A Fife puppy owner has admitted causing his pet unnecessary suffering by allowing tape or something similar to be placed around, and removed from, its muzzle.
Mario Boncompagni’s six-month old pet, Max, was seized by a Scottish SPCA inspector after they saw it with swelling and scabbing on its face.
The 42-year-old had failed to seek treatment for the injury and was fined £300 by a sheriff.
Dunfermline Sheriff Court heard an inspector had been called to his then-home in Lochgelly a month earlier when Boncompagni claimed he had to remove craft materials which had been fixed to the dog’s muzzle by children, resulting in hair loss.
He appeared in the dock to plead guilty to causing the dog unnecessary suffering between January 12 and February 13 2022.
Bomcompagni, now of Robertson Road, Dunfermline, admitted causing or allowing a piece of tape or similar item to be placed around and removed from Max’s muzzle to his injury.
He failed to obtain veterinary advice or treatment in relation to a full thickness bacterial infection of the soft tissue of the dog’s muzzle and face caused as a result of the injury.
Visible injuries
Prosecutor Charlotte Allan told the court that on February 13 2022 a Scottish SPCA inspector received a report from a witness about the dog with a swollen face and “skin hanging from its muzzle”.
The witness said she was struggling to look at the dog’s injury, the court heard.
When the inspector arrived they saw the dog in the garden and noticed its face looked unusual, with skin “sticking out,” the fiscal said.
Boncompagni refused the inspector access and said he would be “happy to allow” police in with a warrant.
The inspector advised taking Max to the vet as soon as possible and Boncompagni said he would do so the next morning.
The fiscal depute said: “(The inspector) asked him if he knew what had caused it and he said he was not sure but there had been a previous visit on January 12, whereby children were playing with craft material and stuck items to the dog’s muzzle which, once removed (by him), had caused the hair to come off.”
The inspector returned to her van and contacted police but then noticed the dog had been let out so approached it.
The fiscal said the inspector could “immediately smell the injury due to the infection”.
She noted the face and muzzle were very swollen and there was some scabbing.
The dog was seized and a vet examined it, noting the smell of infection, scabbing and an old wound around the muzzle area and an “obvious bacterial infection” of soft tissue.
‘He showed concern’
Defence lawyer Russel McPhate told the court the Scottish SPCA inspector on the earlier visit noted there “seemed to be no issue”.
He said: “Approximately three-to-four weeks later Mr Boncompagni noticed some swelling and it appeared it had been infected. He does not think it was the same injury.
“He tells me the dog was a puppy and put its nose through the fence to sniff at passers-by and had run-ins with a neighbouring cat.”
Mr McPhate said his client noticed an issue about ten days before the February 13 inspection but working full-time and studying part-time, had “not got round” to taking the dog to a vet.
The lawyer said first-time owner Boncompagni was in touch with the SSPCA every couple of days after the removal, adding: “He showed concern”.
Mr McPhate added: “From Mr Boncompagni’s point of view, the dog was in good condition other than this.
“This is a one-off situation and it appears to have been an otherwise healthy dog”.
Sheriff William Gilchrist fined Boncompagni £300 and made an order depriving him from owning the dog. No disqualification order was made.
A Scottish SPCA inspector said: “We are disappointed that Boncompagni was only issued a small fine.
“The dog was clearly suffering from a nasty bacterial infection in his mouth that exhibited a strong smell and caused significant swelling.
“There was obvious full thickness of soft tissue caused by the bacterial infection which affected the outside of dog’s mid muzzle and face, which ultimately lead to unnecessary suffering.
“Boncompagni failed to seek veterinary attention for this clearly noticeable condition, that the veterinary expert advised had been present for at least four weeks.
“The dog has since been rehomed, which is the positive outcome we all strive for.”
For more local court content visit our page or join us on Facebook.
