WIGAN WOMAN JUNE THISTLETON LET HER CAT OSCAR SUFFER WITH UNTREATED TUMOUR
| Red Rose Database
Wigan Animal Abuser
June Thistleton, born on 16 March 1959 and residing on Trent Road in Norley, Wigan, was found guilty in 2023 of neglecting her pet cat, Oscar, by failing to seek necessary veterinary treatment for a severe nasal tumour. The case highlights the tragic consequences of neglect and the importance of responsible pet ownership.
Oscar, the cat owned by Thistleton, suffered from a debilitating and ulcerated growth on his nose and upper lip. The condition was so severe that it ultimately led to his euthanasia. A post-mortem examination confirmed that the ulcer was caused by a malignant tumour, indicating that the cat had been suffering from a serious health issue for an extended period.
Thistleton admitted to causing her animal unnecessary suffering by neglecting to seek medical attention. The distressing case came to light after she failed to act promptly despite evident signs of illness. Oscar was left to endure pain and discomfort from the chronic ulcer, which was left untreated for weeks.
According to RSPCA inspector Rachel Whalley, the situation was brought to her attention when Thistleton contacted the Wigan branch clinic in late January 2023 to arrange an appointment for Oscar. During the call, Thistleton claimed that part of Oscar’s nose had fallen off. She subsequently canceled multiple scheduled appointments, and it was only three days later that another person managed to bring Oscar into the veterinary clinic for examination.
Upon assessment, the veterinarian discovered a large ulcerative lesion on Oscar’s upper lip extending to his nose. The vet suspected that the growth was cancerous. Given the extent of the lesion and the pain it caused, the veterinarian concluded that attempting treatment would only prolong Oscar’s suffering. As a result, euthanasia was deemed the most humane option to end his pain.
Inspector Whalley recounted her visit to Thistleton’s home, where the defendant claimed she had only recently noticed Oscar’s lesion. However, Whalley noted that a social worker who had visited the house in December had observed the lesion at that time—more than a month before Oscar was taken to the vet. Thistleton reportedly told the social worker she intended to take Oscar to the vet but was unable to afford it.
The veterinarian emphasized that Oscar had been in chronic pain due to the untreated tumour for many weeks. She expressed that a responsible pet owner should recognize signs of distress, such as nasal defects, sneezing, reluctance to groom, or difficulty eating, and seek veterinary care early. The failure to do so, she argued, caused unnecessary and prolonged suffering for Oscar.
Inspector Whalley condemned Thistleton’s neglect, stating that it was her legal duty to care for her pet and that neglecting to seek veterinary treatment was unacceptable. She stressed that this tragic case was entirely preventable and urged pet owners facing difficulties to seek help rather than allowing their animals to suffer.
Thistleton was sentenced to a 12-month community order, which included 20 days of rehabilitation activities and 60 hours of unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £200 in costs. The court did not impose a ban on owning animals in this case. The case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with pet ownership and the devastating consequences of neglect.
Oscar, the cat owned by Thistleton, suffered from a debilitating and ulcerated growth on his nose and upper lip. The condition was so severe that it ultimately led to his euthanasia. A post-mortem examination confirmed that the ulcer was caused by a malignant tumour, indicating that the cat had been suffering from a serious health issue for an extended period.
Thistleton admitted to causing her animal unnecessary suffering by neglecting to seek medical attention. The distressing case came to light after she failed to act promptly despite evident signs of illness. Oscar was left to endure pain and discomfort from the chronic ulcer, which was left untreated for weeks.
According to RSPCA inspector Rachel Whalley, the situation was brought to her attention when Thistleton contacted the Wigan branch clinic in late January 2023 to arrange an appointment for Oscar. During the call, Thistleton claimed that part of Oscar’s nose had fallen off. She subsequently canceled multiple scheduled appointments, and it was only three days later that another person managed to bring Oscar into the veterinary clinic for examination.
Upon assessment, the veterinarian discovered a large ulcerative lesion on Oscar’s upper lip extending to his nose. The vet suspected that the growth was cancerous. Given the extent of the lesion and the pain it caused, the veterinarian concluded that attempting treatment would only prolong Oscar’s suffering. As a result, euthanasia was deemed the most humane option to end his pain.
Inspector Whalley recounted her visit to Thistleton’s home, where the defendant claimed she had only recently noticed Oscar’s lesion. However, Whalley noted that a social worker who had visited the house in December had observed the lesion at that time—more than a month before Oscar was taken to the vet. Thistleton reportedly told the social worker she intended to take Oscar to the vet but was unable to afford it.
The veterinarian emphasized that Oscar had been in chronic pain due to the untreated tumour for many weeks. She expressed that a responsible pet owner should recognize signs of distress, such as nasal defects, sneezing, reluctance to groom, or difficulty eating, and seek veterinary care early. The failure to do so, she argued, caused unnecessary and prolonged suffering for Oscar.
Inspector Whalley condemned Thistleton’s neglect, stating that it was her legal duty to care for her pet and that neglecting to seek veterinary treatment was unacceptable. She stressed that this tragic case was entirely preventable and urged pet owners facing difficulties to seek help rather than allowing their animals to suffer.
Thistleton was sentenced to a 12-month community order, which included 20 days of rehabilitation activities and 60 hours of unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £200 in costs. The court did not impose a ban on owning animals in this case. The case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with pet ownership and the devastating consequences of neglect.