CONVICTED (2020) | Deirdre Sheridan, born 14 May 1971, and son Martin Sheridan aka Cillian Walker, born 2 September 1996, both of 36 Callan Bridge Park, Armagh BT60 4BU – starved and neglected their pet cocker spaniel

In what was described in court as a “shocking case of neglect”, Deirdre and Martin Sheridan failed to look after their three-year-old cocker spaniel, who had to be put to sleep to end her suffering.

A vet assessed the dog, known as Chloe, as having have a body condition score of zero out of nine – the optimum being five. She was skin and bone with matted fur and smelled strongly of urine.

Deirdre Sheridan pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal while her son Martin Sheridan offered a plea to failing to take reasonable steps to ensure an animal’s needs were met.

Prosecuting barrister Malcolm Irvine outlined how on March 13, 2018, a vet at an out-of-hours service was contacted by Ms Sheridan regarding Chloe. She informed the vet that her dog had been suffering from vomiting and diarrhea for approximately six weeks. She stated that the dog had been fine that morning but had then collapsed at 3pm before her condition worsened.

The vet told Ms Sheridan to bring the dog to the surgery. She later arrived accompanied by Martin Sheridan, in a taxi with the dog.

Sadly, Chloe was so poorly the vet decided that the only option was to euthanise her.

The vet estimated that Chloe had suffered for several weeks. She also commented that the dog had been relying on her muscle for energy and could have been saved if she had been brought for treatment at an earlier stage.

On March 22, 2018, officers from the Animal Welfare Service attended Deirdre Sheridan’s home and found a Jack Russell who was registered to Martin Sheridan. That dog was found to be in reasonable condition but was nevertheless seized and with the permission of the defendant has since been re-homed.

Her defence barrister, Scott McWhinney, informed the court that his client was suffering from personal and mental health issues at the time of this incident

He commented that there was evidence that Ms Sheridan had ordered food online to address the issue of the dog’s body mass but it was accepted as being “too little, too late”.

Mr McWhinney also outlined the defendant’s attachment to the dog, which had been in her care since a puppy. He commented that during police interview she even referred to Chloe as “the child”.

Representing Martin Sheridan, defence barrister Patrick Taggart informed the court that his client did not reside at the address but would have called in the morning to check on the dogs.

He stated that the defendant had been “very distressed by what had occurred”. He called on the district judge not to ban his client from keeping animals as it would affect his employment.

District Judge Paul Copeland stated: “It would have been, could have been, should have been obvious the deterioration in this dog.”

Addressing Deirdre Sheridan, he commented that other factors “had impacted on her judgement and had almost blinded her”, adding she was not “fit for the foreseeable” to have care or custody of an animal.

In the case of Martin Sheridan, District Judge Copeland stated: “On this occasion you were torn between the condition of the dog and your mother’s difficulties. In this you chose an unusual course not to act.”

Sentencing: both defendants were ordered to pay a fine of £250, along with costs of £150 each within 15 weeks. Deirdre Sheridan was also disqualified from keeping animals for five years (expires November 2025).

ArmaghI