Woman Who Let Her Dog Starve To De@eth Banned From Keeping Animals For Life

Katie Louise Oldridge

A woman identified as Katie Louise Oldridge who abandoned her Staffordshire bull terrier to starve to death in her home has been banned from keeping animals for life.

The dog was found lying dead next to an empty tin of food at her kitchen in Meadowbank Road, Hull, covered in a large amount of dried out faeces.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Inspector, Jilly Dickinson who led the investigation, said as the dog’s body was placed in an RSPCA evidence bag, a heap of live maggots dropped from his rotting head.

‘The kitchen door had a baby gate in the frame.

‘I found a dog food tin on the kitchen worktop, which contained mouldy remains of food in the bottom of it, and an empty box of dog treats, which appeared to contain faeces.

‘There was an overwhelming smell of faeces and decomposing flesh in the property.’

A Hull Magistrates’ Court heard how the woman left a bowl of water for the dog. However no food was found within the dog’s reach as Oldridge abandoned him between April 10 and May 14 last year.

While a vet report concluded that the terrier likely suffered for a number of weeks before his eventual death, investigation found that his level of emaciation, coupled with the ingestion of foreign materials, suggested he ate anything he could to try and feed himself.

Lack of fat and muscle tissue also suggested that his body had used up its internal energy resources rather than having adequate nutrition provided.

It was also learnt that Oldridge was dealing with personal problems before the offence and became dependent on alcohol.

The Magistrates who highlighted that this is ‘one of the worst, if not the worst’ acts of negligence they had heard as a bench, also sentenced the dog owner to 18 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for two years.

On being barred from keeping animals for life, Oldridge will not contesting the judgement for a decade.  She was ordered to carry out 12 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days and 200 hours’ of unpaid work in the community, and was also ordered to pay £300 costs and a victim surcharge of £128.

The magistrates said;

‘We consider this to be a deliberate act of neglect – one of the worst, if not the worst, we have had the misfortune to hear as a bench of magistrates.

‘We are satisfied that this case justifies a sentence of imprisonment but for your guilty plea and lack of previous convictions in combination with your personal circumstances we are persuaded to suspend the sentence.’