Tupac, DDA Dog Gets to Go Home
Birmingham dog to go home:
Birmingham pet dog “Tupac” is to be registered onto the Index of Exempted Dogs and returned to his owners following a one day hearing before Solihull Magistrates court on 18th August.
Tupac, an 18 month old family pet, was seized by the police following an incident on 1st April 2008; he had grabbed a cat from underneath a car outside his home and the cat had sadly died from the injury received. His owners were subsequently charged under Sections 1 and 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) and under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Following the seizure of Tupac, concerned owners Paul and Lynne Barber contacted the Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue for advice and were put in contact with Buckinghamshire based solicitor Tina Haye who is becoming increasingly experienced with DDA cases.
Renowned animal behaviourist Dr. Roger Mugford extensively examined Tupac and presented his evidence to the court; he found that Tupac was of the Pit Bull Terrier type and described him as a sociable and friendly dog who showed no aggression, a video of his assessment was viewed by the court. Paul Barber pleaded guilty to one offence under section 1 of the DDA of being in possession of a prohibited type of dog and went to trial on one DDA Sec 3 (non-aggravated) offence of being in possession of a dog that was dangerously out of control in a public place and one offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal (the cat) under s4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
At the time of the incident the cat’s owner had thought that the dog may attack her if she went outside, District Judge Cadbury concluded that the prosecution had not proved the objective test based on this. Mr Barber stated that Tupac had never shown any aggression to a human in the past and was found not guilty as the Judge could not be sure that there were reasonable grounds for apprehension that Tupac would have injured any person at the time of the incident.
Mr Barber was also found not guilty of an offence under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which replaced the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The Judge concluded that the defendant didn’t know there was a cat under the car when he let his dog off the lead, Mr Barber said that Tupac had chased rabbits before and a cat but had never attacked and caused injury to any other animal. The Judge concluded that he could not be sure that Mr Barber knew or ought to have known that in letting the dog off the lead unnecessary suffering would be caused to the cat and therefore found him not guilty.
The court ordered that Tupac be entered onto the Index of Exempted Dogs and allowed home once the requirements of registration have been met. Mr. Barber was disqualified from having custody of a dog for two years and so the court specified that Paul Barber be registered as the legal ‘owner’ of Tupac and Lynne Barber be registered as the ‘keeper’ of Tupac. This was possible due to the quick thinking of solicitor Tina Haye who argued that the defendant’s disqualification related to the custody and not ownership of a dog. The Court contacted the Index of Exempted Dogs who confirmed that it was possible to register both the owner and a keeper as two separate people providing that the court order specified it.
A Freedom of Information request submitted by a member of the Pet Owners Parliament revealed that during a six month period between November 2007 and April 2008, 203 dogs were seized by the West Midlands police under section 3 of the DDA, the number of dogs seized under section 1 was not available. Paul and Lynne Barber were delighted that their dog was spared a death sentence and can’t wait for him to come home; they haven’t seen Tupac for over five months. EDDR have offered help with registration and aftercare advice once Tupac is released.
Further Information – please contact:
Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue – www.endangereddogs.com
Tel: 0844 856 3303 / Email: mail@endangereddogs.com
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
- In Today’s Good Dog News…It’s Time for Coco – Another DDA Dog is Back Home
- DDA Dogs Seized at Nottinghill Carnival Begin to Return to their Owners
- Police Dogs Get £225k Home, DDA Dogs Get Screwed
- 9 Months Locked up Under Dangerous Dogs Law – Now Duke, the Lurcher Cross, is Back Home
- Owner’s Delight as Dog is Dogue not Pit (but DDA is Still Sh*t)
Loading ...
Was this article written by former members of the soviet union propoganda and spin department?
Great news that the dog is not having any kind of terminal action taken against it, but yet again an irresponsible dog owner emerges out of a court action as the victim!
A cat is killed and this is glossed over in this article almost as an inconvenience!
Male cow faeces regarding the ‘quick thinking’ of the defence solicitor, if the court imposes a disqualification of ownership on an irresponsible dog owner, what’s the point of letting the guilty persons wife/partner being made the owner/keeper, it is blatantly obvious that the person will have access to the dog. Would they have sought this outcome for an animal abuser?
All this case has done is basically let an irresponsible dog owner get off with having a PBT type dog that he knew chased cats and small animals, kill a cat and the slap on the wrist of ‘notionally’ being disqualified from having a dog is meaningless.
Dog ownership tests now!
Reply
My 17yr old deaf cat was killed by a lurcher and a staffordshire bull terrier outside my garden and the owner received a warning and was told to keep his dogs leashed in public. He still allows them off lead while walking around the streets so obviously doesnt give a toss. I agree, people need ownership tests. They should be questioned on situations like this. My old bull terriers hated small animals and were very very obedient, but, I would never allow them off lead in public where I knew they could easily bump into a cat or the likes as sometimes instinct comes before obedience. I am glad the dog was allowed home. Not his fault his owners were irresponsible.
Reply