NEW FIGURES from the RSPCA suggest that prosecutions for animal cruelty are on the rise across Wales.

Throughout 2017, 148 convictions were secured by the RSPCA in magistrates’ across Wales, a four year high compared to 120 in 2016, 89 in 2015 and 116 in 2014.

One of the more severe cases from Wrexham involved a man and a woman in Hightown being banned from owning an animal for ten years after forcing their Staffordshire bull terrier to live in a cupboard.

Another Wrexham pair were been banned from keeping animals for life, after admitting causing unnecessary suffering to a golden retriever.

A serious case from Flintshire saw a man from Deeside being banned from owning dogs for ten years after neglecting his jack russell to the point where its foot had to be amputated due to the severity of an injury.

RSPCA Cymru’s superintendent Martyn Hubbard said: "It is extremely shocking and deeply saddening to see this level of horrific cruelty across Wales. The number of convictions secured now stand at a four-year high in Wales, with our inspectors dealing with disturbing and unique cases of deliberate abuse towards helpless animals.

"This evidence understandably causes great distress and public outcry. Thankfully due to valuable information being reported to us in confidence, we are able to investigate and bring any animal welfare offenders to justice.

"Prosecution is always a last resort for the RSPCA and court cases were the huge minority of the 28 complaints we investigated on average every single day of 2017. Nevertheless, the nature of cases dealt with by our frontline officers throughout 2017 once again demonstrates the importance of this work, and the necessity of securing justice for abused and neglected animals in all corners of the country."

In Wrexham there were 426 complaints that were investigated, whereas in Flintshire there were 515. The RSPCA say that complaints investigated can have any number of outcomes including prosecution and welfare advice, but may also include those where, upon looking into them, there was not sufficient evidence to take further action, or where there was no cause for concern.