Lifetime pet-owning ban for letting his cat suffer

Judge Graeme McKerrell said owning a pet was a privilege, which came with responsibilities. By putting his needs first, Trebert had to be banned from keeping animals.

As well as the ban, Trebert was fined £1,000.

‘You put you and your daughter’s affection for the cat before its welfare and that was a selfish act on your part,’ he said.

The 47-year-old of Caelum, Grandes Maisons Road, St Sampson’s, admitted failing to keep his cat free of unnecessary suffering after not getting him appropriate veterinary care.

The Magistrate’s Court heard that an employee of Martel Maides had done an inspection of Trebert’s property and had seen Ziggy.

She could find no food, water, litter tray or way for the cat to get out.

Having checked the home, she found no food, so went to the shop and bought some. When she returned the cat ate it.

Concerned, the agent called the GSPCA and it was decided to take the cat to the animal shelter. Checking the microchip they found that Ziggy was registered to Trebert’s former partner.

Ziggy was taken to a vets and an abdominal mass was found. A prognosis of ‘hopeless’ was given and Ziggy was put to sleep.

It was found the cat was owned by Trebert, who had taken it to the vet in 2015.

A swelling in the abdomen was found and a hopeless prognosis was given then. Ziggy was put in a cattery and the vet sent an advice sheet about future care, which included needing a future appointment.

In police interview, Trebert said he never received that advice sheet.

After that appointment, Trebert had to be pursued through the Petty Debts Court for the vet’s bill. In interview Trebert said one of the reasons he had not gone back to the vet was the cost.

In a written statement, States vet David Chamberlain said Ziggy would have continued to show symptoms like vomiting and had lost between 25% and 30% of its body weight between 2015 and his death in 2017.

He said Ziggy would have been in mild to moderate pain and that the cat would have suffered by delaying his euthanasia.

Defence advocate Mark Dunster said this was an unusual case.

‘Quite often these animal cruelty cases ... have been ones where you might consider there to be deliberate acts of cruelty,’ he said.

‘Whereas here I don’t think there can be any doubt that my client loved his cat.’

The cat was rescued by Trebert and his former partner and was part of their family. When the couple split Ziggy went with the defendant.

After getting the hopeless diagnosis, Trebert had taken the vet at his word and thought Ziggy would die.

When the cat continued to survive he was delighted.

However, by 2017 the cat was very ill and Trebert believed the vet’s diagnosis was coming to pass. However he did not want to let the cat go.

‘It’s a case driven by too much love, not too little,’ Advocate Dunster said.

‘This is a case where emotion overruled logic.’

In a letter to the court Trebert had said he did not believe in putting down animals.

But Judge McKerrell said euthanasia was part of pet ownership.

‘If you can’t accept that, you are not a fit or proper person to care for animals,’ he said.

He said it was vital animals got timely care from vets.

‘If you can’t accept professional advice, you should not have accepted ownership in the first place,’ he said.

‘You might have loved this animal, but love is not a substitute for proper care.’

Trebert had previously denied two other alternative animal welfare charges. No evidence was offered on these in court.