SPCA prosecutes Auckland woman for keeping her cat permanently in a cage

January 23, 2019

An Auckland woman has been prosecuted for keeping her cat permanently confined in a cage.

According to the SPCA, the woman, who is not named, pleaded guilty to two charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 in Waitakere District Court.

The charges were failing to ensure the physical health and behavioural needs of an animal are met and willfully obstructing or hindering an SPCA inspector in the exercise of their powers.

The second charge stems from the woman being obstructive and abusive to SPCA inspectors.

The SPCA says on April 5 last year one of their inspectors responded to calls about a woman living in a bus shelter and keeping her cat, Sugar Babe, in a cage.

The woman then told the SPCA Inspector she was the owner of the cat and that she rotated it between two cages, explaining that Sugar Babe was never let out of the cage as she had previously wriggled out of her harness and escaped.

According to the SPCA, the woman became verbally aggressive and abusive, pushing the inspector’s arm and telling him that she did not want his help.

She also refused multiple requests to give the SPCA inspector her full name and date of birth, an offence under the Animal Welfare Act.

After another call regarding the caged cat at the bus shelter on April 14, two SPCA inspectors reportedly found the cat in the cage with food but no water and her owner not present.

While attempting to take Sugar Babe into their care, the inspectors were then accosted by the woman who emerged from nearby shops shouting and swearing at them, they alleged. She then took the cat and released it at a nearby school, and it hasn't been seen since.

"This is an incredibly disappointing and unnecessary situation, an SPCA spokesperson said. "If the defendant had been willing to work with our SPCA inspectors, we could have ensured the right outcome for her cat." 

The woman was disqualified from owning or exercising authority of any animal for 10 years, fined $400 and ordered to pay solicitor’s costs. 

SHARE ME

More Stories