Prosecuted: the woman killed her beloved pet cat trying to cure its limp
Bournemouth Daily Echo, Tuesday 9th October 2012 in News
A WOMAN accidentally killed her cat after giving it paracetamol to treat a limp.
Claire Pritchard gave Midnight a quarter of 500 milligram tablet twice over two days after noticing it was limping.
The drug is poisonous to cats and Midnight died despite treatment.
She was prosecuted by the RSPCA and admitted causing unnecessary suffering and failure to protect the cat from suffering.
The 43-year-old from Mandale Road in West Howe was given a two-year conditional discharge.
Poole Magistrates Court also ordered her to pay £280 in costs.
RSPCA Inspector Graham Hammond, inset, told the Echo afterwards: “Mrs Pritchard said the cat came home and she noticed she was limping.
“She thought it may have been knocked over by a car.”
She gave the cat a quarter of a 500mg tablet followed by a second quarter the following morning.
The cat later collapsed and a family member called the RSPCA asking for help.
She was put on a saline drip to combat dehydration and boost her energy levels but died from organ failure.
Pritchard told the RSPCA she thought cats could take paracetamol because she believed she had seen her mother do it as a child.
“That could have been a cat medicine,” said Insp Hammond, adding: “This case is a warning to other people. She had the use of the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals which is a free service but chose not to use it.
“This cat needlessly died because she administered a substance that is poisonous to cats.
“A cat cannot digest paracetamol the same way a human can because it doesn’t have the same enzyme that is required.
“If you suspect your animal has got an injury refer it to a veterinary surgeon every time.”
The incident occurred between June 19 and 21 2012.
Comments(22)
whataboutthat says...8:59am Tue 9 Oct 12
I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out? Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper! whataboutthat
muscliffman says...\9:09am Tue 9 Oct 12
There was absolutely no ill intent so why prosecute? Making a mistake is not a criminal offence and I am sure the loss of the poor cat through your own stupidity is a big enough price to pay. Unless something is not being told here it may be time to reconsider my regular RSPCA donation, this is not what I intended it to be used for. muscliffman
Bohochic72 says...9:16am Tue 9 Oct 12
Why prosecute when, as it was reported, there was no cruelty intended? There are so many mistreated animals out there whose owners get off - chase them rather than someone who tried to help an injured pet and made a mistake. Obviously she was an easy target to keep the conviction figures up. @muscliffman - I make my donation to PDSA as more of it goes to actual pet care. Bohochic72
a.g.o.g. says...9:16am Tue 9 Oct 1
whataboutthatwrote: I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out? Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper.
Jobsworths! Did they also perform a post mortem to be sure that it was the paracetamol that caused the cats death and not trauma caused by whatever had happened to cause it to limp? Many cats by instinct manage to run from a car collision to then die later in solitude. Whatever, well intended actions to reduce any animals agonies or ills do not deserve this kind of Pantomime performance. a.g.o.g.
Jim_Springbourne says...9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
I am a cat lover and cannot agree with this prosecution. The poor lady accidentally killed her cat through ignorance and will have suffered enough grief - I know if I did such a thing, I would not be able to forgive myself. Why compound things with a needless, pointless prosecution that was not in the public interest. She should have been given an absolute discharge, and the RSPCA a rocket for bringing the case in the first place. Jim_Springbourne
High Treason says...9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
The costs and sentence were a bit harsh but as was stated, she could have used the PDSA if money was tight. She was lazy and chose an easy cheap option. Misguided maybe but she did cause the cat unnecessary suffering. High Treason
afcb-mark says...9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
I actually feel quite sorry for her. She didn't intentionally poison the cat rather thought she was helping it. A bit silly but not malicious. What next, lock someone up who gives a dog chocolate as that is poisonous to dogs and could kill them, but how many people know that. afcb-mark
Your reporter in spain says...9:25am Tue 9 Oct 12
Ridiculous ,we can all make mistakes even when trying to do the best for our animals - that prosecution was completely unnecessary With the cost of vets being so high it's hardly surprising people will try their own remedy. Your reporter in spain
rayc says...9:29am Tue 9 Oct 12
Typical of the UK. Graham Hammond should take a long hard look at himself and ponder on why he is so malicious. rayc
nosuchluck54 says...9:30am Tue 9 Oct 12
afcb-mark wrote: I actually feel quite sorry for her. She didn't intentionally poison the cat rather thought she was helping it. A bit silly but not malicious. What next, lock someone up who gives a dog chocolate as that is poisonous to dogs and could kill them, but how many people know that.[/p][/quote]I am afraid that anyone who thinks that giving animals drugs without advice,should not have the responsibilty of having pets and if the report is correct and the animal suffered then the owner deserves to be punished nosuchluck54
