Although an exact figure has not been calculated, Hussain has cost the police, criminal justice system, and essentially the public, thousands upon thousands of pounds, by dragging her case through the courts for more than two years, hauling her dog’s victim through relentless hearings, appealing her conviction, withdrawing the appeal, then appealing the order to destroy her dangerous dog.This is this case, which would have been avoided, as would the mauling of this victim, if police had acted the first time this dangerous dog caused trouble.
During a hearing at Preston Crown Court last week, Judge Guy Mathieson refused to accept an application to adjourn the appeal hearing. He then refused to uphold the appeal against the destruction of Ashiya Hussain’s dog Bruno, saying the time spent on the case was “not a proper use of public funds”.
Thank god for a judge with sense!
Evidence was presented to the court by dog handling and behaviour expert Craig Richardson who said that while he believed Bruno was a danger to other dogs, and not directly to humans (unless they got between Bruno and another dog), he could be trained to lower this aggression. He suggested that the dog’s life be spared, and he be given to a new owner, with conditions for that new owner to keep the dog muzzled at all times while out in public; to be on a harness while in public; to be controlled by two points of contact at all times such as a lead attached to a collar and also a harness; and to only be allowed off a lead when in a private field.
What new owner would want to take this thing on?
A proposed new owner, Ansar Ali, also gave evidence during the hearing, telling the court that he would take care of Bruno at his terraced home in Great Harwood, which only has a small back yard, and would take him to work with him at a car garage every day and keep him locked in that garage should he need to nip out.When asked by Judge Mathieson when Bruno would ever get chance to exercise or be allowed more space to roam around in, Mr Ali could not provide a satisfactory answer.
Come to think of it, why did the owner need such a beast? There may be a clue in the comments:
Very interesting...
When an adjournment for the hearing was requested, so a second dog expert report could be compiled, Judge Mathieson said: “We are not going to use any more money on this case, for a dog. I know it’s a family pet but it’s a dog.
“How many thousands of pounds is to be spent? If this was a privately paid for case would this still be going on?
“How much is it costing on a daily basis, how much to keep Bruno in kennels? No-one has the answer, so shall we just adjourn for another three months for more public money to be spent?”
Bye bye Bruno. You've lived two years longer than you should have, in any sane country.
Who was the numpty who signed this off on taxpayer funded legal aid? Whoever it was, he/she/it should be keelhauled under a merchant ship being shelled in the Straits of Hormuz and then keelhauled again
ReplyDeleteThe justice system in this country is a joke.
Penseivat.
"Who was the numpty who signed this off on taxpayer funded legal aid?"
ReplyDeleteWell, quite...🙄