DOUGLAS OLIPHANT AND MICHELLE WILKINSON FROM LYNEMOUTH CONVICTED OVER CRUEL ANIMAL CONDITIONS
| Red Rose Database
Lynemouth Animal Abuser
In a case that has drawn significant attention from animal welfare authorities, Douglas Oliphant and Michelle Wilkinson, both residents of Lynemouth, Morpeth, faced justice for their neglectful treatment of numerous animals kept within their home. The couple, residing at 107 Dalton Avenue, Lynemouth, was found to be responsible for the improper care of a total of 26 animals, including ducks, chickens, a dog, and two cats.
On July 27, 2021, the RSPCA conducted an inspection of their two-bedroom, mid-terraced house. The conditions inside were found to be severely inadequate for the animals’ wellbeing. The birds, which included 23 ducks and chickens, were confined in tiny, filthy cages. These cages consisted of plastic recycling crates covered with netting and rabbit hutches, all of which were overcrowded and unsanitary. Six cockerels were being kept together in a single recycling crate, a situation that clearly demonstrated a lack of proper space and care.
In addition to the poultry, the couple kept a dog and two cats in cages that were far too small to allow for natural movement or comfort. The cages lacked clean drinking water and suitable bedding, further highlighting the neglect. The animals were found covered in their own faeces, and the cages were similarly soiled, indicating a failure to maintain basic hygiene standards.
Despite the poor conditions, the RSPCA inspectors noted that the animals appeared to be fed and watered adequately, as there were no issues with their weight. However, the overall environment was so crowded and unsanitary that it posed a significant risk to their health. The inspection revealed that the housing was entirely unsuitable for the number of animals kept within the small dwelling, which was described as a case of hoarding rather than deliberate cruelty.
Prosecutor Alex Bousfield emphasized that the situation involved a large number of animals and that the conditions were detrimental to their welfare. He explained that only one duck showed minor health issues, related to its leg, which was not directly linked to the housing conditions. The court was told that Oliphant and Wilkinson did not intentionally harm the animals but lacked the knowledge and capability to care for them properly.
During the court proceedings, the defense attorney, Mr Harrison, stated that the retired couple had purchased the birds in an attempt to lead a simpler life. They had intended to keep the birds on their allotment, but the plans fell through as the allotment was not prepared in time. He described their situation as one of naivety and poor planning, which led to the animals’ needs outgrowing their initial expectations.
It was also revealed that the couple, who had been living in what was described as 'hoarding conditions,' had since cleaned and cleared their home. Despite the neglect, they were permitted to retain ownership of their two cats and the dog.
In sentencing, Oliphant and Wilkinson received a 12-month conditional discharge and were ordered to pay £300 in costs. They were also banned from keeping fowl for a period of 12 months, a ban that expired in December 2022. The case underscores the importance of proper animal care and the consequences of neglecting basic welfare standards.
On July 27, 2021, the RSPCA conducted an inspection of their two-bedroom, mid-terraced house. The conditions inside were found to be severely inadequate for the animals’ wellbeing. The birds, which included 23 ducks and chickens, were confined in tiny, filthy cages. These cages consisted of plastic recycling crates covered with netting and rabbit hutches, all of which were overcrowded and unsanitary. Six cockerels were being kept together in a single recycling crate, a situation that clearly demonstrated a lack of proper space and care.
In addition to the poultry, the couple kept a dog and two cats in cages that were far too small to allow for natural movement or comfort. The cages lacked clean drinking water and suitable bedding, further highlighting the neglect. The animals were found covered in their own faeces, and the cages were similarly soiled, indicating a failure to maintain basic hygiene standards.
Despite the poor conditions, the RSPCA inspectors noted that the animals appeared to be fed and watered adequately, as there were no issues with their weight. However, the overall environment was so crowded and unsanitary that it posed a significant risk to their health. The inspection revealed that the housing was entirely unsuitable for the number of animals kept within the small dwelling, which was described as a case of hoarding rather than deliberate cruelty.
Prosecutor Alex Bousfield emphasized that the situation involved a large number of animals and that the conditions were detrimental to their welfare. He explained that only one duck showed minor health issues, related to its leg, which was not directly linked to the housing conditions. The court was told that Oliphant and Wilkinson did not intentionally harm the animals but lacked the knowledge and capability to care for them properly.
During the court proceedings, the defense attorney, Mr Harrison, stated that the retired couple had purchased the birds in an attempt to lead a simpler life. They had intended to keep the birds on their allotment, but the plans fell through as the allotment was not prepared in time. He described their situation as one of naivety and poor planning, which led to the animals’ needs outgrowing their initial expectations.
It was also revealed that the couple, who had been living in what was described as 'hoarding conditions,' had since cleaned and cleared their home. Despite the neglect, they were permitted to retain ownership of their two cats and the dog.
In sentencing, Oliphant and Wilkinson received a 12-month conditional discharge and were ordered to pay £300 in costs. They were also banned from keeping fowl for a period of 12 months, a ban that expired in December 2022. The case underscores the importance of proper animal care and the consequences of neglecting basic welfare standards.