Ian Birch, for Carnell, told the court his client was remorseful and regretted what happened on the day, while Carnell, who had no previous convictions, said she was sorry for what happened to Theo and that she considers herself an otherwise upstanding member of the community. She said since the incident she had felt she has done everything possible to put things right, including pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.
But Mr Harmes told the court: “It seems to me she has done everything in her power to minimise the offence.” He explained how Carnell told the probation service a previous incident where the dog had caused her injury was due to her slipping before her hand went into the dog’s mouth.
“I am not going to buy that,” Mr Harmes said.
Well, who would? Apart, that is, from far too many of your colleagues?
He added that in June 2022 the dog attacked another dog leading to Carnell having to pay substantial vets fees.
“She pretends she didn’t know about that,” Mr Harmes said. “I see people in here shaking their heads at me. Shake away. I don’t care. This dog has hurt another dog and was known to be potentially dangerous. Almost weekly dogs in this country attack young children. If an owner cannot control their dog they shouldn’t own a dog. I do see this matter as very serious.”
Hurrah! Thankfully, at least one judge has seen the light.
It was said in mitigation that Carnell, 46, of Church Street, immediately tried to help the boy when the dog set about him. “Of course, she would have been appalled by what happened that day,” Mr Harmes told Mr Birch. “But what I am saying is that she would have been on notice that the dog was a risk.”
Indeed, so, having failed to buy her fake remorse, her dumb excuses, her denial of the reality of her dangerous 'pet', you'll throw the book at her, right?
Carnell was sentenced for being the owner of an out-of-control dog for three months suspended for two years. She was disqualified from owning a dog for four years and she must complete 100 hours of unpaid work. She must also pay £2,400 in costs.
*sigh* Of course not...
H/T: ProtectOurPets via Twitter
2 comments:
I'll disagree a little... the penalties seem 'fair' as long as every other similar case receives a similar sentence *without fail*. It's the inevitability that is the deterrence, not a lucky dip sentence.
"It's the inevitability that is the deterrence, not a lucky dip sentence."
Indeed. Sadly, it's a lottery these days.
Post a Comment