Two teenagers have admitted the horrific torture and mutilation of two kittens.
The 16-year-old girl and 17-year-old boy, who cannot currently be named for legal reasons, each admitted causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and possession of a bladed article when they appeared at Highbury Youth Court on Tuesday, 20th May 2025.
Causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2004. The maximum sentence is 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. The maximum that the Youth Court could impose is a 2 year' detention and training order.
The offences took place on Saturday, 3rd May 2025. Members of the public saw the teenagers fleeing the scene near Ickenham Road, Ruislip and subsequently found the mutilated and dismembered bodies of two kittens.
Knives, scissors and a gas blow torch were found abandoned at the scene. These had clearly been used as implements of torture.
Valerie Benjamin, prosecuting, told the court: "On the day in question, members of the public have seen the defendants in possession of an animal carrier.
"At that point in time, it was clear that there were live animals in that carrier."
Ms Benjamin has gone on to describe the distressing condition of the kittens' bodies when they were discovered.
Neither of the defendants has previous convictions.
The court heard that there was evidence that the male defendant had mutilated animals in the past. There were past searches in relation to animal killing on his mobile phone. The girl, who is said to have "some interest in biology at school", has previously mutilated a rabbit.
Both defendants are said to have mental health difficulties.
District Judge Michael Oliver ordered pre-sentence reports and remanded the pair in local authority care until their sentencing on Monday, 23rd June 2025.
As readers of my "An Introduction to the Youth Court" article will be aware, the court is very constrained in how it deals with youth offenders - particularly those, as in this case, with no previous convictions.
The law presumes, rightly or wrongly, that youth defendants are automatically less culpable for their crimes.
Legislation dictates that a referral order must be imposed on any youth with no previous convictions who pleads guilty to any imprisonable offence, unless the court is considering an absolute discharge, conditional discharge, Mental Health Act order or custody.
Clearly a discharge or referral order is totally out of the question for offences of this severity. Although not inevitable, custody is a very distinct possibility.
Given their tender years the defendants are currently protected by a veil of anonymity. The moment they turn 18 that protection will automatically lapse and the media will be free to publish their details.
I am sure the cat lovers of north west London will be waiting with bated breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment