Two women will appeal a decision to convict them after the SPCA took them to court over their treatment of eight cats.

Two homeless Taranaki women have been convicted of failing to properly look after eight cats that lived with them in a car.

The two New Plymouth women, aged 46 and 56, earlier pleaded guilty to one charge under the Animal Welfare Act, of failing to provide adequately for the felines. The charge carries a penalty of 12 months jail or a $50,000 fine.

In the New Plymouth District Court on Monday, the pair appeared before Judge Garry Barkle for sentencing. The women cannot be named for legal reasons.

Barkle said on December 24, 2014, a SPCA inspector visited a Cook St property and found the cats inside a vehicle parked near a house.

In the car, the inspector spotted used litter boxes along with bowls of biscuits and water, Barkle said. The car windows were rolled down and a sheet was in place to shade the cats from the sun.

READ MORE: Woman who deserted pet guinea pigs discharged without conviction

Barkle said the pair became homeless after they lost their property in Inglewood in July last year and could not find alternative accommodation.

When interviewed by the SPCA, Barkle said the women told the agency they believed they had done what they could to look after the cats despite not having a home to live in.

A lengthy argument was made by defence lawyers Megan Boyd and Jo Woodcock for the defendants to be discharged without conviction and also be granted permanent name suppression.

Both outlined how a conviction would impact directly on their clients' jobs and that being named would cause added embarrassment, stress and humiliation to them.

The applications were opposed by prosecutor Stephanie Simpkin, who appeared on behalf of the SPCA.

Simpkin asked Barkle to impose $9,000 in reparation against the defendants, which related to costs connected to the care and treatment of the cats since they were removed from the women.

One of the cats had to be put down because of a severe eye infection but the rest recovered without any long term injury.

Simpkin also sought an order which would prevent both women from owning more than two cats each for a period of 20 years.

Woodcock, who acted for the 46-year-old, described the offending as low end and said it related to neglect rather than ill-treatment of the animals.

She did not accept Simpkin's submission that her client had breached the trust of the cats and said the felines had been strays when they women initially took them in.

Woodcock said the pair's financial situation had forced them into homelessness and the women regretted the impact it had on their ability to look after the cats. She said neither of them had any previous criminal convictions.

Boyd said both women would struggle to pay back the costs sought by the SPCA.

In his decision, Barkle said the high threshold required to grant permanent name suppression had not been reached.

He convicted both women and ordered them to pay $4,500 each in reparation. He also told the defendants they were only able to own two cats each for a period of three years.

Immediately after his ruling, Woodcock indicated an appeal will be lodged and asked for an interim name suppression order to be made. This was granted by Barkle and will lapse on January 15 if no further applications were filed.