UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Eleventh Hour Plea To Save Death Row Dog-bruce


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kennel Club Response:

 

Many thanks for your email.

 

The DDA (1991) was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. The 1997 Act removed the mandatory destruction order provisions of the 1991 Act by giving the courts discretion on sentencing, and re-opened the Index of Exempted Dogs for those prohibited dogs which the courts consider would not pose a risk to the public. The Amendment applies to owners in England, Wales and Scotland and in many cases has literally proved to be a lifeline to many dogs and their owners.

 

Unfortunately this Amendment is not extended to Northern Ireland. We do not understand why a pit bull type dog (based purely on its looks) in one part of the UK is regarded as more of a danger than the same dog would pose in another part.

 

 

Ultimately the Kennel Club wants new legislation but as the government in Westminster seems unwilling to review the current DDA, we will push for the 1997 Amendment to apply in Northern Ireland- we encourage all dog owners in Northern Ireland to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NI Assembly Member:

 

McFarland's office is being very helpful and has been in contact with the Council and the owner, they have received a lot of emails :) and are making enquires to see what can be done.

 

Well done everyone who is sending letters :flowers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got the following:

 

North Down Borough Council has received a number of emails from members of the public in relation to the pit-bull terrier type dog, Bruce.

 

The statement below seeks to address the concerns raised in these emails.

 

Thank you for your interest,

 

Kind regards

 

Background

On 17 September 2007, Council received a complaint that a dangerous dog was being kept in the Borough. Council has a statutory responsibility to act on all such complaints.

 

After an initial check by Council Enforcement Officers, a warrant to enter the premises where the dog was being housed and to seize the dog for further inspection was obtained (19 September 2007).

 

The dog, named Bruce, was then taken to the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA), who confirmed that, in their opinion, it was a pit-bull terrier type. The Council’s Veterinary Surgeon and an expert witness, Madeline Forsyth, concurred with this opinion.

 

Article 25 (A) of the Dogs (NI) Order 1983 as amended by the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991, makes it illegal to have any such dog in one’s possession or custody.

 

Legal action was brought against the dog’s keeper, Shannon Brown. The case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2008. The Resident Magistrate found, in a written judgement, that the dog was a pit-bull terrier type and ordered its destruction. Ms Brown, as the keeper, was fined £100. No costs were awarded to the Council.

 

Ms Brown subsequently appealed the destruction order. There was no appeal made against the Judge’s ruling that Bruce is a pit-bull terrier type dog.

 

The appeal was heard on 5/6 March 2009. The Judge was minded to use her discretion under the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001— that is, if she considered the dog would not be a danger to the public then it did not have to be destroyed. The Judge determined that if Ms Brown gave an undertaking to the Court to comply with certain conditions then her dog would be released back to her care.

 

The Court considered this a suitable approach as all parties accepted that 1) Bruce is of the pit-bull type and 2) he has overall a pleasant temperament.

 

Ms Brown appeared in Court on 6 March and agreed to the following conditions:

That she would obtain public liability insurance for the dog.

That secure kennelling would be provided to the satisfaction of the Council.

That the dog would be neutered. This was to be arranged by the Council at Ms Brown’s expense.

That the dog would never be in the company of children.

That the dog would be muzzled and kept on a lead when in a public place.

 

She was given 14 days to comply with the conditions.

 

The matter returned to Court on a number of occasions with further legal argument but finally on 29 June it was determined that, as the owner of the dog had failed to comply with the undertakings given to the Court, the destruction order would be upheld.

The Court gave a 7-day stay before the dog could be destroyed.

 

On 2 July 2009 Ms Brown sought to judicially review the Court’s decision. This was adjourned pending the defence lodging an appeal.

We are now awaiting the appeal decision. The dog remains in kennels and under Council control.

 

Council has facilitated a number of visits for Ms Brown to her dog during the time Bruce has been in kennelling. We will endeavour to continue to this practice as we await the appeal decision.

 

Health of the Dog

Concern has been raised about the condition of the dog.

 

When first seized, Bruce was placed in kennels controlled by the USPCA and under the care of their vet. The dog became distressed at being confined and lost weight. It also injured its nose and tail due to rubbing against the cage.

 

The vet treated the dog and in the end had to remove part of his tail.

 

At present Council has been advised that Bruce is in good health and condition.

 

 

Removal of the Dog to The South of Ireland

It was raised during the appeal to the County Court that an offer had been made for the dog to be relocated to the South of Ireland where pit-bull terriers are not illegal.

