A bull terrier that savaged a six-year-old boy after pulling him from his bike has been saved from a death sentence by being adopted by a dog behaviour expert.
What..?!?
A judge at Exeter Crown Court made a contingency destruction order which means the dog will be allowed to live but not with previous owner Dean Johns.
Johns, aged 51, of Midway Terrace Alphington, admitted owning a dog which was dangerously out of control and was jailed for 12 months, suspended for two years.
He was ordered to do 180 hours of unpaid community work and pay £200 compensation by Recorder Mr Adam Feest, QC, who also banned him from owning a dog for two years.
Because after two years he'll be suitable to own another animal and risk the safety of the public?
The judge said: ”This is not a case so much about this particular animal as about the defendant and his ability to control him. This is a case in which the owner is as much at fault as the dog.”
I'm happy to see him put down too, actually.
He described the £200 compensation as in no way reflecting the suffering of the injured boy but said it was a token figure based on the fact that Johns is not currently in work.
But can afford to feed a dog? Of course...
Still, maybe he was shocked and totally remorseful after the att..
Johns arrived after the father had climbed a bank with his children to escape. He was dismissive and aggressive, claiming his dog was only playing. The father showed him the boy’s injuries but Johns asked him ‘do you want to make something of it?’
The boy was taken to hospital by ambulance with a severe bite wound to his leg.
Oh. No. Of course not. They rarely are, are they?
Mr Warren Robinson, defending, said Johns’s main concern is for the welfare of Caesar and he would agree with any order that allowed the dog to live.
It's a measure of defence lawyers that they can say that of the perpetrator, rather than the victim, isn't it?
He said Johns is an experienced dog owner who had previously looked after a spaniel for 13 years but did not realise how different it was owning a bull terrier. He had taken Caesar to puppy classes and thought he had him well trained and under control until this incident.
He reacted as he did at the scene because he had seen the attack and did not realise the seriousness of the situation.
Pull the other one, Warren. He's a vicious thug, which is why he wanted a vicious thug dog.
H/T: i.r.jackson via email
3 comments:
As I've commented on this site before, it's the duty of a defending barrister to make his client look good before sentencing. However, the barrister is an officer of the court and, by virtue of that alone, is not supposed to over-exaggerate in the plea in mitigation. Manifestly, if we can believe the news report, Dean Johns is not someone you'd want living next door - or even in the next county. However, to claim that Johns didn't "realise the seriousness of the situation" stretches credibility beyond breaking point.
OTOH the meaningless slap on the wrist from the sentencing judge (from a proper judge, no less, not a district "judge" - or stipendary as they were known) tells you all you need to know about the pathetic state of our justice "system". Rest assured, had this fitted into the description of a "hate crime" Johns would have been banged up sharpish, the dog would have been destroyed and the victims here been generously compensated.
Lucky old dog or what? If it had been a lama accused (wrongly it now seems) of having tubuculosis it would have been dragged off and killed.
" However, the barrister is an officer of the court and, by virtue of that alone, is not supposed to over-exaggerate in the plea in mitigation."
I think someone, somewhere, is teaching the opposite. Perhaps if there were consequences for doing so?
"If it had been a lama accused (wrongly it now seems) of having tubuculosis it would have been dragged off and killed."
Quite!
Post a Comment