Shock collars for dog
A dog's eye was found 'hanging out of the socket,' resulting in a lifetime ban on animal ownership for the dog’s caregivers. Pixabay

A starving Staffordshire bull terrier named Tia was in such critical condition when the RSPCA arrived at a Mansfield home that a veterinarian later determined euthanasia was the only humane option.

Her death, marked by the graphic state of a ruptured eye described as 'hanging out of its socket' has resulted in a lifetime ban on animal ownership for the dog's caregivers: a mother and son now convicted under the Animal Welfare Act.

The case has reignited scrutiny of how neglect escalates behind closed doors and the legal consequences for those who fail to act before an animal's suffering becomes irreversible.

A Dog Found Emaciated and in Agony

When RSPCA inspector Daniel Bradshaw visited the Booth Crescent property in December, he was responding to a complaint about the welfare of Tia, who was living with 34-year-old Luke Prince and his mother, 61-year-old Julie Ann Weston.

Bradshaw later told the court he immediately saw signs of severe neglect when Prince reluctantly brought Tia to the door after initially refusing.

'All Tia's ribs, hips and her spine were easily visible,' Bradshaw said, adding that her eye appeared to be 'hanging out of its socket ... infected and bleeding.' He also noted blood around the dog's remaining eye, patches of flaking skin, and inflammation.

Veterinary assessments confirmed Tia was 'severely emaciated, uncomfortable and agitated.' Her ruptured eye, which had progressed to a protruding, stalk-like state, showed advanced infection and necrosis. Vets determined it was 'beyond the limits of medical treatment,' with surgery offering little chance of recovery and posing a major risk.

Given her overall deteriorated condition, Tia was humanely put to sleep.

Charges Under the Animal Welfare Act

According to reports, Prince and Weston pleaded guilty at Mansfield Magistrates' Court to causing unnecessary suffering by failing to seek treatment for the dog's eye injury. Prince also admitted failing to take steps to investigate Tia's drastic weight loss.

The pair's sentences were suspended — 26 weeks for Prince and 18 weeks for Weston — but both were ordered to pay £200 in costs, a £154 victim surcharge, and, in Prince's case, complete Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days.

Most significantly, the court imposed a lifetime ban on keeping animals, a penalty courts impose in serious welfare violations to prevent future neglect.

Courtroom Claims and Mitigation

During mitigation, the defence argued that both Prince and Weston were experiencing mental health difficulties and had not intended malice. Their legal representatives described the situation as a 'serious error of judgment,' acknowledging that the pair admitted they could not cope with caring for an animal.

The court heard they kept no other pets.

Why Lifetime Bans Matter And What They Cover

Under UK law, a disqualification order can prevent individuals from owning, keeping, participating in the keeping of, or having any control over animals, sometimes for life. Breaching such a ban can lead to further prosecution, fines, or imprisonment.

Legal guidance also warns that allowing visitors to bring pets into a property may be interpreted as indirect involvement in animal care, potentially violating the terms of an ownership ban.

The RSPCA regularly advocates for such bans in cases of severe cruelty or neglect, arguing they are essential safeguards to protect animals from future harm.

Writer's pick