|
Appeal
court upholds dog death sentence
AN
ENGLIsh Bull Terrier faces destruction after an appeal against
a destruction order for biting a child was dismissed, even though
there was clear evidence that the dog had been tormented prior
to biting the child.
“Rickson” a two year-old Bull terrier is owned by
Elizabeth Holland of Norris Green, Liverpool. Mrs Holland has
eight grandchildren, all of whom have played happily with Rickson
with no fear of attack. Mrs Holland, 63, is an experienced dog
owner, having owned many dogs - mainly rescues - over the years,
and would never take chances where children and dogs are concerned.
There had been various disputes between Mrs Holland and the
Ambrose family next door, including several disputes over the
fencing dividing the two properties. Mrs Holland described the
Ambrose family as “neighbours from hell” and alleges
that they were responsible for the break in the fencing which
enabled Rickson to wander into their garden on March 4th 2001,
when eight year-old Kathryn Ambrose was playing in the back
garden, being there to visit her grandparents.
It is alleged that the dog grabbed Kathryn’s ankle and
lunged for her leg and chest. The child received treatment at
hospital for a four-inch wound to her knee and is now scarred
for life. According to evidenced submitted in the subsequent
court hearing, the child now has a phobia about dogs.
Police investigated the incident and Mrs Holland was subsequently
charged under Sectiopn 3 of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, and
Rickson was seized and taken to council kennels.
Mrs Holland initially engaged a firm of local solicitors to
represent her, pleading ‘not guilty’ at a preliminary
magistrates’ Court hearing and opting for trial at Crown
Court. However, due to pressure form her Barrister, she was
persuaded to change her plea to ‘guilty’ at Liverpool
Crown Court last November. The solicitors were ill-prepared
for the case and had not sought an expert assessment of Rickson’s
temperament.
Defence evidence that the dog was being “teased and beaten
with sticks” before the incident occurred was not accepted
by the Recorder at the Court, who fined Mrs Holland £250
with £250 costs, imposed a destruction order on the dog
and a ten year ban from owning dogs on Mrs Holland. The Recorder
pointed out that this was not a reflection on Mrs Holland’s
character but to protect the child, Kathryn Ambrose, even though
the family had since left the property and to “give her
time to grow up”. A doctor’s report presented in evidence
stated that “the child may develop a fear of dogs.”
Shortly afterwards, Mrs Holland made contact with Sandra Rowlands,
herself a victim of the injustices of the DDA, whose own dog
Buster had been incarcerated for three years. Ms Rowlands put
Mrs Holland in touch with the Fury Defence Fund who advised
her to contact solicitor Trevor Cooper immediately. Mrs Holland
had, in the meantime, lodged her own appeal. Legal Aid was granted,
but only for the services of a Barrister, not a Solicitor. Mr
Cooper’s work was pro bono (free of charge). Mr Cooper
then instructed barrister Pamela Rose, who has extensive experience
in presenting DDA defence cases.
Mrs Holland had been given no access to visit Rickson at the
kennels where he was being held. As her worries as to his welfare
were increasing, the FDF, together with Bull terrier Judge John
Branch made contact with local Bull terrier breeder Kenneth
Fogg, who made a welfare visit to the Council’s Holding
Kennels. He found Rickson to be in reasonably good health, but
lacking in stimulation in the kennels, which were not designed
to hold dogs for long periods of time.
Mrs Holland’s own health had deteriorated due to the stress
of the case and she was under treatment from her doctor.
The Appeal against the sentence was heard at the Court of Appeal
in London’s High Court on Tuesday, June 18th, 2002, before
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Pitchford and His Honour Judge
Rant.
Miss Rose outlined the appeal case. She stated that the injury
to the child did not take place until the dog was hit with sticks
by the family. “The dog took the child’s ankle, but
there was injury to the ankle,” said Ms Rose. “They
hit the dog with sticks and then it bit the child.”
Miss Rose showed the justices photographs of Mrs Holland’s
garden, her other family dogs and also a photograph of Rickson.
She argued that the Ambrose family had moved away, so Kathryn
would not have to see Rickson.
Miss Rose then asked for an adjournment, pointing out that she
had spoken on the telephone to Kenneth Fogg who had carried
out his assessment on the dog and deemed it to have no behavioural
problems.
The adjournment was, however, refused. The Justices retired
for a brief adjournment and then delivered their verdict. Although
the justices expressed sympathy with Mrs Holland over her ten
year ban and the destruction order on Rickson, and being mindful
of the fact that Kathryn Ambrose’s grandparents had since
moved away, they stated that “A balance must be struck....
we consider that the (Crown) Court was right that the risk of
emotional or physical risk (to the child) was a serious one.”
As regards the disqualification order, the justices ruled that
Mrs Holland could make an application to the Crown Court in
November to review the matter, depending on what breed of dog
she proposed to keep.
The appeal, however, was dismissed and the destruction order
against Rickson stood.
Elizabeth Holland is devastated at this decision and is hoping
for a legal way to take the case to the House of Lords. She
thanked her defence team, the FDF and also the NCDL, who offered
help and advice.
“I can’t give up on Rickson. He was goaded and set
up,” she said. “I owe it to him to keep on fighting
and save his life.”
Juliette Glass of the FDF told OUR DOGS: “We feel that
justice has not been seen to be done and that Rickson did not
get a fair hearing. We will continue to help Elizabeth Holland
in her fight for justice in any way we can.”
On
Friday last week, a Daily Mail article claimed that Mrs Holland
had secured £25,000 in Legal Aid to save the life of her
dog that had “savaged” Kathryn Ambrose. The article
quoted Dee Warner of the campaign group Mothers Against Murder
and Aggression, who stated that such a high sum of Legal Aid
made a mockery of the system when the mother of one of the Moors
Murder victims could not secure Legal Aid to fight Myra Hindley
and Ian Brady over the murder of her son. It also quoted Birkenhead
MP Frank Field who is reported to have said: “Legal Aid
was meant to defend people’s fundamental rights, not their
hobbies or pets.” A similar report appeared in The Sun
newspaper.
In fact, Mr Field is incorrect in his assertion, as Legal Aid
has been granted in many DDA cases and concerns a point of law
for the defendant to appeal against a criminal conviction, and
is not granted for their dog.
Trevor Cooper told OUR DOGS “The newspaper reports are
somewhat exaggerated. Mrs Holland was granted Legal Aid by the
Court of Appeal, based on whether the case is in the interests
of justice... As the court granted Legal Aid, they obviously
felt that the case fulfilled the criteria. The Legal Aid was
limited to Counsel only, so my fees were not covered, and I
worked pro bono. In any case, Pamela Rose’s fee is unlikely
to have exceeded £750.
Quite where this figure of £25,000 has been plucked from,
I am at a loss to speculate.”
|