Morrigan says...9:31am Tue 9 Oct 12
As a cat owner, I am fully aware of the dangers of paracetamol - but I would bet most people are not. There may be more to this story than is printed here, but as it stands I would definitely say the RSPCA should not have taken this to court. It does not appear to have been done with intent to harm the cat and I expect the poor woman has been through enough knowing she caused the death of her own cat. People who deliberately hurt animals and mistreat them get off more lightly than this lady. What a waste of time and money - the RSPCA being "holier-than-thou" big time ........ but when I called them a couple of years ago after I found an abandoned pet rabbit they refused to help in any way and I had to take it to the PDSA, who kindly took it in. The RSPCA should have taken the case as a unfortunate incident and used it to educate people - not prosecute them. Morrigan
Buddles says...9:31am Tue 9 Oct 12
I agree with all of you. On the outside it looks like "death by misadventure" to use a human inquest term. Unless there is something we haven't been told this is just a tragic outcome. As an ex vet nurse it was quite common for cat owners to ask if paracetamol was OK for cats....the answer was always an emphatic "no" due to its toxicity in cats. Yes a quick phone call or a trip to the PDSA would have prevented this but involving the RSPCA as a case of deliberate suffering, I fail to see this unless we haven't been told the full story. Buddles
rayc says...9:34am Tue 9 Oct 12
I wonder if she had not "admitted causing unnecessary suffering and failure to protect the cat from suffering" and instead pleaded Not Guilty what the outcome would have been. Even if the Magistrate had found her guilty I wonder if on appeal whether a higher court, presided over by a judge, would have done so? rayc
nosuchluck54 says...9:39am Tue 9 Oct 12
And of course paracetamol is well known to cure limp.Gentlemen take note nosuchluck54
sussexcherry says...9:44am Tue 9 Oct 12
Misguided yes, deliberate no. The lady concerned must be devastated at losing her cat, when all she was trying to do was to help it, and it goes without saying that the poor cat must have suffered terribly. This lady is only 43, she is not a 'doddering old dear' as the phrase goes, so she should have been more responsible and as Buddles says above, at least made a quick phone call to a vet. Personally, I can't stand cats, but if this highlights the dangers of Paracetomol to them then it is a good outcome,and maybe will stop it occuring again. I agree with other posters the the sentence is disproportionate. sussexcherry
Eddie's dog says...9:59am Tue 9 Oct 12
The cat may have thought it would help, because the 'parrots eat them all'........ Eddie's dog
summerchild says...10:06am Tue 9 Oct 12
The PDSA will only help if you're on benefits so if she wasn't they would have been no use at all. I stopped supporting the RSPCA years ago after reading about a pensioner who was prosecuted for his dog being too fat !!! Seems at times, that the RSPCA is only after prosecuting the easy options, shame on you Graham Hammond and shame on the RSPCA. summerchild
elite50 says...10:07am Tue 9 Oct 12
Well, look on the bright side. Think of all the local wildlife given a new lease on life! elite50
mysticalshoelace says...10:36am Tue 9 Oct 12
The paracetamol may have been ignorance but not taking it to the vet when you think it's been hit by a car is downright neglect!
The Renegade Master says...10:37am Tue 9 Oct 12
Seriously, what kind of an idiot wouldn't take their cat to a vet or the PDSA if they suspected it had been hit by a car? And then to feed it human medicine because it had a limp beggars belief? Where on Earth is this woman's common sense? She should have received a huge fine and been banned from keeping animals for life. The Renegade Master
uvox44 says...11:08am Tue 9 Oct 12
think the reason she was prosecuted was that she didn't take her cat to the vets when she should of - either for free treatment at the PDSA or paid treatment elsewhere - any pet is an expensive responsibility , as i know as i have a cat. Imagine if they hadn't prosecuted - every owner who wanted to get rid of an unwanted pet would then be "accidentally" poisioning them trying to help-at least that would be their get out. WELL DONE RSPCA! all she had to do was ring for advice or look on the internet afterall. uvox44
ashleycross says...11:24am Tue 9 Oct 12
I am pleased to see this silly woman being prosecuted as judging by this column there loads more people out there who are a danger to their pets and so making an example of her is going to help the pets they have control of..
What causes the confusion over whether to give human medicine to animals is the fact that cats and other animals are used in drug testing for drugs to be given to humans. I believe that the organisations that are against this point out that the fact that a drug works for an animal doesn't prove that it will work for humans and may be dangerous for them.
(GS - a small instance of typical PR twist here - and it hasn't been picked up by anybody in the comments - but I'm willing to bet the idea behind giving paracetamol was to ease pain, and not to 'cure a limp'. All people attacked by the RSPCA and subjected to demonisation through their media releases get this kind of warped reportage to make them look not only like 'criminals' but also like idiots.)
