A 10-YEAR-OLD crossbreed dog was virtually bald when it was taken from its owner by the RSPCA, a court heard.
And a district judge hearing a prosecution at Blackburn magistrates asked if it was the same animal when he was shown before and after pictures of the dog.
The court heard that at one stage the dog, Holly, would have faced the dilemma of wanting to scratch because of a severe skin irritation but frightened to do so because of the pain to its already inflamed and weeping skin.
Clive Atkinson, 48, of Princess Street, Great Harwood, pleaded not guilty to failing to act, therefore causing unnecessary suffering.
The case was found proved after a trial and Atkinson was banned from keeping any domestic animal for three years.
The unemployed father of three was also given a conditional discharge for 12 months and ordered to pay £100 towards the costs of veterinary care for the dog.
Speaking after the case, RSPCA Inspector Sarah Hill said Holly had made a full recovery and had now been found a loving home where she was extremely happy.
"As with all our prosecutions, the most important thing is the ban from keeping animals which helps to prevent further suffering," said Inspector Hill.
Chris Wyatt, prosecuting, said the dog had suffered severe skin problems which had first been reported to the RSPCA in July when the dog was in the care of a friend of Atkinson's.
Holly had been returned to Atkinson and Inspector Hill made numerous attempts to contact him to inquire about her welfare. She left her calling card on four separate occasions but Atkinson did not contact her.
When the inspector did get to see the dog in September, its condition had deteriorated and Atkinson completed the necessary consents to sign it over the RSPCA.
Vet Michael Holroyd said he had treated the dog for a severe case of dermatitis and he had treated it with anti-biotics, anti-parasite shampoo, anti-inflammatory medication and pain- killing injections.
Atkinson told the court that he had treated the dog with shampoo, tea tree oil and spray which had all been recommended by the pet shop owner.
Atkinson said he phoned a Darwen vet but he wanted £40 in cash for an initial consultation which he could not afford.
He claimed that he did not know that help could have been available through the RSPCA.
Simon Farnsworth, defending, said the prosecution case was based on an omission rather than a deliberate act.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article