A sadistic teenager who tied a noose around a family’s beloved cat and violently swung it against a wall three times has narrowly escaped imprisonment, sparking fury from animal welfare campaigners who say justice has not been served.
Henry Newey, 18, was caught on Ring doorbell footage dragging ginger cat Marshall along by a rope before repeatedly smashing the terrified animal against a wall in a sickening attack that left the pet’s owners devastated. The treasured family pet miraculously survived the brutal assault and fled before eventually returning home hours later on July 17 in Basingstoke, Hampshire.
Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court heard today how the vile attack was captured in its entirety on security cameras, showing Newey’s calculated cruelty as he tortured the defenceless animal. The teen showed no emotion in the dock whilst watching footage of his heinous actions that prosecutors described as “clearly sadistic behaviour” and “torture”.
District Judge Stephen Apted sentenced Newey to 18 weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months, and banned him from owning any animal for five years. The lenient sentence has sparked outrage from Marshall’s owner Sarah Keeling, who branded the punishment inadequate for such extreme animal cruelty.
“I’m very disappointed with the sentencing. I would have preferred him to be off the streets,” Mrs Keeling, 38, told The Sun after the hearing. The police had warned me it was unlikely he would go to jail as it was his first offence as an adult.
The hospital worker, who was eight months pregnant at the time of the attack, described the horrifying moment she viewed the footage: “It seemed like he was trying to kill our poor cat in the video. I watched it and felt ill in my stomach. It was sickening. I genuinely thought Marshall was dead and we’d never see him again.”
David Forsler, prosecuting, told the court in stark terms: “The crown says it’s clearly sadistic behaviour. It is torture.” He detailed how the footage showed Newey dragging Marshall along before swinging him violently three times against a wall, the noose tightening around the cat’s neck with each impact.
When Marshall finally returned home, his condition was critical. Mrs Keeling recalled the harrowing scene: “I genuinely thought Marshall was going to die in my arms. His tongue was blue from being suffocated by the noose.” The cat was rushed to emergency veterinary care where X-rays miraculously revealed no broken bones, though he suffered severe bruising and swelling requiring immediate pain relief.
The attack’s impact extended far beyond Marshall’s physical injuries. Mrs Keeling’s eight-year-old daughter was left traumatised by the incident, writing a heartbreaking letter to her missing cat whilst at school. “We were cuddling and snoring. I was very sad and angry when he went missing. I wrote a letter to him and I read it to him,” the young girl told The Sun, describing how she fell asleep clutching Marshall when he finally returned.
In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mrs Keeling detailed the lasting psychological damage: “The whole situation has been terrifying and heartbreaking. It’s had an incredible impact on my daughter, who’s only eight years old.” The stress of the attack forced the heavily pregnant mother to seek additional maternity checks over fears for her unborn baby, with anxiety levels soaring in the aftermath.
Marina Phillips, defending, claimed Newey suffers “significant deficits in his emotions” and blamed a “history of physical violence in the family home” for his actions. She attempted to characterise the torture as an “impulsive decision” after Newey claimed he had been bitten by Marshall, adding: “He’s incredibly remorseful and incredibly ashamed.”
However, District Judge Apted firmly rejected this explanation, stating: “I do not accept your explanation that this cat had bitten you and that is why you reacted in the way we have seen. I find that account implausible.” The judge acknowledged the severity of the crime, saying: “It’s clear the animal caused substantial pain and suffering. There is evidence of sadistic behaviour.”
Despite these damning words, the suspended sentence means Newey will avoid immediate custody. He must complete 25 rehabilitation sessions and 150 hours of unpaid work, though he claimed in court he couldn’t perform community service due to “negative publicity” surrounding his case. The teenager, who has a previous youth caution for assault, must also pay £658 in compensation to the Keeling family after they incurred £438 in emergency veterinary bills.
The lenient sentence comes despite significant changes to animal cruelty laws in recent years. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased maximum penalties for the most serious animal cruelty offences from six months to five years imprisonment, making such crimes punishable by some of the toughest sentences in Europe. New sentencing guidelines introduced in July 2023 specifically identify sadistic behaviour and cases involving prolonged suffering as warranting the highest penalties.
Mrs Keeling’s frustration reflects broader concerns about enforcement of animal welfare laws. “Punishments for animal cruelty need to be a lot stricter to prevent further abuse,” she said. “Anyone who can do that to an animal isn’t a nice person and it often escalates to more serious offending.”
Her warning echoes research linking animal cruelty to future violent behaviour towards humans. Studies have consistently shown that individuals who commit acts of violence against animals are significantly more likely to progress to harming people, particularly vulnerable individuals.
“The public was fuming after watching what happened to Marshall and you would have thought this would have been used to set an example,” Mrs Keeling added, referencing the widespread outrage the case generated on social media after footage circulated online.
The lasting impact on Marshall remains heartbreakingly evident. “Marshall is still stuck indoors. He really wants to go out but I’m too scared to let him,” Mrs Keeling explained. “Even now, he’s still very jumpy and flinchy. He’s scared of his own shadow. It’s just cruel that a cat who was so happy is now petrified of anyone that comes near him, including his owners.”
The case has reignited calls for tougher enforcement of animal cruelty laws. Animal welfare organisations point out that whilst maximum sentences have increased, courts frequently hand down suspended sentences and modest fines even for severe cases of abuse. The RSPCA reports that despite the law allowing penalties up to £20,000 and five years imprisonment, many offenders receive suspended sentences and fines in the hundreds of pounds.
Mrs Keeling’s daughter continues to struggle with the aftermath, unable to understand why someone would hurt her beloved pet. “We play together a lot. I play with his favourite little cat toy which is a stick with a mouse,” she said, describing their bond before the attack changed everything.
The mother’s final words carry a chilling warning about the implications of such lenient sentencing: “Justice hasn’t been served for Marshall. If it wasn’t caught on camera, how many other animals would he have harmed? He’s an adult and old enough to do that to an animal so he should face the proper consequences for what he’s done.”
As Newey walks free with a suspended sentence, the Keeling family remains imprisoned by fear and trauma. Marshall, once a confident and affectionate family pet, now cowers in terror at any movement, a living reminder of the violence he endured and the justice system that failed to adequately punish his attacker.
The case stands as a stark example of the gap between the severity of animal cruelty laws on paper and their application in practice, leaving victims and their families questioning whether true justice for animal abuse remains frustratingly out of reach.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
