South Essex magistrates have seen a number of cases involving animal related offences and south Essex residents.
Peter Nicklas, 86, of Madeira Avenue, Leigh was in court for animal related offences.
On or before November 9 in Leigh having been disqualified he breached that disqualification in that he did have custody of animals, namely two Budgerigars.
He was fined £200, ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £44, pay costs of £165.
An order was made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
The order is to disqualify the defendant in respect of all animals from owning them, keeping them, participating in keeping them and from being party to an arrangement under which the defendant is entitled to control or influence the way in which they are kept for a period of life.
All animals owned or kept in contravention of this disqualification to be seized. No application for termination of the order may be made within the period of 10 years.
On or before November 9 at Madeira Avenue, Leigh he did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 2 Budgerigars were met to the extent required by good practice in that he failed to meet their need for a suitable environment, to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease and for a suitable diet. He was fined £80.
An order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
On or before the same date and at the address he did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 6 domestic cats were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet their need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and distress in that you failed to ensure they were effectively treated for parasites and failed to provide proper and effective care for injuries caused.
He was fined £80 and Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
He also did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 5 Domestic chickens were met to the extent required by good practice in that in that their coops were too small, unclean and did not contain fresh food and water.
He was fined £80 and Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
Kathleen Nicklas, 46, of Madeira Avenue, Leigh was in court for animal related offences.
On or before November 9 at Madeira Avenue, Leigh she did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely a brown rabbit were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet its need for a suitable environment, in that he was contained in a cage that was too small, with no access to daylight or exercise, or a place for hiding.
A Community order made and she was ordered to complete 25 days of Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.
Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
She was also charged with causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal between October 9 and and November 9 in Madeira Avenue, Leigh.
A Community order made and she was ordered to complete 25 days of Activity Requirement, fined £80, ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £95, costs of £165 Order made under Section 34 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to disqualify the defendant in respect of all animals from owning them, keeping them, participating in keeping them and from being party to an arrangement under which the defendant is entitled to control or influence the way in which they are kept for a period of life. All animals owned or kept On or before November 9 in Madeira Avenue, Leigh she failed to take steps as were reasonable to ensure the needs of an animal for which you were responsible were met, namely 6 domestic cats.
She was ordered to complete 25 days rehabilitation activity requirement.
Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
She did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 5 domestic chickens were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet their need for a suitable environment, in that their coops were too small, unclean and did not contain fresh food and water.
She was ordered to complete 25 days rehabilitation activity requirement.
Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
Sidney Nicklas, 32, of Madeira Avenue, Leigh was in court for failing to look after an animal.
On or before November 9 they did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely Russian Tortoise, were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet its need for a suitable environment and to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
They were fined £80, ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £34, costs of £165.
Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
He also did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 6 domestic cats were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet their need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and distress in that you failed to ensure they were effectively treated for parasites (fleas) and failed to provide proper and effective care for injuries caused.
They were fined £80. Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
They also did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 5 Domestic chickens were met to the extent required by good practice in that in that their coops were too small, unclean and did not contain fresh food and water.
They were fined £80. Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
Lorna Nicklas, 73, of the same address was in court for animal offences.
On or before November 9 having been disqualified she breached that disqualification in that you did have custody of animals, namely a parrot, 3 cats, and a lurcher-type dog she was fined £200, ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £44, pay costs of £165.
Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
On or before November 9 she did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely an African Grey Parrot (JR/07), were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet its need for a suitable environment and to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
They were fined £80. Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
They also did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 6 domestic cats were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet their need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and distress in that you failed to ensure they were effectively treated for parasites (fleas) and failed to provide proper and effective care for injuries caused.
They were fined £80. Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
She also did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 5 Domestic chickens were met to the extent required by good practice in that in that their coops were too small, unclean and did not contain fresh food and water.
They were fined £80. Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
Clifford Nicklas, 42, Madeira Avenue, Leigh was in court for not looking after cats.
On or before November 9 did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 6 domestic cats were met to the extent required by good practice in that you failed to meet their need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and distress in that you failed to ensure they were effectively treated for parasites (fleas) and failed to provide proper and effective care for injuries caused.
He was Fined £120, ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £34, costs of £165.00.
Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
He did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 5 Domestic chickens were met to the extent required by good practice in that in that their coops were too small, unclean and did not contain fresh food and water.
He was Fined £120.Order made under Section 33 Animal Welfare Act 2006 to deprive the defendant of ownership of the animal and for its disposal.
Rebecca Nicklas, 21, of Madeira Avenue, Leigh was in court for animal offences.
It's alleged on or before November 09 she allegedly did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely a brown rabbit were met to the extent required by good practice in that she allegedly failed to meet its need for a suitable environment, in that he was contained in a cage that was too small, with no access to daylight or exercise, or a place for hiding.
She was remanded on unconditional bail until September 6 for a case management hearing.
It's alleged she also allegedly did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 6 domestic cats were met to the extent required by good practice in that she allegedly failed to meet their need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and distress in that you failed to ensure they were effectively treated for parasites (fleas) and failed to provide proper and effective care for injuries caused.
She was remanded on unconditional bail until September 6 for a case management hearing.
It's alleged she did not take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which you were responsible, namely 5 Domestic chickens were met to the extent required by good practice in that she allegedly failed to meet their need for a suitable environment, in that their coops were too small, unclean and did not contain fresh food and water.
She was remanded on unconditional bail until September 6 for a case management hearing.