A WOMAN accidentally killed her cat after giving it paracetamol to treat a limp.
Claire Pritchard gave Midnight a quarter of 500 milligram tablet twice over two days after noticing it was limping.
The drug is poisonous to cats and Midnight died despite treatment.
She was prosecuted by the RSPCA and admitted causing unnecessary suffering and failure to protect the cat from suffering.
The 43-year-old from Mandale Road in West Howe was given a two-year conditional discharge.
Poole Magistrates Court also ordered her to pay £280 in costs.
RSPCA Inspector Graham Hammond, inset, told the Echo afterwards: “Mrs Pritchard said the cat came home and she noticed she was limping.
“She thought it may have been knocked over by a car.”
She gave the cat a quarter of a 500mg tablet followed by a second quarter the following morning.
The cat later collapsed and a family member called the RSPCA asking for help.
She was put on a saline drip to combat dehydration and boost her energy levels but died from organ failure.
Pritchard told the RSPCA she thought cats could take paracetamol because she believed she had seen her mother do it as a child.
“That could have been a cat medicine,” said Insp Hammond, adding: “This case is a warning to other people. She had the use of the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals which is a free service but chose not to use it.
“This cat needlessly died because she administered a substance that is poisonous to cats.
“A cat cannot digest paracetamol the same way a human can because it doesn’t have the same enzyme that is required.
“If you suspect your animal has got an injury refer it to a veterinary surgeon every time.”
The incident occurred between June 19 and 21 2012.
Comments(22)
whataboutthat says...8:59am Tue 9 Oct 12
I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out? Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper! whataboutthat
muscliffman says...\9:09am Tue 9 Oct 12
There was absolutely no ill intent so why prosecute? Making a mistake is not a criminal offence and I am sure the loss of the poor cat through your own stupidity is a big enough price to pay. Unless something is not being told here it may be time to reconsider my regular RSPCA donation, this is not what I intended it to be used for. muscliffman
Bohochic72 says...9:16am Tue 9 Oct 12
Why prosecute when, as it was reported, there was no cruelty intended? There are so many mistreated animals out there whose owners get off - chase them rather than someone who tried to help an injured pet and made a mistake. Obviously she was an easy target to keep the conviction figures up. @muscliffman - I make my donation to PDSA as more of it goes to actual pet care. Bohochic72
a.g.o.g. says...9:16am Tue 9 Oct 1
whataboutthatwrote: I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out? Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper.
Jobsworths! Did they also perform a post mortem to be sure that it was the paracetamol that caused the cats death and not trauma caused by whatever had happened to cause it to limp? Many cats by instinct manage to run from a car collision to then die later in solitude. Whatever, well intended actions to reduce any animals agonies or ills do not deserve this kind of Pantomime performance. a.g.o.g.
Jim_Springbourne says...9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
I am a cat lover and cannot agree with this prosecution. The poor lady accidentally killed her cat through ignorance and will have suffered enough grief - I know if I did such a thing, I would not be able to forgive myself. Why compound things with a needless, pointless prosecution that was not in the public interest. She should have been given an absolute discharge, and the RSPCA a rocket for bringing the case in the first place. Jim_Springbourne
High Treason says...9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
The costs and sentence were a bit harsh but as was stated, she could have used the PDSA if money was tight. She was lazy and chose an easy cheap option. Misguided maybe but she did cause the cat unnecessary suffering. High Treason
afcb-mark says...9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12
I actually feel quite sorry for her. She didn't intentionally poison the cat rather thought she was helping it. A bit silly but not malicious. What next, lock someone up who gives a dog chocolate as that is poisonous to dogs and could kill them, but how many people know that. afcb-mark
Your reporter in spain says...9:25am Tue 9 Oct 12
Ridiculous ,we can all make mistakes even when trying to do the best for our animals - that prosecution was completely unnecessary With the cost of vets being so high it's hardly surprising people will try their own remedy. Your reporter in spain
rayc says...9:29am Tue 9 Oct 12
Typical of the UK. Graham Hammond should take a long hard look at himself and ponder on why he is so malicious. rayc
nosuchluck54 says...9:30am Tue 9 Oct 12
afcb-mark wrote: I actually feel quite sorry for her. She didn't intentionally poison the cat rather thought she was helping it. A bit silly but not malicious. What next, lock someone up who gives a dog chocolate as that is poisonous to dogs and could kill them, but how many people know that.[/p][/quote]I am afraid that anyone who thinks that giving animals drugs without advice,should not have the responsibilty of having pets and if the report is correct and the animal suffered then the owner deserves to be punished nosuchluck54