 

Whilst the Court was initially interested in this proposal, in her summing up and before confirming the destruction order, the Judges indicated that she could not make a ruling for the dog to be transferred to another location where she had no jurisdiction, especially since Ms Brown had failed to appear.

 

Claire Jackson

Corporate Communications Officer

North Down Borough Council

Tel: (028) 9127 8052

Mob: 07971 953507

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

WHAT can I say to that??

 

Sarah :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12,000 join global campaign to save dog court ruled is illegal pit-bull

By Diana Rusk

08/07/2009

 

 

DOGGED DEBATE: Shannon Brown’s dog Bruce who a court has ordered should be destroyed after determining the dog is a pit-bull, an illegal breed. Ms Brown maintains her dog is a Staffordshire-Bull terrier, inset

DOG lovers across the world have backed a Co Down woman’s two-year legal battle to stop her pet ‘pit-bull’ from being destroyed.

 

Shannon Brown’s dog Bruce was seized from its home in Bangor by North Down Borough Council wardens in September 2007 and has been in kennels ever since.

 

A district judge last year determined the animal was a pit-bull – an illegal breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act – and ordered the

 

animal be put down.

 

Despite the dog’s owner lodging an appeal in the case, the original ruling was upheld in Belfast Magistrate’s Court last Monday and it was ordered that the dog be destroyed within a week.

 

Ms Brown (20) then applied for a judicial review, which was dismissed but she has been given until Monday to appeal the decision in a last ditch attempt to save the animal.

 

It is understood the court has ruled that the animal does not pose a risk to the public.

 

Almost 12,000 people from all over the globe have signed an online petition to ‘Bring Bruce Home’ and protests have been organised in America with news channel CNN covering the case.

 

Northern Ireland is unique in Britain and Ireland because all animals a court decides are pit-bull types must be destroyed.

 

Ms Brown last night insisted her pet was not dangerous.

 

“He has never harmed anyone,†she said.

 

“We found Bruce as a puppy in a cardboard box on Albert Street in Bangor and he was just over two years old when he was seized.

 

“I have always maintained that he is not a pit-bull but that he is a Staffordshire-Bull Terrier.

 

“He lived with me and my partner’s child, who was three years old, and a Labrador and never caused any harm to either of them.

 

“I understand pit-bulls being used for fighting would be a danger but this was a family pet who was never abused in any way.â€

 

She said a dog sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland where pit-bulls are a legal breed, has offered to provide a home to Bruce.

 

Ms Brown said she would be “heartbroken†if her pet is destroyed and hopes international support for her case can add pressure.

 

“The response has been brilliant and crazy and completely unexpected,†she said.

 

“There are signatures from all over the world – Italy, South Africa, China, everywhere – protests have been held in America over Bruce and CNN has covered it.â€

 

David Brown from North Down Borough Council said wardens were carrying out their duty when they seized the dog on 19 September 2007 after reports that the animal was an illegal breed.

 

However, he agreed the legislation around dangerous dogs in Northern Ireland is “not fit for purposeâ€.

 

“The judges don’t like it. We don’t like it and we hope the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will soon clarify the legislation,†he said.

 

“We have been inundated with hundreds of emails and telephone calls from around the world in this case.â€

 

Dangerous dog legislation

 

- Northern Ireland is the only place in Britain and Ireland where dogs found to be of the pit-bull type must be destroyed under legislation

 

- Pit-bulls are one of four dogs banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

 

- In 1997 an amendment to the Act was accepted in England, Scotland and Wales removing the mandatory destruction order for illegal breeds if the court accepts the animal does not pose a risk to the public

 

- These dogs are entered on to the Index of Exempted Dogs instead of being destroyed

 

- However, the amendment was never extended to Northern Ireland

 

- The case is even more clear cut in the Republic where no breeds are banned and some dog sanctuaries operating there give homes to pit-bulls from the north

 

- Legislation is being reviewed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

 

- On November 20 2007, agriculture minister Michelle Gildernew announced a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act and dog fighting legislation

 

- She has held meetings with the PSNI and representatives of District Councils to consider what action should be taken but no decisions have yet been made

 

- In March she said she would present a bill to the assembly after the summer recess

 

- It is the responsibility of district councils to enforce the act even though many dog wardens have been calling for amendments to be made to the legislation

 

- The maximum penalty for owning a banned dog type is six months imprisonment or a £5,000 fine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

"We have been inundated with hundreds of emails and telephone calls from around the world in this case.â€

 

Good and there's plenty more to come because we are not giving up on this dog whilst he still breathes!

