Marty
06-29-2005, 09:35 PM
Edinburgh,Scotland, UK -- The RSPCA today expressed “shock” over the unfairness of an “innocent” pit bull terrier being sentenced to die under the provisions of the highly controversial 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.
The case of “elderly, nice-natured” Tyson, whom magistrates were “saddened” to condemn to death, had come before the High Court in London on a last-ditch plea for his life from his owner.
When the plea failed, Faye Ashman, from Hammersmith, west London, reacted with anger and despair.
Before being rapidly ushered from court by friends, she told two senior judges: “You have condemned my dog to death – my innocent dog. You let paedophiles go free, but not my innocent dog.”
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Crane ruled there had been undue delay, and appropriate appeal procedures had not been followed.
In any event, no grounds had been shown for interfering with the destruction order.
Later the RSPCA said Tyson was the victim of “unnecessary euthanasia” and urged the courts to judge dogs on “deed not breed”.
Ms Ashman believes the death sentence was wrongly imposed to punish her for offences she – not the dog – had committed in 2003.
She was fined £75 at West London Magistrates’ Court in June 2004 after pleading guilty to three charges of having Tyson, a registered pit bull, in a public place without a muzzle contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The dangerous dogs laws allow magistrates to make a destruction order if an owner commits an offence.
A 1997 amendment, brought in after a public outcry over the draconian laws, also allows them to avoid passing a death sentence if they are satisfied that a dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.
Today the High Court was told that initially the magistrates did not wish to order Tyson’s destruction as he was a friendly, much-loved pet who had done nothing wrong.
In an attempt to save Tyson, who had been neutered and micro-chipped to comply with the dangerous dogs law, the magistrates made an order transferring ownership to another person, a Mrs Moyes.
But Tyson had been seized by the police. When Mrs Moyes went to collect him, the police refused to hand him over on the basis that the magistrates had no power to transfer legal ownership under the Dangerous Dogs Act, which prohibits making “a gift” of dogs of a pit bull type.
The case went back before the magistrates, who stated they were “saddened” to have to make an order of destruction.
Ms Ashman appealed to Blackfriars Crown Court last October, backed by evidence from animal behaviourist expert Mike Mullen that Tyson was a friendly dog.
But Judge Walker and two magistrates ruled that, although the dog “of itself” might not be a danger to people there had been a breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act by Ms Ashman, and they were not satisfied that Tyson would not constitute a future danger.
Rejecting Ms Ashman’s application to seek judicial review of the crown court decision, the High Court ruled today that there had been too long a delay in bringing the case, and the wrong procedure had been followed.
Mr Justice Crane said, rather than seek judicial review, Ms Ashman should have appealed “by way of case stated”, a process in which the crown court would have to give full reasons in writing for its decision.
No notes had been made, and there was now insufficient material for a judicial review. Judge Walker had been contacted but his memory of the case was now “severely limited”.
Dismissing the case, Mr Justice Crane ruled: “There is no basis for concluding that the (crown court) decision was unreasonable or irrational and therefore wrong in law.
“Without a case stated, it is difficult to see how there could be any such basis.”
Lord Justice Kennedy agreed.
Later RSPCA chief veterinary officer Tim Miles said: “The RSPCA is shocked by news that Tyson, a pit-bull terrier, has been condemned to death.
“The RSPCA strongly supports protecting the public but does not endorse the unnecessary euthanasia of any healthy animal.
“It seems the only crime Tyson committed was to be seen outside without a muzzle and yet the dog has been given a death sentence as a result of their owner’s actions.
“It does seem particularly unfair that the owner is fined for failing to follow current laws and yet the dog – which did not do anything wrong – has to lose its life.
“The RSPCA wants to see a better approach when dealing with dangerous dogs. Currently the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is breed specific legislation. We would like to see more emphasis on ’deed not breed”’.
