Rumpole Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 some of you may remember an incident in sheffield on new years eve where a child was allegedly bitten at a party by Bully a rottweiler, the resulting court case led to a destruction order being placed on Bully despite his owners pleas that the incident was an accident caused by bullys claw and not a deliberate or aggressive bite. The case went to appeal today in Sheffield Crown Court were it was accepted that this was indeed an accident and that bully was not dangerous and that no proof had been put forward that he was. His death sentence has been lifted and bully is currently being collected by his delighted owners, a big thanks to Pam Rose and Lara Smith who acted in defence of Bully and to Kendal Shepherd, Mike Mullen and Ryan O Meara who attended as expert witnesses, this should not detract from the obvious pain and upset that the little girl chloe grayson must have gone through but any dog can be clumsy and make a mistake and should not lose its life for an accident WELCOME HOME BULLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 BRILLIANT. Hope the decision was accepted by everyone involved. WELCOME HOME BULLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 WELCOME HOME BULLY Indeed! Bully's family must be hugely relieved. I am very sorry if the little girl was hurt, but goodness, what sort of country are we in where someone appeals for a dog to be killed over being clawed by accident, while people get away with doing all sorts of dreadful things. You would have hoped common sense would have prevailed sooner than it did. I also wonder if another breed, that wasn't being demonised in the media, had been involved, if the case would have even started in the first place. Wishing Bully and his family many more happy years together and a big well done to everyone involved in gaining Bully's freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 thats fantastic news, i'm glad that someone finally saw sense and saw the incident for what it was, i hope that bully hasnt been too traumatised by what hes been needlessly put through. its a shame that it took so long for someone to decipher the difference between a injury from a bite and a injury from a claw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 it was a particularly bad injury so was not just a scratch but it was an accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 it was a particularly bad injury so was not just a scratch but it was an accident Thanks for clarifying. Still worrying that a dog could be given the death sentence over an accident. I hope the little girl makes a full recovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 Fantastic news For once common sense prevails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 OMG can't believe this, WELL DONE to all involved in saving Bully's life!! :liebe94: :liebe94: :liebe94: May common sense indeed prevail more often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 This is indeed fantastic news. The experts involved in the defence are wonderful Welcome home Bully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Thats fantastic, hope Bully is enjoying a return to normal life. I don't understand how the dog was ordered to be destroyed in the first pace, if it was on private property I wonder if the owners are still on speaking terms with whoever complained ?..........I know I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 they were charged under the 1871 dogs act which is civil and includes private property, the poor owner attended his first hearing to ask for an adjournment as he had no legal representation this was refused and he was forced to defend himself. I doubt the appeal decision has been well accepted tbh but there were a large number of inconsistances in this case. Any one of us could be placed in the same position it makes you think especially as the chief prosecution witness was a Rescue representative with no training nor behavioural background and who advised that bully be put down despite neither being present when the incident took place nor ever having met the dog let alone assessed temperament and who attempted to rubbish the comprehensive assessments that had been undertaken by qualified and eminent behavioural professionals. There are two sides to every story maybe this is something she should bear in mind in the future (not someone from refuge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) Wrong thread Edited July 5, 2008 by merledogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 they were charged under the 1871 dogs act which is civil and includes private property, the poor owner attended his first hearing to ask for an adjournment as he had no legal representation this was refused and he was forced to defend himself. I doubt the appeal decision has been well accepted tbh but there were a large number of inconsistances in this case. Any one of us could be placed in the same position it makes you think especially as the chief prosecution witness was a Rescue representative with no training nor behavioural background and who advised that bully be put down despite neither being present when the incident took place nor ever having met the dog let alone assessed temperament and who attempted to rubbish the comprehensive assessments that had been undertaken by qualified and eminent behavioural professionals. There are two sides to every story maybe this is something she should bear in mind in the future (not someone from refuge) Thanks for clearing that up It certainly does make you think, from what you've said it appears to me this person was just hell bent on seeing the dog dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Glad to hear that Bully is safe. It is nice to know that justice can happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 they were charged under the 1871 dogs act which is civil and includes private property, the poor owner attended his first hearing to ask for an adjournment as he had no legal representation this was refused and he was forced to defend himself. I doubt the appeal decision has been well accepted tbh but there were a large number of inconsistances in this case. Any one of us could be placed in the same position it makes you think especially as the chief prosecution witness was a Rescue representative with no training nor behavioural background and who advised that bully be put down despite neither being present when the incident took place nor ever having met the dog let alone assessed temperament and who attempted to rubbish the comprehensive assessments that had been undertaken by qualified and eminent behavioural professionals. There are two sides to every story maybe this is something she should bear in mind in the future (not someone from refuge) a rescue rep......shocking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts