Ceetal Mattoo, or Woodhouse Close, Hayes, was filmed by a bell camera dragging and kicking his dog, poppy, along Pinkwell Lane.
The 42 -year -old man declared himself guilty not to ensure that the needs of the women’s bulldog are satisfied, unlike the 2006 Animal Welfare Law.
He was sentenced on March 20 at the Uxbridge Magistrates Court.
In addition to the disqualification, Mattoo received a community order of 12 Monh under which he has to complete 80 hours of unpaid work.
You also have to pay the judicial costs of £ 400 and a surcharge of the victim of £ 114.
The Court was tolerated from the reports investigated by witnesses that Poppy had been attacked by its owner.
Accompanied by the police, the RSPCA inspector Mike Beaman sat the dog and touched her to be evaluated by a veterinarian at the RSPCA Finsbury Park hospital on July 11 last year.
A veterinarian who examined the six -year -old dog said that he suffered slight lameness and that there was swelling inside a leg and under an elbow, as well as some minor lesions of the skin, Althhehegh concluded that the thesis was the signs of dropout.
He treated the dog with analgesics.
The fat concluded that even if the defendant’s dog’s abuse would not have caused lesions with lust, he would still have a painful leg for her.
He added: “Poppy seemed to have a clear response to fear in the presence of its owner that she did not exhibit elsewhere.
“These included trying repeatedly from moving away or hiding from the owner and covering themselves with their low -tail hero.”
In mitigation, it was said that Mattoo, who signed the property of the dog about the RSPCA, had experienced mental health problems.
Since then, the poppy has been relocated by the animal beneficial organization.
Speaking after the sentence, Beaman said the inspector: “Poppy’s mental well -being was clearly affected by the way she was treated by its owner and seemed to be a very reactive dog.
“These problems could have been avoided through the appropriate management by its owner and their behavior while in our care, it does not fear people when it is handled attentively and appropriately.”
Mattoo was convicted of not taking reasonable measures to ensure that the needs of an animal, for which he was a response, was to the extent of good practices.
This included not satisfying a combination of the following welfare needs: an adequate environment, the ability to exhibit normal behavior patterns and protection against pain, suffering, injuries or disease.
This was subjecting the dog to the imposition of physical abuse and psychological anguish.
This was contrary to section 9 (1) of the Animal Welfare Law of 2006.
