Shaun and Colette Wray's Social Media Accounts
Know a Social Media Account Linked to Shaun and Colette Wray?
Want to add information? Log in to your account to contribute accounts and phone numbers.
SHAUN AND COLETTE WRAY CONVICTED FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY IN PONTEFRACT
Shaun Wray, born 3 May 1979, and Colette Wray, born 26 July 1979, residents of Pine Street, South Elmsall, Pontefract WF9 2LR, were convicted in 2025 for neglecting their American bulldog, leaving him in severe suffering with a critical skin condition, open wounds, and a growth on his leg.The Wrays faced prosecution by the RSPCA after they failed to seek veterinary care for six-year-old Eric. The dog suffered from sore, itchy skin, multiple lesions, and a large growth on his leg that hindered his mobility. Sadly, on veterinary advice, Eric was euthanized.
The couple claimed they had been attempting to treat Eric’s skin issues themselves, citing financial constraints, despite having purchased a nine-month-old spaniel-type puppy.
On June 23, 2024, RSPCA Inspector Leanne Booth visited their home following a call reporting a dog with an injured leg. In her court statement, she described finding Eric curled up in a bed in the corner of the kitchen by the back door.
She said: “It was immediately obvious that this dog was not well. He had very little fur, irritated and sore skin, and a visible open wound on his right side. The bed was very dirty, and the walls around it were stained with blood and discharge. When Eric slowly stood up, the extent of his suffering was evident.“
“Eric had an open wound on his side, two deep wounds at the base of his tail—one with a continuous discharge—and other smaller sores. His front left leg had a large growth on the wrist, causing his foot to splay and making walking painful and difficult.”
The couple admitted Eric was not under veterinary care, stating they treated him themselves and found veterinary treatments too expensive. They also mentioned that they had contemplated euthanasia but had not discussed this with a vet.
With their consent, Eric was taken for urgent veterinary treatment, where he was sedated due to his pain. The veterinarian’s written report described him as stiff and with restricted movement, suffering from significant itchiness and skin twitching indicating discomfort. He had lost a large amount of fur over his body, exposing pink skin, a condition likely developing over more than a year.
The vet further explained that the largest lesion on Eric's tail was nearly 3 cm deep and 9 cm long, forming over the past four to five months, and detected a crunching sensation in his wrist joint suggesting a bone tumor that had been growing for at least three months.
“Eric was in significant pain for at least four to five months,” the veterinarian noted. “The itchy skin and lesions had likely been ongoing longer, causing considerable irritation, and euthanasia was deemed the only humane option.”
Magistrates characterized the case as involving "exceptional suffering, one of the worst we have ever seen." They described the images presented as horrific and emphasized the prolonged pain Eric endured.
In mitigation, the court heard that the Wrays showed apparent remorse and had established a bond of care with Eric. Financial difficulties during the COVID pandemic led them to treat his condition themselves instead of seeking professional care. Neither intended to harm him, and Eric had enjoyed a happy, healthy life until the last year, when his condition worsened.
They acknowledged the poor judgment in purchasing a puppy to 'keep Eric company' without considering how funds could be better used for his treatment.
Following the case, Inspector Booth remarked: “In my 19 years as an RSPCA inspector, including six working with dogs in kennels, I have never seen a skin condition this severe. Eric was in a pitiful state, and it was obvious he needed urgent veterinary care. His suffering over such a long period is almost incomprehensible, and unfortunately, it was too late to save him.”
Both Shaun and Colette Wray pleaded guilty to a single Animal Welfare Act offence but received suspended prison sentences. They were sentenced to 16 weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months, alongside 15 days of rehabilitation, 40 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay £400 each in costs plus a £154 victim surcharge. They are disqualified from keeping animals for life but have the right to appeal after 15 years.