TWO dogs from either side of Scotland have been saved from being put down after the owners successfully appealed against a court decision.
In judgments released by the civil Sheriff Appeal Court, Sheriff Principal Craig Turnbull showed mercy on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier called Floyd and on Sasha, a Rottweiler. Both had been condemned to being put down under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
The court had heard that Sasha – already the subject of a dog control notice – had escaped from a house in Loanhead in Midlothian last July and attacked a dog being walked by its female owner, referred to in court only as JT.
READ MORE: Specsavers staff learn sign language to help customers
Her dog was bitten three times and JT suffered a minor injury to her hand when she intervened to save her dog. A sheriff later issued a destruction order for Sasha.
The dog’s owner, Desire Feldwick, appealed against the order on grounds she had been suffering from cancer and had not been able to attend the training classes for Sasha which the previous dog control order had stipulated.
Turnbull wrote in his judgment: “The appellant contends that the order for destruction was not justified having regard to the personal circumstances of the appellant in determining whether she was a fit and proper person to be in charge of a dog; and that other, more appropriate, courses had been open to the sheriff, namely, the imposition of a contingent destruction order in terms of s.4A of the 1991 Act.”
Under the act, the court has the power to issue a contingent destruction order which means the dog will be destroyed if there is a repeat of the misbehaviour.
Turnbull recorded, the court must be “satisfied the circumstances of the case are such that the dog owner should be afforded a last chance, in the certain knowledge a failure to take that chance will result in destruction of the dog in question.”
He concluded: “Having regard to the appellant’s personal circum- stances, we are satisfied that the appropriate course of action in this case is to allow the appeal, quash the order for destruction and impose a contingent destruction order in terms of s.4A(4) of the 1991 Act.
“That order will provide that, unless the appellant keeps Sasha under proper control, Sasha will be destroyed. The order will be subject to the following conditions: 1) Sasha shall be muzzled in public places at all times; and 2) Sasha must be kept on a lead at all times when in public.”
In the case of Floyd the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, owner Laura Adamson appealed against a destruction order issued at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court after she admitted Floyd had been dangerously out of her control.
Turnbull wrote: “Looking at the prior good behaviour of the appellant and Floyd, and the steps taken by the appellant subsequent to the incident, we are satisfied the appropriate disposal in this case is the imposition of a contingent destruction order.”
Floyd, too, will have a “last chance” and must be muzzled and kept on a lead in public.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here