A man has been banned from keeping all animals for 20 years and handed a suspended prison sentence after allowing his then puppies to have their ears cropped.

Nicholas Storr, aged 48, and of Dragonfly Crescent, Biddenham, appeared before Milton Keynes’ Magistrates’ Court on July 24 for sentencing.

He had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to allowing another person to carry out an ear cropping on two puppies, called Chaos and Millie, in 2022.

As well as being banned from keeping all animals for 20 years, he was handed a 34-week custodial sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered to carry out 250 hours unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay costs of £350 and a victim surcharge of £187.

Nicholas Storr was banned from keeping animals for 20 years after allowing his then puppies to have their ears cropped.

placeholder image — Nicholas Storr was banned from keeping animals for 20 years after allowing his then puppies to have their ears cropped.

The RSPCA investigated after receiving a report about alleged ear cropping – gathering evidence from intelligence and online showing the defendant had owned the two puppies when they still had their full ears and after they had been cropped.

During the investigation, inspector Hannah Nixon spoke to the defendant, who told her that he no longer owned any cropped dogs. Chaos had been put to sleep the previous year after he attacked him, and his other dog Millie had been rehomed.

Speaking after the case, inspector Nixon said: “Ear cropping is a completely unnecessary process where the ear flap is altered or removed.

“Dogs need their ears to communicate and the sad truth is that ear cropping is a traumatic procedure which can cause a huge amount of pain and suffering.

He was also handed a suspended sentence.

“Ear cropping is almost always a completely unnecessary practice – as it doesn’t benefit the dog in any way and can actually be detrimental to their health, behaviour and welfare. We urge people to not buy into the trend – the only way to stop this is by not fueling the demand for a cropped eared dog.”

In mitigation, the court was told the defendant was very sorry and regretted the decision he made at the time and stated he was suffering with his mental health due to personal issues.