Middlesbrough: Neil Souter

#TheList Neil Patrick Souter, born 29/11/1960, of Blakey Walk, Middlesbrough TS6 8BB – exposed his three dogs to extreme suffering

Neglected dogs belonging to Neil Souter from Middlesbrough
One of Neil Souter’s three neglected dogs

Souter denied his pet terriers Boyo, Vino and Baby veterinary treatment over a five-year period and allowed them to suffer severely, leaving one with an “oozing” tumour, and others with growths, blackened skin, and teeth problems.

Stewart Haywood, prosecuting, described the scene to the court:
“There was an unpleasant smell in the house and all three dogs were in poor condition.

“On arrival, Baby was asleep, but the inspector saw that she had fur loss.”

Neglected dogs belonging to Neil Souter from Middlesbrough
The dogs were suffering a range of medical and dental issues but their irresponsible owner had failed to take to them to the vet.

Baby also had tumorous masses on her bottom and right foot, leaving her unable to walk and suffering for “no less than two weeks”.

Mr Haywood added that Souter said he was “aware of the lump” and said Baby had had it for about “five years”.

“The defendant had an open bottle of alcohol and was seen to be under the influence”, he said.

“He then walked out of the house holding Vino shouting that the RSPCA were going to take the dog to put her to sleep.”

Souter eventually “calmed down” and let the inspector remove the dogs.

All three of the dogs had “black, thickened and flaky” skin from untreated disease likely caused by fleas, while Boyo and Vino had dental disease that caused suffering for “no less than six months”.

All three dogs were later euthanised or passed away from their catalogue of ailments.

Souter said he accepted ownership and “did what he could” when it came to the dogs’ health.

A probation officer told the court that Souter was “resistant” to questions and alleged photos of the neglect had been “tampered with” by the RSPCA.

His solicitor Paul McGee said his client, who had no previous convictions, is paranoid and believes “people are out to get him”.

He also submitted a string of other factors in mitigation, including that Souter was blind in one eye, had a fear of leaving home and was struggling after a string of family bereavements.

But district judge Natalie Wortley dismissed pleas for leniency: “This is a case that involved prolonged neglect and a high level of suffering.

“I have heard you were extremely loyal to those dogs and loved those dogs but you neglected them severely.”

Sentencing: 12 weeks in prison; ordered to pay a £115 victim surcharge. Disqualified from owning animals for five years.


4 thoughts on “Middlesbrough: Neil Souter”

  1. This photo is not Neil Souter find it discusting how you can print images without consent of people who are not involved in this article !!!

    1. We got the photo from Souter’s Facebook so it was a fair assumption this was him. I have updated the article with new photos and have removed the post from Facebook altogether.

      1. Damage probs already done but lesson to b learned DONT post photos you not sure about this man was well respected in this area shame on you assumptions should never be made FACTS should be your main priority when posting information

  2. Following a random Google search of Neil Souter on Friday, I came across your site and was horrified and distressed to discover the image you posted was not Neil but in fact his late brother, a dear friend who was well respected by all who knew him.
    I made others aware of this and have seen the above comments.
    Whilst I welcome the changes you have made to the article, I feel it is very bad practice, to say the least, to make ” fair assumptions” of this nature. I suggest in future you take the time to validate the accuracy of the information before making it available to the world.
    Sadly the person is not here to see this but the many people who cared and respected him are! Imagine if he was how that could have affected him or others who have found themselves in a similar position.
    The possible implications and repucussions to innocent peoples lives doesn’t bear thinking about.
    I hope in future you update your practice so this doesn’t happen to anyone else, I notice you didn’t even offer an appology?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *