Rumpole Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Today after over 16 long months in kennels GSD Barry White (yes he really is called barry white) is to be returned home. Deed Not Breed and BBAS would like to give huge thanks to Lara Smith who represented and Kendall Shepherd who provided a very thorough and fantastic behaviour report in very difficult circumstances (the kennels where he was kept had not handled him at all since his seizure and he was terrified) :flowers: Despite the happy ending to this case in respect of Barry being allowed home we think it warrants a word of warning, Barry was removed from his owners garden by person or persons unknown, along with another dog, Barry was later found guarding the bitch he was with who had sustained an injury, he unfortunately bit two people who approached them, and was seized. The law states that the owner or person in charge of the dog is guilty of an offence if the dog is allowed to act dangerously or is allowed to be out of control in a public place and injures or causes concern that it might cause injury to a person. The person charged under section 3 of the dda with reference to Barry was not his owner but was a relative looking after him at the time, and was not in charge of barry as he had been removed/stolen just prior to the incident occurring, nor did he allow him to be out of control in a public place, but yet he was still found guilty of the offence. Barry now has a control order that states he must be on a lead and muzzled in public which although accepted by the defence would not stop this from occurring in the future as barry was on private property before he was removed and future dog snatchers would hardly come equipped with a muzzle so as not to break a control order, so the public will yet again be no safer on the strength of the DDA. please do not tie your dogs up outside shops or leave them unattended in an accessible garden it only takes a split second for a thief to strike, and even if you get your dog back you could still be held responsible for things occurring that were not under your control and your dog can, like barry spend 16 months in solitary confinement whilst awaiting its fate. Barry will return home tomorrow Welcome home lad from all those who have been rooting for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Glad to hear he is coming home and well done to everybody involved. A worrying result all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqui d Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 welcome nearly home barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 in theory it should not have happened but todays outcome proves that it can, it is all down to if you are believed on the day, and an acquittal today would not have altered the fact that Barry was held for 16 months. if he had been allowed bail under control order until trial the court would have a good idea as to whether a court order was sufficient as a sentence dependent on if the owner had complied under bail, whereas now after costing the tax payer thousands, he is being released under order on trust having suffered emotionally all this time in solitude. i dont see the sense in it at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 I'm so relieved for Barry and his family that he's finally allowed out of solitary confinement (yet another kennels that obviously haven't got a clue what they are doing!! :mad:), but absolutely horrified that because of this dda he will now be confined for the rest of his life to being on a lead and muzzled outside - poor poor boy And, like you say Mel, thieves can hardly be expected to comply with the dda in order to keep the dog they are nicking safe - again another example of how the law only hits decent people; criminals are criminals because they don't care about the law, other people's property or feelings. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantan Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 I'm so glad he's free. His family must be so relieved. It's dreadful though that he has suffered in the kennels and tax payers money has been wasted like this I hope Barry has no long lasting problems after his long incarceration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 i dont see the sense in it at all There is no sense in it Poor Barry I'm very glad he will be "free" but I'm disgusted he's been held so long AND without any proper handling. I really hope he can recover from this experience. It's not only sad that he's been kenneled in this way for so long but that he will also now have to be kept muzzled and on-lead. Barry is being punished, his owners have/are being punished and who walks away free? Whoever took him in the first place. Looking at the Animal Welfare Act, wouldn't the way Barry has been kept and seemingly emotionally neglected for 16 months be in breach of this? What does the 'duty of care' mean? "Duty of care" is a legal phrase which means that someone has an obligation to do something. Prior to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, people only had a duty to ensure that an animal didn't suffer unnecessarily. The new Act keeps this duty but also imposes a broader duty of care on anyone responsible for an animal to take reasonable steps to ensure that the animal's needs are met. This means that a person has to look after the animal's welfare as well as ensure that it does not suffer. The Act says that an animal's welfare needs include: a suitable environment (how it is housed); a suitable diet (what it eats and drinks); the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease. The duty of care (the need to provide for an animal's welfare) applies to animals for which a person is responsible. A person is responsible for an animal if he or she is: the owner of the animal; in charge of the animal, for example an owner of boarding kennels; a parent or guardian of a person under 16 who is responsible for the animal. