belonged to them or provide contact details for the owners.

On December 12, 2022, during a visit by Inspector Hodby and the dog warden, another pocket bully, Rose, was removed from the property.

The six to seven-month-old puppy had severe demodex mange which Reynolds said she had been treating with an antibacterial wash.

The court was told Rose had been seen during the dog warden’s previous visit on December 6 and Reynolds had been told to take her to a vet within 24 hours, but failed to do so.

Another image shared by the RSPCA (Image: RSPCA)

The vet who examined her said: “Rose’s skin was in a bad condition with generalised hair loss, redness, and inflammation as well as multiple scabs and areas of skin thickening which occurs after prolonged periods of rubbing and scratching.”

The vets said both dogs required treatment which hadn’t been sought. Nation had likely been suffering from the prolapse for three weeks, while Rose’s skin condition would have been developing for at least four weeks, but likely longer, and her poor body condition was the result of being on an inappropriate diet for several months.

Reynolds had accepted responsibility for Rose but denied she was the owner and wanted the dog back. Both defendants had previously told the inspector they had applied to the council for a dog breeding licence, although Leefe later said this had been put on hold.

Rose now she is fully recovered (Image: RSPCA)

Louise Freeman, prosecuting, said the case was “a prolonged case of neglect and a deliberate disregard for animal welfare".

“The dogs suffered while in their care," she said. 

Mr Zaman, defending Leefe, said: “He had responsibility for these animals, but he maintains they were not his. He was advised by the owner to carry out home remedies to deal with the dogs’ conditions.

“He should have taken further steps – he should have sought urgent care.

“There has been no further neglect since this incident.”

Mr Ahmed, representing Reynolds, said: “She had no primary responsibility for these dogs but does accept that when she was made aware of these issues she should have acted quicker and put pressure on her partner to seek treatment.”

He said she suffered from mental health issues, and “seeks sanctuary” in animals, adding: “If her access to animals was taken away it would really affect her.”

During the case, Reynolds repeatedly interrupted proceedings, at one point questioning RSPCA evidence.

Leefe was given a 12-month community order, with a requirement to carry out 15 rehabilitation days and 80 hours of unpaid work. He was told to pay costs of £100 and a surcharge of £114.

Reynolds was given a 12-month community order, with a requirement to carry out 20 rehabilitation days. Costs of £200 and a victim surcharge of £114 were also imposed.

They were both disqualified from keeping dogs for five years.

Other dogs at the defendants’ home will have to be rehomed because of this ban.