CONVICTED (2006) | Christopher Lees, born 21/01/1986, last known address Wilsford Close, Druids Heath, Birmingham B14 5PS – one of a group of four teenagers who filmed themselves repeatedly hurling a cat from a balcony
The individual shown is Christopher Lees, one of a group of four teenagers who filmed themselves repeatedly hurling a female cat named Kharlo 60ft from a balcony. Only Lees can ever be identified for legal reasons.
Kharlo limped off but was found by her owner, student Simone Warmington, and taken to the vet. She had suffered brain damage and multiple fractures and had to be put to sleep.
The mobile phone footage was shared with numerous parties before it was reported to police and the RSPCA. Lees is heard giving a running commentary as the callous group carry out their sadistic act of cruelty towards the defenceless ginger and white cat.
The prosecutor for the RSPCA said of the case: “The most disturbing feature is not only the sustained cruelty, but also that that was seen as entertainment – it was being done for no other reason than entertainment. These people were enjoying it and sending it around on phones.”
Miss Warmington described her heartbreak at losing her pet in such cruel circumstances: ” “I was absolutely devastated, I cried, I was distraught really. I couldn’t get my head around it. She would have been so scared, I will never forget it.
In July 2006 Lees pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and was sentenced to four months in prison. He was also banned from keeping animals for five years.
In August 2006 an unnamed 16-year-old girl was detained for four months and banned from keeping animal for ten years.
A 14-year-old girl was given a 12-month referral order for aiding and abetting the cruelty.
A fourth, 17-year-old youth was due to be sentenced in September 2006 but we’ve been unable to find details.
BBC News 14/07/2006
BBC News 01/08/2006
Update 2015
In May 2015 Lees was given a suspended prison sentence after harassing his ex-girlfriend in a revenge porn case.
Why Is Christopher Lees The Only One Who Can Be Identified. I Particularly Question: (What Legal Reasons Is This Exactly).
For Instance: (They Didn’t Hide The Identity Of The 2 Ten Year Olds Who Killed James Bulger). Therefore They Obviously (Should Be Named), So Everyone Knows Who They Are. These Very Disturbed Young Teenagers Are Not Safe Around Anything Or Anyone. Therefore The Public Have A Right To Know Who These Disturbed Young Individuals Are. You Wouldn’t Want Your Own Children Around Or Near These Disturbed Individuals.
Maria when you put a capital letter onto every word, it’s very difficult to understand or read.
Still Doesn’t answer my question, of why they With-Hold the Identities of Cruel Teenagers to Animals, especially when they Have Been Convicted.
They State: Cannot Be Named For Legal Reasons.
The times I have had this argument.
For Instance: The 2 Ten Year Olds, who killed toddler James Bulger, they Names Faces Pictures, were all over the tabloids, (Before They Were Even Convicted In Court).
So why is this the case. (This Proves it is obviously Not Illegal) and especially once they have been Convicted.
People have a right to know who these Disturbed Young Individuals are,. Would you want your Children bothering and hanging around with these Mentally Disturbed Teenagers, filming and killing innocent little pets.