The court heard that Perry, of Shirley House Drive in Charlton, has two previous convictions including one for a serious assault in 2020.
Her dog has been in kennels since it was seized at the cost of £1,600, the court heard.
Perry cried in the dock as prosecutor Mr Kalber said: “We are seeking a full destruction order for this dog.”
Why is it not automatic in cases like this? And why should the taxpayer not be compensated even if it's at £1 a week and the guilty party is on benefits (as thry so often are)?
The case was adjourned until November for sentencing, at which time the court will also decide whether the dog should be destroyed.
Why is there any question? And why are the most recents cases often women with these mutts?
3 comments:
It's just a guess but I suspect that its not women with these mutts but women who have the mutts in their name for their boyfriends so that they get lenient treatment in courts. Our courts being simply insane. So much for equality.
If the woman of the house claims to be the owner, then the 'pussy pass' comes into play in the justice system, hence a lower/softer sentence. Happens all the time. Beats equality any day.
"I suspect that its not women with these mutts but women who have the mutts in their name for their boyfriends..."
I initially thought that as the most likely explanation too, but it doesn't seem to have been the case in a good few of these deaths...
"...then the 'pussy pass' comes into play in the justice system..."
It can only be played by a live victim, surely?
Post a Comment