The court heard Southern had been before a court in April 2017 after the dogs mauled another man in an unrelated attack.
Prosecuting, Carl Scholz said: 'She was made subject to an order meaning the dogs had to be kept on a lead or muzzled.
'But two months later, she was exercising the dogs off the lead without a muzzle along a public footpath in Plumley. She was taking the dogs from an area away from her home and without muzzling or putting on lead.
'She was quite clearly determined to ignore the conditions imposed but didn't want neighbours recognising her. ...Great! Typical dangerous dog owner. And the typical reaction when it all goes pear-shaped:
'The defendant did shout at this point: 'Get it off,' but she made no steps to remove the dog.
'Mr Gabbott found himself punching the dog four or five times to the head yet was unable to get the dog to let the puppy go.
He was to ask the woman for her details but she indicated that she came from Wilmslow.Turns out going somewhere else so the neighbours don't recognise you doesn't work in the digital age:
The defendant was traced because of neighbours who recognised a plea put on Facebook by the man's daughter.
She was interviewed by police and answered no comment. She has made no efforts to offer the victim any compensation.'Of course she didn't.
In mitigation her lawyer James Coutts said: 'This is not a case where she has not demonstrated remorse. She had not been able to go behind the courts back and seek out the complainant - but her partner did though try and reach him to offer compensation.'It certainly is such a case.
She could have turned herself in. She could have made a full and frank declaration. She could have offered compensation via her solicitor, rather than whatever current shag she is shacked up with (if such a thing ever took place)...
'She is terrified of the prospect of a custodial sentence. One of the dogs has a very sentimental link to her due to her late brother. This perhaps gives an insight into the flawed thought process that was going through her mind - her judgement was clearly clouded.'I very much doubt her judgement is ever unclouded. Like that of the courts.
But the judge Mr Recorder Simon Parrington told Southern: 'You took your dogs out for a walk in public in contravention of an order and they savaged another dog and a member of the public received injury. You knew the terms of the previous order but failed to abide by them.
'I am sure you didn't go out with the intention of another dog being savaged but you what did lacked common sense. Those who keep dogs must accept responsibility - especially for those dogs which cause risk of harm to others.'Excellent! A jail term then, and the dogs put down?
At Chester Crown Court, Southern admitted owning a dog dangerously out of control causing injury and was sentenced to 12 months jail suspended for two years.
She was also ordered to pay the vets bills of £1,828 plus £750 compensation to Mr Gabbott and was banned from keeping dogs for life.
The two terriers had faced being destroyed but both will be spared under the terms of a 'Contingency Destruction Order' which gives dog owners two months to ensure their animals are micro-chipped, neutered and insured. They must also be muzzled and on a lead in public and be registered to the owner's address.
It is believed Southern has transferred ownership of the terriers to a friend.*sigh*