Mr Justice Collins ruled in her favour, saying that the crown court judge had wrongly decided that "the burden was on Ms Kelleher to establish that the dogs were not a danger to public safety".
The judge should have first considered whether the "new measures and arrangements" were sufficient to stop the dogs being a hazard, he said.
And what 'new measures and arrangements' are we talking about?
She put forward evidence from Dr Roger Mugford – one of the UK's foremost experts on canine behaviour – to back her claims.
Dr Mugford had visited Ms Kelleher at her new home in Knowle, Bristol, the court heard, which is spacious and has a garden, giving the robust animals more room to let off steam.
Dr Mugford stated that with the right precautions – such as microchips for both dogs – Amber and Shadow could be successfully "rehabilitated".
Unless those microchips are implanted in their
brains, I really fail to see how that makes a scrap of difference...
A certain amount of sympathy here Julia, for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Putting the burden of proof on the accused is always a slippery slope; how do you prove a negative?
2. Unlike so many of the scrotes and n'er-do-wells we meet on your pages, she does seem to have made a genuine attempt.
Dr Mugford...what shyster, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was like winning the lottery for the bastard!
ReplyDelete"Putting the burden of proof on the accused is always a slippery slope; how do you prove a negative?"
ReplyDeleteMy concern was more with the idea that she should not be expected to prove it - if not her, who?
"Dr Mugford...what shyster, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was like winning the lottery for the bastard!"
Well, indeed! He must be pretty upset Savile was homo sapiens, and not familiaris!