A Fife man has been ordered to pay compensation after his dog latched onto a woman’s pet with a “vice-like grip” and left it with puncture wounds.
Craig Dingwall’s large black and brown Japanese Akita and Neapolitan Mastiff, Dozer, was off lead when it pinned 11-year-old Labrador Rusty to the ground during the attack in Oakley.
A passer-by intervened but could not free the dog.
Dingwall himself eventually prized open his pet’s jaws.
Prized open dog’s jaws
Procurator fiscal depute Azrah Yousaf said the other dog owner was walking Rusty on the lead when she met 49-year-old Dingwall and his dog.
The fiscal depute told Dunfermline Sheriff Court: “As both parties crossed paths, Dozer launched towards Rusty and latched onto him by biting him to the neck with a vice-like grip and pinned the dog to the ground.
“Rusty was yelping in pain and heard by a person who lives in a nearby house”.
Ms Yousaf said this person came out and tried to prize open the animal’s jaws to free the Labrador.
The fiscal continued: “Rusty suffered several puncture marks to the neck and required veterinary intervention”.
Ms Yousaf said the Labrador required a “large amount” of vet treatment which cost more than £1,161.
Police also spoke to Dingwall and he was reported to the dog warden.
Pet destruction legislation
Dingwall, of Old Mill Lane in Oakley, pled guilty to allowing his dog to cause danger or injury to, or give reasonable cause for alarm or annoyance to another.
He admitted his dog, while unsupervised, untethered and unmuzzled, ran towards the woman and her Labrador and seized hold of the dog’s body, pinned it to the ground and failed to desist when a passer-by attempted to prize open its jaws.
The offence took place in Oakley’s Stobie Place on May 31 2021.
It is contrary to Section 49(1) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, headed ‘dangerous and annoying creatures’.
Previously, Dingwall had faced an allegation of being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control, contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Being found guilty under this legislation would have meant his pet facing the possibility of destruction.
However, defence lawyer Elaine Buist explained although the original charge mentioned injury to the person who had intervened, he had said in a statement he had scraped his finger on the dog’s tooth.
Ms Buist said it was clear the dog was not interested in any person.
Dog now muzzled
The solicitor said Dingwall had not seen the beginning of the incident and by the time he did, it was already happening.
Ms Buist said her client, a coachbuilder, has accepted responsibility and said no incident like this has ever happened before or since.
She said Dingwall has taken on board advice from the dog warden to keep his pet muzzled and on the lead.
The lawyer said: “He took it seriously from the incident and was extremely alarmed at the prospect Dozer could be euthanised and I hope the court can accept he has Dozer on a lead and muzzle for other dogs’ safety and for Dozer’s safety as well”.
Sheriff James MacDonald said he understood the maximum sentence under Section 49 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act is a fine of £500 – reflecting the 40-year vintage of that statute.
He sentenced Dingwall to a £500 compensation order to the Labrador owner, remarking that this was “less than half the loss to the complainer”.
Sheriff MacDonald said nothing he had said would prevent the woman from raising a civil action.
