Life of illegal Barrow dog spared by court
Last updated at 14:22, Friday, 06 July 2012
AN illegal fighting dog’s life has been spared by magistrates.
Daniel James Dodd pleaded guilty at Furness Magistrates’ Court to possessing an illegal American pit bull dog yesterday.
Prosecuting, Mr William Magill that police were called to Egerton Court, in Barrow, on March 3.
He said Dodd, 32, was causing a disturbance at 1.20am while looking for his then girlfriend, Catherine Myers.
Police found the dog, a puppy called Reuben, running around freely with no collar or lead.
The dog was seized and was later confirmed to be an American pit bull, which are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
After the dog was seized, Ms Myers came forward to claim ownership of the dog and was also charged with possession of a fighting dog.
But the 21-year-old, of Tees Gardens, Walney, was found not guilty by the court of being in possession of the dog at the time of the incident.
Mrs Tina Hay, defending Ms Myers, told the court how the dog was bought for her client by Dodd as an early 21st birthday present.
The court heard how Ms Myers’ relationship with Dodd ended in February and was not an amicable separation.
She said Dodd prevented her from taking the dog and that she had no contact with it for at least a couple of weeks prior to its seizure on March 3.
Before Dodd’s sentencing, Mr Mike Graham, defending, said: “There is no issue with the dog itself. He (the dog) appeared to be in overall good health.
“He was easy to handle, happy looking and very excitable.
“He showed no signs of being threatened or mistreated.
“Mr Dodd thought he was the owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier.”
Dodd, of Earle Street, Barrow, was fined £100 for possession of the fighting dog.
He was also ordered to pay £100 court costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
After a dispute in ownership between Dodd and Ms Myers, magistrates’ found in favour of Ms Myers.
Magistrates decided not to order the destruction of the dog and instead made a Contingent Destruction Order.
The order means its owner must get an exemption certificate and the dog has to be neutered, micro-chipped and marked.
It must also be muzzled and kept on a lead at all times in a public place.
Failure to comply with the conditions could lead to the dog’s destruction.
First published at 13:52, Friday, 06 July 2012
Published by http://www.nwemail.co.uk
Gaye: Sorry I spelled your name wrong, but your last post was a predictable cop out. These dogs are dangerous and anyone who seriously believes they can control one are hard of thinking. It is rather worrying that you nor anyone else can justify owning one and yet you still do? It's actually quite bizarre really.
That is the end of the conversation.
View all 35 comments on this article
Have your say
She doesn't own one.... I DO!!!! And I'm glad to own him. It's judgemental, ignorant people like you that give them a bad name! My dog has never harmed anyone and never will harm anyone!!! To be quite honest it's the law that give people the wrong impression, but you choose to listen to it. Staffies and pit bulls have bad names, but what about all the little dogs that go around biting people and get let off with a slapped wrist! It's beyond a joke. If I thought for 1 minute that my dog was harmful or would hurt anyone in any way, shape or form, do you honestly think I would have fought my hardest to get him back???? If he was "dangerous" I wouldn't have been granted ownership of him. I'm sick of people like you claiming you know about these animals when clearly you know nothing..... Ignorance is bliss in this case so I'll ignore from now on and you can carry on thinking you know what you're talking about :) Goodbye
Posted by Cat on 2 August 2012 at 10:22