Well, thanks to the utterly bonkers, criminal-coddling justice system we have, there's another chapter:
Giving his ruling, Lord Justice Pitchford (Ed: Yes, he has previous...) said Poison had not been on a leash, but was safely secured in a locked house and was only able to escape and attack when police broke down the door.
'It is our view that these facts raised for decision by the jury the issue whether Mr Robinson-Pierre had done or omitted to do anything that contributed to the dog being dangerously out of control in a public place,' he said.Which, if you're thinking this now gives criminal drug dealers license to own vicious banned dogs as protection against police serving warrants, well, congratulations, you're smarter than most high court judges.
Mind you, having cleaned the bathroom yesterday only to discover a hole in my rubber glove, so is what was under one of my fingernails, so don't look too smug about it...
You see, I'm not so sure. I rather agree with this ruling. The man in question did nothing to cause it the incident, other than owning a vicious dog. Now if you want to make that a crime, fair enough. Go ahead, good luck with a) defining it, and b) enforcing it, given virtually any dog will bite you if you provoke it enough.
ReplyDeleteBut if owning a dog, and being responsible for its actions means that you have to assume the police may break down your door at any minute and that you have to thus restrain your dog 24/7, then I'm afraid I don't agree. If the police wish to break down my door, they should be responsible for the consequences thereof, and that includes releasing any animals inside.
For example - I'm a farmer. Lets say I have a bull thats pretty lively. I keep it locked up in a pen. The police raid my farm, because they think I'm growing dope in my sheds, and let the bull out, it attacks someone and gores them to death. Whose fault is that then? Mine, for owning a perfectly legal animal and keeping it safely under lock and key, or the police for releasing it into the open with no consideration for what might happen?
I am on the judges side on this one.
ReplyDelete" whether Mr Robinson-Pierre had done or omitted to do anything that contributed to the dog being dangerously out of control in a public place,'XX
The dog was in a secure and private, place, which is all the law requires.
AS to dangerous dog... An 18 year old arrthritic labarador would probably go wild as well, when the front door is kicked in.
It is called "being a dog!" (Ask Theresa May for daetails)
The dog was a banned breed therefore owner liable. Case closed.
ReplyDeleteYep, it really is that simple.
"The dog was a banned breed therefore owner liable. Case closed."
ReplyDeleteNo, not closed at all. The issue he was acquitted of was having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. He had already admitted being in possession of a banned breed, and will presumably have been sentenced for that.
But on the specific point charged he wasn't guilty. He did nothing to cause the dog (banned breed or not) to be loose. It could have been a perfectly legitimate, but still vicious, breed. The point of law would be the same.
What Jim said. Two seperate charges.
ReplyDeleteI cannot see how the charge he was convicted of got past the CPS.Did the police not know he had a vicious dog? If not, a failure of their intelligence, and if they did know they should have gone properly equipped to deal with it.
ReplyDelete"The man in question did nothing to cause it the incident..."
ReplyDeleteApart from owning a banned breed that had already savaged one person?
Though being a civilian, the police weren't too bothered.
"AS to dangerous dog... An 18 year old arrthritic labarador would probably go wild as well..."
But would be a lot more easily dealt with...
"Did the police not know he had a vicious dog?"
They should have.