Justice (again) Options

[massifheed]

I know that this all comes down to evidence, but the outcomes of the following two stories from the BBC website have annoyed me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18536940

^ This guy gets three years for saying something stupid on Facebook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-18539160

^ Nothing happens to the owner of a dog who attacks a five-year-old girl.

[andy1979uk]

I know that this all comes down to evidence, but the outcomes of the following two stories from the BBC website have annoyed me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18536940

^ This guy gets three years for saying something stupid on Facebook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-18539160

^ Nothing happens to the owner of a dog who attacks a five-year-old girl.

Abit of a joke I agree, if a dog attacked my child I would be getting done for gbh myself I think and killing the bloody dog.

[Timbo]

I think the sentances should have been reversed, as in the dog man goes to jail. Everyone writes things online they don't necessarily mean, and since when do you blindly follow what anyone else says?

I think with those riots, the Government and police wanted to try and assert their autoritah' by making a show of those they DID catch..... not actually punishing them for the offense. If that makes sense..

[Andy Capp]

Abit of a joke I agree, if a dog attacked my child I would be getting done for gbh myself I think and killing the bloody dog.

What do you think that would do to your child. As if getting attacked isn't bad enough, dad goes to prison.

[andy1979uk]

What do you think that would do to your child. As if getting attacked isn't bad enough, dad goes to prison.

I would'nt though, the justice system is crap. You would'nt need to put the dog down by the time I finished with it.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I would'nt though, the justice system is crap. You would'nt need to put the dog down by the time I finished with it.

Unless it had torn your throat out first. I have been attacked by a dog. I froze whilst it was chomping on my leg. I could not actually believe it was happening. You don't know how you will react until it happens to you.

[andy1979uk]

Unless it had torn your throat out first. I have been attacked by a dog. I froze whilst it was chomping on my leg. I could not actually believe it was happening. You don't know how you will react until it happens to you.

yes true, given the chance I'd stamp on its head till it stopped moving. Then hand it back the owner.

[Rowley Birkin]

kicking an angry dog in the face is not a wize thing to do

[Andy Capp]

I would'nt though, the justice system is crap. You would'nt need to put the dog down by the time I finished with it.

In most cases GBH would mean prison. It certainly will mean explaining to your child that dad has to go to court. This assumes of course that your administering summary justice doesn't involve accidentally killing the 'victim'.

[Andy Capp]

yes true, given the chance I'd stamp on its head till it stopped moving. Then hand it back the owner.

That should cheer your child up a little while they see to their wounds.

[Strafin]

I actually agree with both outcomes, I don't really see how the owner of a dog could be charged if it attacks somebody in his home. It is a terrible thing to happen, but what real offence is there? Perhaps the dog should be destroyed, but you can't go round prosecuting people just for having pets. As far as the Facebook guy goes, he incited violence, not once, twice or thrice but four times publicly, including saying "do dome coppers in".

[NWNREADER]

DEFRA guidance makes it apparent there has been no offence that can be prosecuted. The dog could not be shown to be in public, nor in an unauthorised private location. The assessment is there has been no offence committed, not that it is not known who committed it.
Take away the understandable emotion and the question has to be whether we want people prosecuted (convicted) for being involved with something that is not illegal?
The plans to stiffen sentencing are separate from any extension of the Primary legislation to include any injury caused wherever it might be. Dogs and children can be an unsatisfactory mix, and sad cases like this may be the outcome ....

[Andy Capp]

DEFRA guidance makes it apparent there has been no offence that can be prosecuted. The dog could not be shown to be in public, nor in an unauthorised private location. The assessment is there has been no offence committed, not that it is not known who committed it.

My take was that there was insufficient evidence to prove where the attack took place, not that there was no offence committed.

I understand that if an unauthorised intruder injures themselves in your home because of you having installed something dangerous, that the intruder can sue. In this case, could the child's guardians sue for the neighbour harbouring a dangerous item?

[Strafin]

I don't think any of that is true in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. The child's guardians should be aware of any dangers where they are sending their kids at that age, however dogs don't always look like a risk.

[Andy Capp]

I don't think any of that is true in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. The child's guardians should be aware of any dangers where they are sending their kids at that age, however dogs don't always look like a risk.

I read this:

Shed owners warned wire on windows could hurt burglarsl

Perhaps the incident happened a bit too soon!

New ‘Dangerous Dogs’ Prosecution Guidelines

"All dog owners are to be held fully accountable for their dogs at all times, including on their own property. Whereas previous attacks were only severely dealt with if they happened in a public place, it is important to note that an attack inside your own home could be enough grounds for criminal prosecution. The onus is on all dog owners to maintain full control over their pets at all times – from ensuring the dog is kept in a secure location when answering the front door to allowing all visitors to know you have a dog and to approach with full care."

Of course, the insurance company would be 'eager' to worry dog owners!

[Strafin]

I read this:

Shed owners warned wire on windows could hurt burglarsl

I have read a lot of similar stories, but haven't ever seen a story where there is a real conviction. Fred Barras and Tony Martin was probably the most high profile case that ended up with a conviction, but that was an intentional shooting, rather than incidental injuries.

[Bloggo]

I actually agree with both outcomes, I don't really see how the owner of a dog could be charged if it attacks somebody in his home. It is a terrible thing to happen, but what real offence is there? Perhaps the dog should be destroyed, but you can't go round prosecuting people just for having pets. As far as the Facebook guy goes, he incited violence, not once, twice or thrice but four times publicly, including saying "do dome coppers in".

Yep, I agree.

[lordtup]

Shed owners warned wire on windows could hurt burglarsl

I am afraid this advice is not a recent development. 40 years ago I was advised by the local plod that putting barbed wire along the top of my garden fence could leave me open to prosecution should someone become impaled ,inadvertently or otherwise.His recommendation was to plant a pyracantha hedge along the boundary which is just as lethal but legally acceptable.
My only update is to take care when pruning.

[Timbo]

Shed owners warned wire on windows could hurt burglarsl

I am afraid this advice is not a recent development. 40 years ago I was advised by the local plod that putting barbed wire along the top of my garden fence could leave me open to prosecution should someone become impaled ,inadvertently or otherwise.His recommendation was to plant a pyracantha hedge along the boundary which is just as lethal but legally acceptable.
My only update is to take care when pruning.

The law is just a joke.

[On the edge]

The law is just a joke.

No, in this case 'the plod' are wrong. If you want legal advice see a real lawyer!