DANNY CHURCHILL FROM ASHBROOKE FACES SUSPENDED PRISON SENTENCE OVER DOG FIGHTING IN SUNDERLAND

Daniel Churchill, a resident of Riversdale Terrace in Sunderland's Ashbrooke area, was brought before the court on serious charges related to animal cruelty. Born on September 19, 1993, Churchill was found guilty of forcing his lurcher, named Drift, to engage in violent fights with wild animals, and subsequently neglecting the dog’s injuries. The case drew significant attention due to the disturbing nature of the offences and Churchill’s apparent involvement in animal hunting activities.

The allegations surfaced after Drift was discovered wandering the streets of Sunderland in November 2018. The dog was promptly taken to a veterinary clinic, where it was found to have multiple injuries. The vet documented cuts and scratches across the dog’s face, neck, legs, and body. Some of these injuries appeared to be recent, while others showed signs of being several days old, indicating ongoing suffering. The nature of the wounds was consistent with injuries sustained during fights with wild animals, such as foxes.

Churchill initially claimed ownership of Drift when he contacted the vet, but the police had already seized the dog as part of their investigation. He later asserted that the dog had escaped from his kennel the night before Drift was found on the streets. During the court proceedings at South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, Churchill pleaded guilty to two charges related to animal cruelty.

Prosecutor Stewart Haywood from the RSPCA outlined the case, revealing that Churchill had called the vet to inquire about the dog’s condition. However, he was informed that Drift had been taken into police custody and that an investigation was underway. The vet’s examination confirmed that Drift had sustained scratch wounds on his shoulder, legs, and face. Some of these injuries were identified as being between three to four days old, with others being up to 48 hours old. The injuries matched those typically seen in animals involved in fights with predators like foxes.

Further investigation uncovered disturbing evidence on Churchill’s social media accounts. His Facebook profile contained multiple references and images that appeared to promote the hunting of animals using dogs. Among these were photographs of a dog chasing a fox, another of a dog with a fox biting it, and an image showing a dead fox. The prosecutor emphasized that these images demonstrated Churchill’s apparent glorification of hunting with dogs and indicated a high level of culpability. It was argued that Churchill deliberately caused suffering to his dog by using it in hunting activities, which involved violent encounters with wild animals.

As part of the court’s ruling, it was noted that Drift had since been rehomed to a new owner, away from Churchill’s care. Churchill’s defense lawyer, Tom Morgan, contested some of the evidence, claiming that the Facebook images were from a disused account and did not depict the dog in question. Morgan insisted that Churchill’s primary concern had always been the welfare of the animal and that he had made efforts to retrieve Drift. He acknowledged that Churchill had not provided proper care for the dog and accepted that he would not be able to regain custody.

In mitigation, Morgan argued that Churchill was capable of rehabilitation and had learned a lesson from the incident. The court ultimately sentenced Churchill to an 18-week prison term, suspended for two years, contingent upon his completion of a rehabilitation program. Additionally, Churchill was ordered to pay costs amounting to £500 and was banned from keeping any animals for a period of ten years, a ban that will last until June 2029. The judge emphasized the seriousness of the offences and the importance of animal welfare, sending a clear message about the consequences of cruelty and illegal hunting activities in the Sunderland area.