Thursday, 1 September 2016

Well Done, Judge Taaffe...

Readers of the Derby Telegraph have spoken out after a dog was ordered to be destroyed when it left a man hospitalised for three days following an attack.
Some dog-lovers have criticised a judge's decision to order that six-year-old Staffordshire Bull Terrier Ollie be put down after surgeons had to operate to mend seven of John Cantrell's fingers.
How do you even begin to try to understand people that think like this?

Luckily, the judge wasn't one of them...
At this week's hearing, Hatton, his wife and an animal behaviourist tried to convince judge Taaffe not to order that Ollie be destroyed. They told the court how the Staffie had never attacked anyone or any dog before and an independent assessment reached a conclusion that he was "not a danger to the public".
But Judge Taafe said: "I can't be satisfied that Ollie will not constitute a danger to the public and I am not satisfied in your (Hatton's) ability to control him."
Mr Cantrell was left with a £12,000 vet's bill for treatment to Bertie's "horrific" injuries and Judge Taaffe ordered that Hatton pay £7,500 compensation to help play towards the costs.
I doubt he'll see a penny. Pity the judge can't order the destruction of the owner too.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem regarding a court ordering compensation is that it then becomes a civil debt, meaning that if it is not paid, the person owed the money has to take civil action to obtain it, and it then becomes a civil debt, and so it goes. Better the court stating the money must be paid by a certain date or the offender will be jailed for contempt of court. I would suggest this would concentrate the mind somewhat.
Penseivat

Anonymous said...

Forgot to add that perhaps Clarkson's Law should apply.
Penseivat

wiggiatlarge said...

I have commented before and to some mindsets I am probably wasting my time, but the old mantra that is trotted out "it's not the dogs fault it's the owner" is only partially true.
Many dogs with a 'nasty' disposition can indeed be trained to behave normally if the right people have ownership and can be bothered, even then will have to take a 100% no risk policy when in any company.
But many can't be trained despite what behaviourists tell the public, most of these dogs have been selectively bred over years to produce animals to do a specific job ie fighting or guard duties that require the dog to attack, and some of these dogs are genetically bad as in people andd quite simply should not be in public ownership, or even be available for sale.
Domesticated breeds can also throw up "wrong uns" it is a fallacy to state it is always the owners fault despite being so in most cases.

Invicta said...

It's the dog's fault and the owner's responsibility. Sorted

JuliaM said...

"Better the court stating the money must be paid by a certain date or the offender will be jailed for contempt of court. "

We're already short of jail space.

And for these people, it's not the shame that it would be for the law-abiding.

"Forgot to add that perhaps Clarkson's Law should apply."

I'll stump up for the bullets!

"...the old mantra that is trotted out "it's not the dogs fault it's the owner" is only partially true."

Agreed. I see this a lot in the the comments (assuming they are allowed) under stories of this type.

"It's the dog's fault and the owner's responsibility. Sorted"

Perfect!