A MAN who hit a puppy causing fatal injuries in a bid to stop it using his floor as a toilet has escaped a ban from keeping animals.
Paul Simeon Twigg admitted causing the sickening injuries to the 12-week-old Bull Terrier at his home in Wellington Square, Hastings.
Th construction worker hit the puppy causing it to collide with the corner of a table sustaining severe injuries to its skull, lungs and liver.
Twigg, a construction worker, admitted one charge of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal when he first appeared before Hastings Magistrates on September 20.
The court heard how Twigg was at home on March 15 when he caused “a violent physical trauma” to the dog.
It was only when his partner Samantha Ratford took the stricken animal to Paul Cooper Veterinary centre in Hastings that the incident came to light. Mr Cooper advised that the puppy be put to sleep.
A post mortem revealed there were various areas of trauma at the front of the skull, lungs and liver
Magistrates ordered personal reports to be made by the Probation Service before passing sentence last Thursday, (October 4).
They handed Twigg a 12 months community service order and ordered him to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.
He was also ordered to pay £250 legal costs. Magistrates decided against banning Twigg from keeping animals as they saw it as a one-off incident as Twigg already had another dog and a cat which were well looked after.
In a statement given outside court, the solicitor who prosecutes on behalf of RSPCA, Mr David Buck, said: “Disappointingly the court decided not to impose a disqualification order citing the fact that they regarded the offence as an impulsive action on one occasion only.
“The previous history is of the appropriate care of four animals, which was borne out in a letter by Miss Ratford, the defendants partner, and others.
“And there was also the fact that the defendant and Miss Ratford are keeping a dog and cat which are in generally a good condition.”
RSPCA officer Andrew Kirby, who brought the case to court, said: “We sought a disqualification order and our main aim is to seek this order to protect animals in the future.
“We are disappointed that was not ordered. The magistrates considered it to be a one-off action.”