A sheriff has criticised dangerous dogs legislation after finding a Dundee woman not guilty of failing to control her dog, despite it having attacked a woman and a child.
Robina Caesar walked free from court after Sheriff Alastair Brown ruled that, according to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there was no evidence of reasonable grounds to suggest she could have anticipated the attack would happen.
The elderly woman had denied that, on August 22 last year, at Frederick Street, she was in charge of a German shepherd named Glen which was dangerously out of control.
The charge alleged the dog attacked Claire Kerwin and a child and repeatedly bit them on the body to their injury.
Ms Kerwin told the court how the dog lunged at and bit the child before she was able to pull the youngster to safety.
As she did so, she said, the dog started biting her.
She told the court: “My first thought was for (the child). I didn’t think about my own safety.”
Mrs Caesar declined to give evidence on her own behalf and solicitor Andrew Lyall said there was no corroboration of evidence there was reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure someone.
Sheriff Brown said: “Since very shortly after 1991 courts have been expressing concerns about the drafting of the act. It is ill-drafted and parts of it still make no sense.
“On the face of it the section says if the dog is dangerously out of control then the person in charge of it is guilty.”
However, he pointed out that the appeal court in Scotland in 1995 ruled there must be “reasonable apprehension” on the part of the owner that the dog would attack someone.
“This is not a case about corroboration the question is whether there was any evidence that there were grounds that the dog would injure anybody.
“There is a dog that was barking that’s all there was. Mrs Caesar was shocked and distressed at what happened.”
He said for the charge to be proven it required some sort of awareness that something was about to happen and Mrs Caesar then allowed that to happen.
“But there was no evidence that this lady did that. It is at least unfortunate that Parliament has still not responded to criticism of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, although the legislation has been amended.”