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/affect.htm#2 If the dog had been kept in this way by his owner, I feel they could rightly be prosecuted for neglecting their duty of care - why can the kennel owner/those responsible for Barry being kept in this way, not be? Dogs are social creatures - a dog who is kept alone for 16 months is not able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and I would imagine poor Barry has most definitely "suffered". Goodness, who exactly are these laws meant to protect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 There is no sense in it Poor Barry I'm very glad he will be "free" but I'm disgusted he's been held so long AND without any proper handling. I really hope he can recover from this experience. It's not only sad that he's been kenneled in this way for so long but that he will also now have to be kept muzzled and on-lead. Barry is being punished, his owners have/are being punished and who walks away free? Whoever took him in the first place. Looking at the Animal Welfare Act, wouldn't the way Barry has been kept and seemingly emotionally neglected for 16 months be in breach of this? http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/affect.htm#2 If the dog had been kept in this way by his owner, I feel they could rightly be prosecuted for neglecting their duty of care - why can the kennel owner/those responsible for Barry being kept in this way, not be? Dogs are social creatures - a dog who is kept alone for 16 months is not able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and I would imagine poor Barry has most definitely "suffered". Goodness, who exactly are these laws meant to protect yes it would be in breach of this and complaint has been made to both the prosecutors and to the RSPCA this will continue to be persued now that Barry is home. we know who the kennels are and have a number of extremely credible witnesses who can testify to and back up our allegations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 yes it would be in breach of this and complaint has been made to both the prosecutors and to the RSPCA this will continue to be persued now that Barry is home. we know who the kennels are and have a number of extremely credible witnesses who can testify to and back up our allegations Good - everything crossed for the right result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave the dog Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'm very glad he will be "free" but I'm disgusted he's been held so long AND without any proper handling. Agreed. Barry is being punished, his owners have/are being punished and who walks away free? Whoever took him in the first place. I've always got to step in here. If you want someone punished then think Government, use your vote. Think Kennels Owner, they are the ones who agreed to take the dog and 'care' for it. You can't blame whoever 'took him' in the first place. Officers would rarely have any say in where a siezed dog goes, nor would they have much if any opportunity to visit the kennels. Looking at the Animal Welfare Act, wouldn't the way Barry has been kept and seemingly emotionally neglected for 16 months be in breach of this? Yes, think Saddleworth Kennels. It can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I've always got to step in here. If you want someone punished then think Government, use your vote. Think Kennels Owner, they are the ones who agreed to take the dog and 'care' for it.You can't blame whoever 'took him' in the first place. Officers would rarely have any say in where a siezed dog goes, nor would they have much if any opportunity to visit the kennels. Dave, Mel said Barry had been removed/stolen from his home prior to the incident occurring. That's who I was referring to, when I said "whoever took him in the first place". I also said: If the dog had been kept in this way by his owner, I feel they could rightly be prosecuted for neglecting their duty of care - why can the kennel owner/those responsible for Barry being kept in this way, not be? I think my post makes it pretty clear also that I feel the kennel owner should be prosecuted. I haven't mentioned the police at all. I think you've misread my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave the dog Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Dave, Mel said Barry had been removed/stolen from his home prior to the incident occurring. That's who I was referring to, when I said "whoever took him in the first place". I also said: I think my post makes it pretty clear also that I feel the kennel owner should be prosecuted. I haven't mentioned the police at all. I think you've misread my post. I apologise unreservedly. I did think you meant the siezing officer, sorry. As I said, everthing else spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 No worries, just wanted to clarify as I think we are probably in agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 :biggrin: Back Home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantan Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Oh bless him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts