MARK SCOTT FROM NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE FACES 10-YEAR ANIMAL BAN OVER PET CRUELTY IN FAWDON AND SOUTH SHIELDS

Mark Scott, born on May 3, 2001, and residing on Hillsview Avenue in Fawdon, Newcastle upon Tyne, has been found guilty of neglecting his responsibilities towards animals in his care. The case centers around his failure to intervene in the mistreatment and neglect of multiple pets at the shared residence he occupied with his brother, Steven Scott, in Vine Street, South Shields.

Despite giving his brother, Steven Scott, a monthly allowance of £30 intended for pet food, Mark Scott did little to ensure that the animals received proper nourishment. During investigations, it was revealed that the cats living at the property were significantly underfed, losing approximately 20% of their body weight. One of the cats, a three-year-old named Shadow, was found to be 1.1 kilograms below his ideal healthy weight, indicating severe malnutrition. The female tabby, Tiger, was also visibly thin, further highlighting the neglect.

Tragically, some of the pets suffered fatal outcomes. Two cats, Cuddles and Shankly, died under circumstances linked to neglect; one had effectively starved to death, while the other was euthanized due to poor health. Additionally, a dog named Lara, along with two other cats, required extensive care and nursing to recover from their suffering.

Steven Scott, Mark’s brother, pleaded guilty last month to five charges of animal cruelty and was subsequently handed an indefinite ban from owning or caring for animals. This ban was imposed in April 2021, following his conviction. Mark Scott, who works as a warehouse worker, has now pleaded guilty to a single charge of failing to prevent another person from causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

During the court proceedings, RSPCA prosecutor Alex Bousfield explained that Mark Scott had been “let down” by his brother during the period starting from January 4, 2020. Bousfield detailed that both brothers were living at the Vine Street address with several animals, including cats and a dog, with Steven Scott primarily responsible for their care. Despite Mark Scott’s financial contribution of £30 per month for pet food, it became evident during the investigation that the animals’ suffering continued unabated.

Mr. Bousfield emphasized that while Mark Scott was aware of the issues and had attempted to get his brother to address the situation, he ultimately allowed the animals to endure neglect. He acknowledged that it was difficult to determine the exact healthy weight for Tiger due to her young age but noted that both cats, now rehomed, scored only two out of nine on the RSPCA’s health assessment chart and were plagued by flea infestations.

Defense lawyer David Forrester stated that Mark Scott had no previous convictions and was not accused of deliberately underfeeding the animals. He explained that Mark was present in the house from December until the RSPCA intervention and that he provided a full account of his actions during questioning. Forrester argued that Mark believed he was giving his brother the money to feed the pets and was unaware of the extent of their suffering, thus making him legally culpable for their neglect.

Magistrates initially noted that Mark Scott had denied the charge but changed his plea to guilty on the day of the trial. They informed him that he could apply to have his animal ban lifted after two years. The court ordered Mark Scott to pay fines and costs totaling £796 and imposed a 10-year ban on keeping animals. However, he retains the right to appeal this ban after two years, should he choose to do so.