Derbyshire man handed 10-year animal bad after neglecting jaundiced cat

The cat had to be put to sleep after what was described as a case of 'prolonged neglect'

A Derbyshire man has been banned from keeping animals for 10 years after failing to provide a treatment plan for his cat. Jack Neep, of Baden Powell Road, Chesterfield, was handed the ban after saying he had a treatment plan in place for Granger, a five-year-old tabby and white male cat, who was found suffering from jaundice and was underweight.

An investigation by the RSPCA revealed that he hadn’t and a lack of necessary action had instead caused his pet to suffer. At a hearing at Mansfield Magistrates' Court on Thursday, September 5, the 24-year-old pleaded guilty to one charge contrary to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 following a prosecution brought by the RSPCA.

The court was told that one of the charity's Inspectors, Vanessa Reid, had visited the Baden Powell Road area at the beginning of March this year to collect Granger from a member of the public who had found him and was extremely worried about his welfare. The officer was told the finder had first seen the cat a number of months ago and had repeatedly taken him to a vet because of concerns over his weight loss and condition.

Because Granger was microchipped, the vets had been able to contact Neep to come and collect him, but he continued to be seen in the area and, by March 2, he had lost a significant amount of weight and was looking yellow, bloated and lethargic. In her written evidence to the court, Inspector Reid said: “I could instantly see that Granger was very underweight, and he was extremely yellow.

"His nose, eyes, gums and other pale areas of the body were clearly discoloured, and, from experience, it indicated he was suffering from jaundice. I picked him up and realised he was skeletal, with every bone protruding.

“He made no attempt to get away and allowed me to place him inside a basket without any struggle or movement from him. I made calls to emergency vets to see who could see me at short notice, as it was a Sunday.”

Granger was taken immediately to one vet before being transferred the next day to another practice for further tests. These revealed an inflammatory liver disease called Lymphocytic Cholangitis as the most likely cause of illness, although Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) or lymphoma/neoplasia could not be ruled out definitively.

The second vet confirmed Granger was suffering because of a lack of veterinary care and the police were contacted to take him into possession as evidence of a possible offence. Neep told the RSPCA that members of the public had kept ‘stealing his cat’ who then returned home ill, and this had affected the ‘treatment plan’ he had in place, the court was told.

When asked if Granger was receiving any veterinary care, Neep said he was not but he’d last taken him to see his vet the previous week, although he couldn’t say what had happened during the consultation. A check with the veterinary practice concerned revealed that Neep had never taken Granger in himself.

He was only registered with them because the cat’s details were on the microchip and he had been brought in previously by a concerned member of the public. Despite being advised that his pet needed further examination and treatment, Neep cancelled a scheduled appointment.

No medication had been given and there was no treatment plan in place, the vet confirmed. The vet who carried out the diagnostic tests and gave written evidence in the case said there were several concerning issues regarding Granger’s welfare.

Most notable was that the defendant had claimed to be seeking veterinary care for him which turned out to be untrue, as there was no record of the cat being seen at the other veterinary practice other than when a member of the public had brought him in repeatedly with concerns over his weight loss and condition over a period of several months.

In her written statement to the court, she said: “It is clear that Granger was not protected from pain, suffering and disease. And in lying that they had taken him to seek veterinary care they were likely to have known this would be causing him to suffer.

“Due to the presence of fleas, poor body condition and the fact the cat was brought in multiple times by a member of the public when straying also begs the question as to whether Granger had a suitable environment/housing and diet to access at home. There is no doubt that Granger has been made to suffer - this is likely to have been a chronic occurrence over at least several months as he was first noticed to be jaundiced at the other vets in December 2023, almost three months before we saw him.”

Granger remained in RSPCA care but on March 16 was rushed for emergency treatment after his health significantly worsened. He was put to sleep on veterinary advice with Neep’s consent.

In mitigation, the court was told that Neep had provided ‘well-intentioned but incompetent care’ at a time when he was suffering from poor mental health and he should have sought veterinary treatment at an earlier stage but Granger had been ‘missing for several weeks’ and he was ‘unaware’ his pet’s condition had deteriorated during that time.

Magistrates described the case as one of ‘prolonged neglect’ and said Granger had been caused ‘significant’ unnecessary suffering which ultimately meant he had to be put to sleep - an outcome which may well have been prevented had early veterinary intervention been sought, they said. Neep, who cannot contest his 10-year disqualification order for five years, was also given a 12-month Community Order requiring 100 hours of unpaid work and told to pay £400 in costs and a victim surcharge of £154.

The court also imposed a Section 35 Order in relation to another cat and a dog owned by Neep and gave him 21 days to rehome both animals. Speaking after the case Inspector Reid said: "Granger had been neglected over a prolonged period of time and we're glad the court recognised the seriousness of the offence.

"Had Neep sought veterinary help as he claimed, the outcome for Granger may well have been different. We'd like to thank the kind and caring member of the public who stepped in on numerous occasions and did their best to help."