Chairman of the bench Karen Hopwood said: “You failed to secure the dog appropriately and by your own admission she has a problem with other female dogs.
“Witnesses said that the incident was terrifying and they were shocked by the level of aggression, but probation expressed concern about your thinking skills and level of acknowledgement of responsibility.
“You admitted that she did not like other dogs and sometimes ran away, and we feel that a conditional destruction order is not appropriate.”
So the dog gets the big sleep, and the owner is outraged:
Speaking after the sentencing Gayle told the Daily Echo that he thought Roxy should not be put down.
He said: “I think it’s unjust and it’s the dog’s first offence. For a first-time offence with a dog I’ve got a five-year ban and a £700 fine.”
Well, there’s a first time for everything.
XX a conditional destruction order is not appropriate.”
So the dog gets the big sleep, and the owner is outraged: XX
I will admit to a tad of conffussion here.
The court said an order for destruction is NOT appropriate.
So how did it get from there, to "the big sleep?"
Sparing (maybe) the dog is not the wrong thing to do here. To punish the owner is the right thing to do. In an imperfect world this is about as good as it gets.
FT, it means putting a conditional destruction order on that is activated if court restrictions are breached - in effect, the pooch goes free with a second chance, but if it comes back to court, the order is automatically activated.
Post a Comment