“The RSPCA called for magistrates to have discretion of whether or not to destroy a dog and the Act was amended in 1997 accordingly. It is a pity on this occasion that the court could not exercise more leniency.”
The case of “elderly, nice-natured” Tyson, whom magistrates were “saddened” to condemn to death, had come before the High Court in London on a last-ditch plea for his life from his owner.
When the plea failed, Faye Ashman, from Hammersmith, west London, reacted with anger and despair.
Before being rapidly ushered from court by friends, she told two senior judges: “You have condemned my dog to death – my innocent dog. You let paedophiles go free, but not my innocent dog.”
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Crane ruled there had been undue delay, and appropriate appeal procedures had not been followed.
In any event, no grounds had been shown for interfering with the destruction order.
Later the RSPCA said Tyson was the victim of “unnecessary euthanasia” and urged the courts to judge dogs on “deed not breed”.
Ms Ashman believes the death sentence was wrongly imposed to punish her for offences she – not the dog – had committed in 2003.
She was fined £75 at West London Magistrates’ Court in June 2004 after pleading guilty to three charges of having Tyson, a registered pit bull, in a public place without a muzzle contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The dangerous dogs laws allow magistrates to make a destruction order if an owner commits an offence.
A 1997 amendment, brought in after a public outcry over the draconian laws, also allows them to avoid passing a death sentence if they are satisfied that a dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.
Today the High Court was told that initially the magistrates did not wish to order Tyson’s destruction as he was a friendly, much-loved pet who had done nothing wrong.
In an attempt to save Tyson, who had been neutered and micro-chipped to comply with the dangerous dogs law, the magistrates made an order transferring ownership to another person, a Mrs Moyes.
But Tyson had been seized by the police. When Mrs Moyes went to collect him, the police refused to hand him over on the basis that the magistrates had no power to transfer legal ownership under the Dangerous Dogs Act, which prohibits making “a gift” of dogs of a pit bull type.
The case went back before the magistrates, who stated they were “saddened” to have to make an order of destruction.
Ms Ashman appealed to Blackfriars Crown Court last October, backed by evidence from animal behaviourist expert Mike Mullen that Tyson was a friendly dog.
But Judge Walker and two magistrates ruled that, although the dog “of itself” might not be a danger to people there had been a breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act by Ms Ashman, and they were not satisfied that Tyson would not constitute a future danger.
Rejecting Ms Ashman’s application to seek judicial review of the crown court decision, the High Court ruled today that there had been too long a delay in bringing the case, and the wrong procedure had been followed.
Mr Justice Crane said, rather than seek judicial review, Ms Ashman should have appealed “by way of case stated”, a process in which the crown court would have to give full reasons in writing for its decision.
No notes had been made, and there was now insufficient material for a judicial review. Judge Walker had been contacted but his memory of the case was now “severely limited”.
Dismissing the case, Mr Justice Crane ruled: “There is no basis for concluding that the (crown court) decision was unreasonable or irrational and therefore wrong in law.
“Without a case stated, it is difficult to see how there could be any such basis.”
Lord Justice Kennedy agreed.
Later RSPCA chief veterinary officer Tim Miles said: “The RSPCA is shocked by news that Tyson, a pit-bull terrier, has been condemned to death.
“The RSPCA strongly supports protecting the public but does not endorse the unnecessary euthanasia of any healthy animal.
“It seems the only crime Tyson committed was to be seen outside without a muzzle and yet the dog has been given a death sentence as a result of their owner’s actions.
“It does seem particularly unfair that the owner is fined for failing to follow current laws and yet the dog – which did not do anything wrong – has to lose its life.
“The RSPCA wants to see a better approach when dealing with dangerous dogs. Currently the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is breed specific legislation. We would like to see more emphasis on ’deed not breed”’.
“The RSPCA called for magistrates to have discretion of whether or not to destroy a dog and the Act was amended in 1997 accordingly. It is a pity on this occasion that the court could not exercise more leniency.”