Vodka-soaked grandmother tried to stone her cat to death in her neighbour's waste bin

NEWS AND COMMENT-UK: The word "grandmother" conjures up the image of a benign, pleasant elderly lady who loves to be with her grandchildren and provides wise words of wisdom while sitting on her armchair with a loving cat on her lap. In the case of Pamela Mattison, 49, this image could not be further from the truth.

Mattison leaving court. It looks like she is enjoying the celebrity. Image: Cavendish Press.

She admits to dumping her cat in a neighbour's waste bin before trying to stone the cat to death using a brick. Apparently, she threw the brick four times into the wheelie bin with both hands. None made direct contact sufficient to kill the cat thankfully.

She was confronted by her neighbour into who's waste bin she had thrown her cat. The neighbour had heard a loud banging noise from the rear window of his property and he also heard the screams of what sounded like an animal.

He went to investigate and he saw Pamela Mattison standing by his waste bin. She was picking up a large brick and throwing it with two hands into the bin. She did this four times. The neighbour then opened the back door to his garden and asked what was going on.

Mattison fled to her backyard next door. The neighbour then called the police. Shortly afterwards Mattison returned to the bin and pulled her cat out. It appears that they were in a black bin bag. As she pulled the cat out, she asked her neighbour why her cat was in his bin.

She then marched off towards the local veterinarian but was detained by the police. The police constable saw that the cat was frightened and took him/her from Mattison.

The cat was distressed with injured legs. One of their paws was bleeding heavily. Mattison was arrested and admitted to committing animal cruelty offences.

Mattison's cat who survived Mattison's attempt to stone them to death but was injured. Image: Cavendish Press.

The cat was then taken to the Pet Medic Center in Worsley for treatment. They remained at the center for four days. On arrival they were unable to place weight on their hind legs. With great good luck they made a full recovery.

Madison agreed to sign over the cat to the police. It appears that the cat has been rehomed but we don't know the name of the owner which is normal.

Madison, we are told by the news media, had 13 previous offences but this was the first for animal cruelty.

At her trial, her defence counsel said that there was another large cat in the area which would harass the abused cat. Comment: is that relevant? It is not.

Also, in mitigation, her lawyer said that, "At the time she had come back from work and went for a bottle of vodka before letting a kitten out."

Apparently, Madison claimed that she threw the brick at the larger cat but then decided she would put her cat out of its misery because she had her cat by mistake. Believable? No.

Mattison was convicted of animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (although the act is not mentioned in the news media reports). Her punishment is to complete 20 hours rehabilitation activity days as well as 180 hours of unpaid work. She was referred to the Women's Problem-Solving Court where she will appear on November 6. Comment: is this to deal with her drinking habit which she appears to have?

The judge told Madison:

"The footage taken by the other party in the case shows a most despicable crime. It is quite sadistic to place the cat in the bin and then target it with such forceful blows. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that no further damage befell that poor creature. This particular animal got off lightly, although it was extraordinarily frightened. You have previous convictions for aggression, including domestic abuse convictions against your former and current partner. However, most of these offences are linked with excessive alcohol. You also have PTSD stemming from abuse you suffered as a child. Your behaviour can be addressed should you engage with probation."

Yes, the judge said that she was sadistic which is entirely correct. The case is interesting because it sheds some light on the contributory factor of alcohol leading to animal abuse. I suspect that many examples of animal abuse are as a result of alcohol abuse or drug abuse combined with a callous character.

It is also interesting for the fact that this is a grandmother albeit at the age of 49. I have a strong suspicion that she is a person of disreputable character and that her sadistic behaviour towards her cat is an extension of her unpleasant character. She smiled as she left court having avoided what might have been a prison sentence.

Are Your Living Conditions Unsuitable for Cat Welfare?

Are your living conditions suitable for your cat? Are your living conditions good enough for you but not good enough for your cat so that you could end up being prosecuted as a criminal in the United Kingdom under the Animal Welfare Act 2006? You might think that this is some sort of joke or spoof article but it is not because it actually happened to an amateur folksinger who lives in Hull, England.

Apparently, in the UK it is possible for a person to decide that their living conditions are suitable for them, although they might be poor living conditions in terms of clutter and lack of cleanliness, but aren't suitable and substandard for their cat if the RSPCA and the police say so.

The story concerns a lady whose name is Ms Nadian. I won't go into the full details but you can read about her story on this page. She was prosecuted for several things concerning her cats, one of which, incidentally, was failing to take a veterinarian's advice in euthanising one of her cats. As it happens, all the prosecutions were dropped due to a lack of sufficient evidence. In reality, it was the gradual dawning upon the prosecution (The Crown Prosecution Service) that this was a misguided prosecution.

Apparently, the RSPCA called the police requesting that they enter the lady's home to take her cats. We are told that the police failed to obtain a warrant to enter her home. The police forced the front door down claiming to exercise powers under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a provision which covers emergencies such as capturing fugitives. It was clearly inappropriate in this instance.

On entering her home both the RSPCA and the police state in witness statements that the living conditions for Ms Nadian were suitable in respect of cat welfare. They refer to strong smells clutter and filth. As I understand it, Ms Nadian would readily admit that she has difficulty in keeping her home tidy and clean for various reasons. She has been described as a vulnerable person but I would also describe her as a cat loving person and somebody who has a decent knowledge about the domestic cat.

I find it a little bit disturbing that the police and the authorities generally can decide that her living accommodation is suitable for a person but unsuitable for a cat. This, on my reading of this situation, is what has happened in this instance.

This whole matter has been badly handled, in my opinion. What this lady required was some help to perhaps tidy up her home and that simple matter would have resolved the whole thing. Ms Nadian's new veterinarian has undertaken to monitor her cats while this lady's bungalow has been cleaned and tidied. Problem solved.

Neither this lady nor her cats should not have been put through this highly stressful situation by an overzealous RSPCA and unthinking police. The whole matter was kick-started by a rather nasty veterinarian who disliked the fact that this lady disagreed with her regarding the euthanasia of one of her cats. The veterinarian reported her to the RSPCA for something which the lady was entitled to do, as it happens.

In any case, it would seem that quite possibly hundreds of thousands of people living in the UK who look after a cat or cats are open to a charge of failing to provide a suitable environment for their domestic cats to live in under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Do you find that rather shocking? I do.