Patipan Tiangbangloung: Dee Why man convicted of animal cruelty

A man has faced court after his frail 18-year-old miniature poodle named Giffy was covered in infected ulcers and bleeding tumours when it was seized by the RSPCA.

Dee Why man, Patipan Tiangbangloung, 65, outside Manly Local Court.

A dog owner who neglected to take his 18-year-old family pet to the vet, even though it was covered in cancerous tumours and open ulcers, has been convicted of animal cruelty by Manly Court.

Dee Why man, Patipan Tiangbangloung, 65, told RSPCA investigators that he couldn’t afford the vet bills for his ageing miniature poodle “Giffy”.

Tiangbangloung, who the court heard was a practising Buddhist, feared the dog would be put down if he sought vet treatment because allowing the pet to die was against his religious beliefs.

The dog, described in court as a much loved family pet, became so frail and sick that it had to be pushed around in a child’s pram.

Magistrate Daniel Reiss was also told that the last time Giffy visited a vet was in 2016.

Giffy, the miniature poodle involved in an animal cruelty case before Manly Local Court. Picture: RSPCA

But Tiangbangloung’s lawyer said the tiny poodle was a “much loved animal”.

The lawyer explained that because Buddhists believe in the “cycle of life, death and rebirth”, his client would not intentionally hurt the dog.

'Giffy', the 18-year-old poodle at the centre of an animal cruelty case before Manly Local Court.

“He believes it is wrong to kill an animal,” he said.

“He genuinely believed he was doing the right thing by the dog.”

The layer said Tiangbangloung, who pleaded guilty to one count of commit an act of aggravated cruelty, and his family did not believe the dog was “suffering in any way”.

“What we have is a cultural clash,” he said.

Tiangbangloung was convicted of animal cruelty for not taking the family's 18-year-old pet dog to the vet when it was covered in tumours.

The RSPCA seized Giffy in December last year after a complaint about a dog with “open wounds” being kept at a restaurant in Dee Why.
Giffy was later found at the defendant’s home with a bandage over his left eye, a duct-taped bandage on his body and evidence of multiple ulcers over his head and body.

Tiangbangloung was asked by a RSPCA inspector why he had not taken the poodle for treatment.

He replied, the court heard, that it was due to “financial constraints”.

The RSPCA officer was told that the dog had been in that condition for two to three months.

A vet found that Giffy had “multiple infected ulcerated masses” on his face and body. Several turned out to be cancerous.

Giffy was put down because he was “in such a physical condition that it was cruel to be kept alive”, according to an agreed set of facts tendered to court.

Magistrate Reiss said the dog must have been in “significant discomfort … and likely in pain as well”.

“This must have been apparent to you,” he told Tiangbangloung.

“Obviously the family looked after the dog for many years, but it was a disgraceful and sad way for the dog to end its life, with pain and disease.”

Tiangbangloung was fined $5000 and ordered to pay a vet bill of $495.