He Used It For The Very Reason He Bought It

Most of the media reports of the court case that has resulted in a well-deserved guilty verdict for the owner of the XL bully that savaged a man to death in the street have led the reader to believe that this stemmed from another 'dog on dog' attack, with the dangerous mutt launching its attack on the owner's dog and his death becoming 'collateral damage' as a result when the beast turned on him. 

But actually, that's not so:

The American XL bully owner whose dog killed a neighbour “failed to control” it as he chased the victim suspecting he had put out a window at his home, it has emerged.

Following the smashing of a window at his home, Bell was said to have run from his address with his two dogs to chase Mr Langley, who he thought was responsible. After a short pursuit, one of Bell’s dogs, an XL Bully named ‘Titan’, grabbed Mr Langley by the throat, causing catastrophic injuries.

 He owned weapon dogs, and he used them as a weapon in the street. 

“It was clear from the evidence in this case that Bell had not attempted to control the dog as he chased Ian Langley, admitting in a police interview that his primary focus had been to catch Mr Langley.

“It was for this reason that he did not think to intervene in his dog’s pursuit.”

He bought it for that pursuit, he used it for that pursuit. He murdered that man as surely as if he'd shot him, it's just that the weapon he used wasn't a gun. 

Following his guilty plea, Bell was told by Judge Robert Adams that, “all sentencing options will be open to the court” when he returns to be sentenced in the New Year. He asked the Probation Service to prepare a background report on Bell prior to the sentencing hearing.

Not sure what 'background report is needed here, he deliberately set the dog on that man. Why is he not charged with that offence?