On Tuesday 22nd I travelled, on business, to see a dairy and sheep farmer who farms South of Bristol. I have known this individual for some 10 years or more, and know him to be a straightforward and truthful sort of bloke. He told me the following story.

A near neighbour of his in the village has a somewhat agressive rotweiller, and this thing has been making a nuisance of itself locally for some time. Several complaints about the dog have been made to the local police over the last year or two. The farmer had had a few sheep savaged by a dog/dogs previusly, but had not seen the dog/dogs responsible. A few months ago he saw the rotweiller savaging a ram of his. He drove the dog off with a stick, but too late to save the ram which died within a few minutes. He resolved to have words with and demand compensation from the owners as soon as he had finished milking.

He duly turned up at the owners place that night, opened the gate and knocked on the door. The owners were out. The only answer he recieved was for the rotweiller to emerge from the shadows and latch itself onto his left arm just above the elbow. He said the dog did not bark, growl or give any warning, it just silently came out of the shadows and attacked him. He struggled with the dog and managed to land a few good kicks on it, which persuaded the beast to let go just long enough for him to hop back over the garden wall.

He went home to have administer first aid to himself, and fortunately his wife persuaded him to go to hospital to have a tetanus jab. Whilst he was away his son returned from work to be told the story. "Right" he said, "enough, I'm going to sort this out now". He took the 12 bore and a few cartridges and drove to the owners house. They were still out. He attracted the dog's attention and when it came to the gate he discharged both barrels into it, killing it instantly.

Needless to say the police turned up at the farmer's house and said there would have to be charges. A date for a court hearing at the local magistrates was duly set.

So far so good; now comes the really refreshing bit! The magistrate listened to the evidence dutifully, including written evidence from the casualty doctor, and then turned round and gave the police a right rollicking! He said that the dog was obviously dangerous, obviously out of control and a public liability. He further criticised the police for failing to act previously despite the fact that they had recieved numerous complaints about the dog. He had a few cautionary words for the son and then dismissed all charges!

So, it seems as if there are at least a few magistrates who can think for themselves and act sensibly. I think the thing that helped here was the fact that this was a very rural area and it probably wasn't the first time the magistrate had heard tales of out of control dogs savaging sheep. I know a farmer has the perfect right to shoot a dog on his land which is worring his sheep. But the son took the shotgun off the farm and shot the dog at it's residence, so frankly, I think he was lucky to get away with out a conviction.

But hey! Fair play to the magistrate. As far as I'm concerned justice was done.
[Rep]

I trust the farmer has legal insurance so that he can sue the dead rotweiller's owners for compensation
[Rep]

I don't know, but the value of sheep is such that he could quite comfortably recover his losses in the small claims track, so insurance probably isn't really necessary in this case.
[Rep]

I was thinking not only about the sheep lost but compensation for the pain and suffering he had to suffer
[Rep]

Oh yeah. I hadn't considered that. He's probably not the sort to bother though. He'll probably just write it off as "one of those things". After all he can probably only claim for the ram which he saw being attacked by the dog.

He'll probably just let sleeping dogs lie ! :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Zak64:

He'll probably just let sleeping dogs lie ! :-)

boom boom !
My thought is if he sues then perhaps they'll learn how to control an animal if they get another
[Rep]

A good result. I'm not entirely sure it's fair to blame the police though -it's for the court to decide whether there's a case to answer, not the police. As such, it's only right they pressed charges (I'm assuming criminal damage).
[Rep]

Well clearly it is also up to the police. Otherwise they could arrest anyone and see if they could find charges to fit them.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Well clearly it is also up to the police. Otherwise they could arrest anyone and see if they could find charges to fit them.

Er, no. The police can't (and don't) just go round arresting people at will.

If there's clear evidence of a crime being committed and there is a suspect (which in this case there were) then if there's enough evidence to proceed to court then it is only right that the case is brought before the court.

The police can not, and must not, choose when to enforce the law and when not to. It is for the court to find the person guilty or not guilty, not the police.
[Rep]

I smell a rodent.

If this story is kosher, then something went very wrong.

For one thing there is no mention of evidence or witnesses that the dog was the same dog that had been worrying sheep, or that it was the same dog that had killed the ram.

Then there is no mention of evidence that the dog that allegedly attacked the farmer was the same dog that was allegedly shot. The ONLY evidence motioned is that allegedly given by a doctor who allegedly treated the wound and all that he could do would be comment on the nature and probable cause of any wound.

Given that the bench have a Justices Clerk it is inconceivable that he or she would have not pointed this out to the Bench.

If I’m wrong then a link to a story in a paper will prove it and I will slink back tail twixt legs, but as things stand, sorry, I’m not sold.
[Rep]