Morrigan says...9:31am Tue 9 Oct 12
As a cat owner, I am fully aware of the dangers of paracetamol - but I would bet most people are not. There may be more to this story than is printed here, but as it stands I would definitely say the RSPCA should not have taken this to court. It does not appear to have been done with intent to harm the cat and I expect the poor woman has been through enough knowing she caused the death of her own cat. People who deliberately hurt animals and mistreat them get off more lightly than this lady. What a waste of time and money - the RSPCA being "holier-than-thou" big time ........ but when I called them a couple of years ago after I found an abandoned pet rabbit they refused to help in any way and I had to take it to the PDSA, who kindly took it in. The RSPCA should have taken the case as a unfortunate incident and used it to educate people - not prosecute them. Morrigan
Buddles says...9:31am Tue 9 Oct 12
I agree with all of you. On the outside it looks like "death by misadventure" to use a human inquest term. Unless there is something we haven't been told this is just a tragic outcome. As an ex vet nurse it was quite common for cat owners to ask if paracetamol was OK for cats....the answer was always an emphatic "no" due to its toxicity in cats. Yes a quick phone call or a trip to the PDSA would have prevented this but involving the RSPCA as a case of deliberate suffering, I fail to see this unless we haven't been told the full story. Buddles
rayc says...9:34am Tue 9 Oct 12
I wonder if she had not "admitted causing unnecessary suffering and failure to protect the cat from suffering" and instead pleaded Not Guilty what the outcome would have been. Even if the Magistrate had found her guilty I wonder if on appeal whether a higher court, presided over by a judge, would have done so? rayc
nosuchluck54 says...9:39am Tue 9 Oct 12
And of course paracetamol is well known to cure limp.Gentlemen take note nosuchluck54
sussexcherry says...9:44am Tue 9 Oct 12
Misguided yes, deliberate no. The lady concerned must be devastated at losing her cat, when all she was trying to do was to help it, and it goes without saying that the poor cat must have suffered terribly. This lady is only 43, she is not a 'doddering old dear' as the phrase goes, so she should have been more responsible and as Buddles says above, at least made a quick phone call to a vet. Personally, I can't stand cats, but if this highlights the dangers of Paracetomol to them then it is a good outcome,and maybe will stop it occuring again. I agree with other posters the the sentence is disproportionate. sussexcherry
Eddie's dog says...9:59am Tue 9 Oct 12
The cat may have thought it would help, because the 'parrots eat them all'........ Eddie's dog
summerchild says...10:06am Tue 9 Oct 12
The PDSA will only help if you're on benefits so if she wasn't they would have been no use at all. I stopped supporting the RSPCA years ago after reading about a pensioner who was prosecuted for his dog being too fat !!! Seems at times, that the RSPCA is only after prosecuting the easy options, shame on you Graham Hammond and shame on the RSPCA. summerchild
elite50 says...10:07am Tue 9 Oct 12
Well, look on the bright side. Think of all the local wildlife given a new lease on life! elite50
mysticalshoelace says...10:36am Tue 9 Oct 12
The paracetamol may have been ignorance but not taking it to the vet when you think it's been hit by a car is downright neglect!
The Renegade Master says...10:37am Tue 9 Oct 12
Seriously, what kind of an idiot wouldn't take their cat to a vet or the PDSA if they suspected it had been hit by a car? And then to feed it human medicine because it had a limp beggars belief? Where on Earth is this woman's common sense? She should have received a huge fine and been banned from keeping animals for life. The Renegade Master
uvox44 says...11:08am Tue 9 Oct 12
think the reason she was prosecuted was that she didn't take her cat to the vets when she should of - either for free treatment at the PDSA or paid treatment elsewhere - any pet is an expensive responsibility , as i know as i have a cat. Imagine if they hadn't prosecuted - every owner who wanted to get rid of an unwanted pet would then be "accidentally" poisioning them trying to help-at least that would be their get out. WELL DONE RSPCA! all she had to do was ring for advice or look on the internet afterall. uvox44
ashleycross says...11:24am Tue 9 Oct 12
I am pleased to see this silly woman being prosecuted as judging by this column there loads more people out there who are a danger to their pets and so making an example of her is going to help the pets they have control of..
What causes the confusion over whether to give human medicine to animals is the fact that cats and other animals are used in drug testing for drugs to be given to humans. I believe that the organisations that are against this point out that the fact that a drug works for an animal doesn't prove that it will work for humans and may be dangerous for them.
(GS - a small instance of typical PR twist here - and it hasn't been picked up by anybody in the comments - but I'm willing to bet the idea behind giving paracetamol was to ease pain, and not to 'cure a limp'. All people attacked by the RSPCA and subjected to demonisation through their media releases get this kind of warped reportage to make them look not only like 'criminals' but also like idiots.)