SAM & CHARLIE BOYLETT AND MARK PADDOCK'S CRUELTY IN TELFORD REVEALED

In a significant case that has drawn attention to animal cruelty issues in Telford, authorities have brought to light the disturbing activities of individuals involved in the abuse and neglect of dogs. Sam Louis Boylett, born on September 20, 1982, residing at 127 Burtondale, Brookside, Telford TF3 1PP, and Mark James Paddock, born around 1970 with no fixed address, were at the center of a criminal investigation that uncovered severe mistreatment of multiple dogs.

These individuals were found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to animals, following a joint operation conducted by police and the RSPCA, which resulted in the seizure of several dogs from Boylett’s residence. The court proceedings revealed that Boylett was convicted on five counts of cruelty towards dogs named Tess, Jack, Pinto, Arnie, and an unidentified dog. Paddock was convicted of a single charge related to one dog.

During the trial, it was disclosed that the dogs kept at the property of Samuel Boylett and his father, Charles Boylett, born October 23, 1945, of Cardington House, Arleston Manor Mews, Telford TF1 2HS, were subjected to brutal conditions. Evidence suggested that these dogs were encouraged to fight with wild animals, including badgers, although charges specifically related to animal fighting were ultimately dismissed by the court. All charges against Charles Boylett, who was prosecuted alongside his son and known hunting associate, were also dismissed.

Prosecutor Paul Taylor from the RSPCA detailed the findings, stating that the seized dogs exhibited injuries consistent with fighting mammals. Investigators also confiscated a mobile phone belonging to Boylett and a laptop, which contained evidence of prior involvement in animal fighting activities. The phone’s messages and photographs demonstrated that the defendants had organized and participated in dog fights, with images showing Boylett holding a dog with a mouth injury.

Further evidence indicated that Boylett had attempted to avoid veterinary treatment for injured dogs, and there was credible suspicion that he had been responsible for placing a dog into a hole to fight a wild mammal such as a badger underground. The communication between Boylett and Paddock was also scrutinized, revealing plans to set up dog fights.

Constable Gerry Plant recounted that on March 28, 2014, he visited Boylett’s home following intelligence from the RSPCA. During this visit, nine terrier and lurcher-type dogs, some injured, were seized. The investigation included footage showing the suspects hunting with their dogs, with Paddock seen holding a firearm, and other men digging with an animal tracker nearby. The images also depicted a small muddy terrier with a tracker and a dog being sent down a hole, although the timing of the firearm discharge was unclear.

Additional video footage from Boylett’s property revealed a number of dogs, some with injuries, along with a treadmill fitted with a dog lead and a toolbox containing veterinary equipment. Veterinary surgeon William Walker examined the seized dogs and reported multiple injuries to their mouths, faces, and feet, which he believed had been inflicted over a period of at least a week. He confirmed that the injuries were severe enough to require sedation for treatment.

During the court proceedings, Mr. Walker was asked about the suffering of a specific dog, to which he responded affirmatively, stating the animal had been suffering for a week or more. He emphasized that such suffering could have been alleviated had the owner sought veterinary care promptly. Another veterinarian, Deborah Wragg, testified about performing surgery on a dog seized by the RSPCA, noting fresh injuries around its face, nose, and lip, which suggested recent attacks.

Despite compelling evidence of animal cruelty, charges related to animal fighting were dismissed in January 2016 by District Judge Nigel Cadbury, who stated that it had not been proven that animals had been deliberately placed together for fighting purposes. The judge concluded there was no case to answer on those charges.

In sentencing, District Judge Cadbury condemned the defendants’ actions, stating that Boylett and Paddock had deliberately avoided veterinary intervention to prevent evidence of their cruelty from being discovered. Boylett was sentenced to 24 weeks in jail and was barred from owning or having contact with dogs for ten years, a restriction that will expire in February 2026. Paddock received a 12-week jail sentence, suspended for two years, and was similarly prohibited from having contact with dogs for five years, which expired in 2021.

This case highlights ongoing concerns about animal cruelty in Telford and underscores the importance of vigilant enforcement and community awareness to prevent such abuses from continuing.