 

Keep emailing and fighting for Bruce, he deserves to live, he has done nothing wrong and has been locked away for neary two years, this law belongs in the DARK AGES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just received my copy of this mail-out:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

 

Thank you for your correspondence asking the Secretary of State to intervene to prevent Bruce the dog being destroyed.

 

 

 

Dog control in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, for which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) have responsibility. Consequently there is no role for the Secretary of State in this issue. Your correspondence has been forwarded to DARD.

 

 

 

Andy Monaghan

 

Assistant Private Secretary

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two positive replies received from Lady Hermon - MP for North Down:

 

 

Dear Amanda,

 

Please be assured that I’ll do all I can to help raise Bruce’s plight with the relevant authorities.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Sylvia H

Lady Hermon MP

House of Commons

London, SW1A 0AA

 

 

Dear Amanda

 

Thank you so much for your recent e-mail and I’m sorry I’m only now responding. As a dog owner myself, my heart aches at the thought of Bruce being put to sleep, especially when he has been offered a ‘safe haven’ in Galway.

 

I’ll certainly make sure your concerns are raised with the local Department for Agriculture & Rural Development and North Down Borough Council in order to see what they can do to help save Bruce.

 

 

Kindest regards,

 

 

Sylvia H.

 

 

Stephen Knott

Office of Lady Hermon MP

House of Commons

London, SW1A 0AA

Edited by kola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reading Sarah EGAR's posts, including this quote from North Down Borough Council:

 

From: Claire Jackson, Corporate Communications Officer, North Down Borough Council

 

Legal action was brought against the dog's keeper, Shannon Brown. The case was heard in the Magistrates' Court on 27 August 2008. The Resident Magistrate found, in a written judgement, that the dog was a pit-bull terrier type and ordered its destruction. Ms Brown, as the keeper, was fined £100. No costs were awarded to the Council.

 

Ms Brown subsequently appealed the destruction order. There was no appeal made against the Judge's ruling that Bruce is a pit-bull terrier type dog.

 

The appeal was heard on 5/6 March 2009. The Judge was minded to use her discretion under the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001— that is, if she considered the dog would not be a danger to the public then it did not have to be destroyed. The Judge determined that if Ms Brown gave an undertaking to the Court to comply with certain conditions then her dog would be released back to her care.

 

The Court considered this a suitable approach as all parties accepted that 1) Bruce is of the pit-bull type and 2) he has overall a pleasant temperament.

 

Ms Brown appeared in Court on 6 March and agreed to the following conditions:

That she would obtain public liability insurance for the dog.

That secure kennelling would be provided to the satisfaction of the Council.

That the dog would be neutered. This was to be arranged by the Council at Ms Brown's expense.

That the dog would never be in the company of children.

That the dog would be muzzled and kept on a lead when in a public place.

 

She was given 14 days to comply with the conditions.

 

The matter returned to Court on a number of occasions with further legal argument but finally on 29 June it was determined that, as the owner of the dog had failed to comply with the undertakings given to the Court, the destruction order would be upheld.

The Court gave a 7-day stay before the dog could be destroyed.

 

On 2 July 2009 Ms Brown sought to judicially review the Court's decision. This was adjourned pending the defence lodging an appeal.

We are now awaiting the appeal decision. The dog remains in kennels and under Council control.

 

A lot of the conditions are in line with the amendment, but the kenneling and not being in the company of children aren't - when would the owner have been expected to keep Bruce kenneled? How could a young woman ensure Bruce was never in the company of children? I read earlier that he had previously lived with his owner's partner's young child and another dog. Why impose these conditions on a dog who everyone seems to agree has a "pleasant temperament" :(

 

Again from: Claire Jackson, Corporate Communications Officer, North Down Borough Council

 

Removal of the Dog to The South of Ireland

It was raised during the appeal to the County Court that an offer had been made for the dog to be relocated to the South of Ireland where pit-bull terriers are not illegal.

 

Whilst the Court was initially interested in this proposal, in her summing up and before confirming the destruction order, the Judges indicated that she could not make a ruling for the dog to be transferred to another location where she had no jurisdiction, especially since Ms Brown had failed to appear.

 

Do we know why the owner didn't appear at court? Is this decision that the dog can not be moved to Ireland now set in stone?

 

Sorry for all the questions, I have been emailing, but am confused :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing is set in stone whilst there is an appeal ongoing, we should know more shortly

 

a lot of work is going on 'behind scenes' regarding the legalities

 

Amanda x

 

 

:laugh: youre not wrong there

 

in answer to why non attendance ange i believe there were very good reasons

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...