Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Elissa Gravells
Our German Shepard Cross Angus was taken from us by the Police to Nant-y-corn Kennels near St George in December 2011. We are deeply concerned for his welfare. We have been unable to see Angus for the last year because the rules state that disclosure of the kennel location could pose a risk for owners attempting some kind of criminal behaviour. We understand that the Home Office guidelines indicate that we should be getting regular updates with regard to Angus’ care and well being. Furthermore, the Home Office guidelines state that these cases should be dealt with as a matter of urgency due to the welfare of the animal and the distress caused to the family from whom the pet was taken. This, in our case, has not happened.
Today we are devastated to be told that our next court hearing will be in approximately six months time, which means we may have to wait two whole years or more before we find out whether or not we can secure the safe return of Angus. This case has been extremely delayed due to the fact that it should have been dealt with in Magistrates Court however will be dealt with by the Crown Court due Magistrates not wanting to be the “trend setters” in regard to the new guidelines. Despite the fact Angus may be in the very best kennels that anyone could expect, he will likely be adversely affected by the lack of the family environment he was used to. The longer he is there the worse this may affect him; he may need lengthy training and careful socialising as a result of his captive environment. Therefore the need to return him at the earliest time is of paramount importance for his welfare and our own, not to mention the cost of his care, for which we are still unaware whether it will our responsibility or not.
I would like Angus returning as soon as possible and if there is anything anyone can do to help this process be as quick as possible, please, please, do that, because he is a beautiful and loving dog who does not deserve this distressing experience. His thorough and shining expert report speaks volumes to his good nature and temperament, and in these circumstances I believe there should be an opportunity to have dogs like Angus returned pending court.
In our experience the damage has already been done, we have already been punished through grief, worry, expense and the consequences we may still yet endure. At no time would I accuse any dog owner of lacking compassion towards any party subject to injury by their dog. I suggest change for the sake of future victims of the way the law currently deals with owners of so called “dangerous dogs” under the dangerous dogs act. I suggest there should be a time limit for assessing dogs and a fit and proper person test, in order that the potential outcome of dogs like Angus can be considered before a lengthy court process. It is important to consider that at present the safe return of the dog could be used as a bargaining chip in the courts process.
It would only be fair if the law consider the infinite number of circumstances by which a savage attack, bite, nip or scare may occur; whether it be by accident or otherwise. Considering all these possibilities to be the sole limited liability of the dog owner and therefore only considering mitigation is unjust. Put plainly it is not acceptable to give a normal law abiding citizen a criminal record.
If government wish to pass laws to control the behaviour of dogs everywhere in the UK, a comprehensive understanding of canine behaviour and acceptable human behaviour around dogs needs full research by experts, in order that appropriate education can be provided at primary school level and upwards in order to bridge the lack of understanding in our society, which arguably should be provided by parents at school age. If, as a society, we decide to go down the path of micromanaging society in this depth, we surely should take responsibility for defining all behaviour expected by the dog, owner and victim.
May 2013