Arron Croston and June Pickup's Social Media Accounts
Know a Social Media Account Linked to Arron Croston and June Pickup?
Want to add information? Log in to your account to contribute accounts and phone numbers.
ARRON CROSTON AND JUNE PICKUP FROM BIRKENHEAD SENTENCED FOR CRUELTY TO DOG SHY IN HARROWING CASE
Arron Croston, born on February 8, 1991, and June Pickup, born in November 1991, both residents of Birkenhead, found themselves at the center of a heartbreaking case involving the neglect and suffering of a beloved family dog. The two individuals pleaded guilty to charges of causing unnecessary suffering to their dog, a Neapolitan Mastiff named Shy, in a case that has shocked the local community and animal welfare advocates alike.Shy, who was 13 years old at the time, was brought to a veterinary surgery on July 9, 2021, by June Pickup, Croston’s girlfriend. The condition of the dog was so dire that the veterinary staff were immediately appalled and disturbed by her state. She was unable to stand on her own and was suffering from severe pain, prompting the vets to contact the RSPCA for urgent intervention. The veterinary team’s examination revealed a series of untreated health issues, including advanced cancer, deep pressure sores caused by prolonged periods of being left on hard surfaces, an infected ear riddled with maggots, and other signs of neglect that had persisted for weeks.
Subsequent autopsy findings confirmed the severity of her suffering. The examination uncovered that Shy had been subjected to neglect over an extended period, with her condition deteriorating to a point where her quality of life was severely compromised. The vets from the University of Liverpool stated that her suffering had been ongoing for weeks, and they expressed their concern that anyone could have recognized her urgent need for medical attention much earlier. Unfortunately, by the time she received help, her condition was critical, and her prognosis was grim.
Peter Mitchell, representing the RSPCA in prosecuting the case, described Shy’s health as being in a state of severe, chronic pain. He emphasized that her suffering was evident and prolonged, and that her owner, Croston, had not been living with her in the weeks leading up to her death. It was revealed that Croston had left the home he shared with Pickup following an affair, which contributed to his absence during her final days. During interviews, both Croston and Pickup claimed they had been unable to access veterinary care and were unaware of the full extent of Shy’s suffering, a claim that was met with skepticism given the visible signs of her condition.
Defense attorney Carl Nadim argued that Pickup had been under significant financial strain, struggling to support her four children and facing the threat of homelessness. He explained that when Croston left the household, Pickup took on the responsibility of caring for Shy, despite her own limited means and capacity to provide proper care. Nadim emphasized that Pickup was doing her best under difficult circumstances, stating, “He left the dog with Miss Pickup and she assumed ownership of it. Financially, she was under pressure. Financially, she was struggling. There was no support from Mr Croston. Everything just got on top of Miss Pickup.”
It was noted that Croston, although the registered owner of Shy, had not been living with her during her final weeks. While he expressed remorse during interviews, claiming he loved Shy “like a daughter” and that he was sorry for his role, he maintained that he had visited her regularly. However, the court was critical of Croston’s lack of responsibility, with Judge Brian Cummings, QC, condemning his failure to care for the dog he was legally responsible for. The judge stated, “It is an unattractive feature of the case that it is plain from what you said to the probation officer that you diminish your responsibility. It does not matter that she was staying with your partner at the time. She was your dog and she was your responsibility.”
In sentencing, Croston received a 12-week jail term, suspended for 18 months, along with a ten-year ban on owning animals. The ban can be appealed after five years, but it underscores the court’s stance on animal cruelty and neglect. The case has left a lasting impact on the community of Birkenhead, highlighting the importance of animal welfare and the consequences of neglecting those who cannot speak for themselves.