AN EXPERT witness in an animal cruelty case "exaggerated" claims against the dog's owners, councillor Paul Shotton and his wife, because he was against the Labour Party, a court heard.

Jonathan Rich, who is representing the Fenton councillor and his wife Annette in their appeal against a conviction of animal cruelty, yesterday suggested vet Clive Curry was biased against Mr Shotton because he is a Labour member of Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

The claim was denied by the vet, who treated the Shottons' 16-year-old Golden Labrador, Baron, when it was taken to his practice in July, 2006.

The court was told Mr Curry's cousin, Terry Curry, lives near the Shottons in Smithpool Road, Fenton.

It was alleged that the neighbours did not get on. "I did not know how well Terry gets on with him," said Mr Curry.

Mr Rich told Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court yesterday that Terry Curry works for the environmental services department at Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Judge Mark Eades asked the vet: "Are you biased against Mr and Mrs Shotton because of their relationship (with Terry Curry)?" The vet said: "Not really, my cousin is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself."

Shotton, aged 48, and his 46-year-old wife, Annette, were last year convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to Baron between June 24 and July 15, 2006. They received two-year conditional discharges, were banned from keeping animals for two years and were ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

Shotton, the former deputy elected mayor, quit his £7,000-a-year role on the council's cabinet after the conviction. The couple are this week trying to have the conviction and sentence overturned at an appeal.

The RSPCA says the Shottons did not take any steps to treat Baron and went on holiday at 2pm on July 15, 2006, leaving him in the care of Mr Shotton's son Gavin.

RSPCA inspector Julie Lyons went to the house at about 10pm that day after the society received a tip-off.

She found Baron lying down. He was soaking in urine and had a sore on his mouth and on his elbow. The dog was taken to Mr Curry's Willow Veterinary Surgery, Endon, but it could not stand, was disorientated and distressed. It was put down three days later.

Yesterday Mr Curry denied he was biased towards Mr Shotton because he is in the Labour Party, or because of his cousin's relationship with the Shottons. He added: "If this was part of some bigger conspiracy I would make rather a better job of the paperwork than I have done."

Mr Curry maintained he believed Baron had suffered for four to five days, rather than hours as is suggested by the Shottons' defence team.

At the end of the RSPCA's case, Mr Rich argued there was no case for the Shottons to answer.

But Judge Eades said it must have been obvious to the owners that the dog was old and deteriorating, and they should have kept an eye on it. He said: "The dog suffered unnecessarily. There is a prima facie case to answer."

The appeal continues