A dog which bit a nine-year-old girl leaving her with permanent facial scarring will not be put down or muzzled, a court ruled this week.
Hector, an eleven-stone caucasian shepherd, bit the girl in the garden of the Long Man of Wilmington Pub during a family day last May, landing his owner Matthew Reah, 56, in the dock facing dangerous dog charges.
Yesterday, Brighton Magistrates Court was told some witnesses told police the girl had simply stroked the dog but others said she had jumped on his back and pulled his ears.
Defence documents seen by the court included a witness statement from Mark Irving, a friend of Reah’s son, who said he had seen the girl do this.
After hearing it would make little difference to the sentence, the bench said it would accept the basis of Reah’s guilty plea, which was that she had jumped on Hector and pulled his ears.
At that point the court, which had several other cases to hear, had already lost more than an hour’s time because its prosecutor had been pulled into another courtroom after a colleague didn’t turn up.
The girl’s parents, who were sat at the back of the courtroom, later told Brighton and Hove News their daughter had not climbed on the dog or pulled its ears.
In a victim impact statement read out in court, the girl’s mother said she has been left with scars to her chin and lip which will probably never fade.
She said she had had to eat nothing but soft cold food for a week, drink through a straw for two more weeks after that, and was taking Calpol every day for two months.
She had been anxious to return to school because people would ask about what happened and she’d have to relive the incident again and again
She said: “Teachers saw a change in her and she was a lot more withdrawn.
“Her attitude to dogs has drastically changed. She has always loved animals, particularly dogs and she’s now extremely fearful of them.
“When we have been walking down the road and she sees a dog, she will move far away from it and keep her eye on it.
“When she visits her grandparents, the dogs have to be put in a separate room.”
Prosecuting, Jon Korani said the Crown was not asking for a destruction order after both a police dog expert and an independent dog expert commissioned by the defence said the dog was not a danger to the wider public.
But they asked for a contingent destruction order, which would require Hector to be muzzled when anywhere a child was likely to come into close contact with him.
The defence’s expert, Helen Howell, was called. She said: “I consider Hector is a really well rounded dog and he behaved in a way that every other dog would in that situation.
“If I suggest that he needed to wear a muzzle in public, I would effectively be saying al dogs need to be muzzled in public.”
She added: “Since the incident in question, there have been no other incidents that I’m aware of.”
The court was not told about a report made to police in July last year, before Ms Howell’s report was written, in which Hector was said to have broken out of Mr Reah’s mother’s garden in Warmdene Avenue and attacked a passer-by and his dog.
Sussex Police said the investigation was later dropped because of a lack of support from the victim.
Ms Howell said the most likely explanation was that Hector’s ears were already painful, and he reacted to the girl pulling them.
She said: “This incident could happen to anybody. You don’t always know that our dogs are suffering from pain because they can’t tell us. It could happen to any dog.”
Defending, Samuel March asked her if a warning jacket or bandana would be as restrictive to Hector as a muzzle. She said: “That wouldn’t be invasive at all. I am sure Hector would be bothered at all.”
Cross examining, Mr Korani said: “If the defence are putting a warning jacket forward as a genuine suggestion, there must be a risk, and if there’s a risk then it’s appropriate for the court to [order a muzzle].”
The court heard Reah has two previous convictions, one from more than 30 years ago and the other a public order offence from 2016. This was from when he shouted racist and misogynistic abuse at a traffic warden in Preston Park Avenue.
In mitigation, Mr March said: “My client is a self-employed builder. There have been some extremely negative press articles about him which have led to threats and comments such as ‘put the owner down’.
“It’s had a significant effect with his business and with his neighbours. Both he and his mother are selling their houses and are jointly downsizing to a house outside the area where he is going to start his business afresh.”
Sentencing, the bench said: “Both experts agree the dog doesn’t have a history of this sort of thing.
“But there was significant harm and it was quite nasty for the girl involved nd it’s taken her weeks and months to recover from that.
“We have listened to various arguments and we feel that the middle ground option of wearing a Do Not Pet collar is going to be the most appropriate way to deal with a dog which both sides are saying doesn’t present a danger to the public, generally speaking.”
Reah, of Braybon Avenue, was given a 12-month community order, with a requirement to undertake 60 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay a £114 victim surcharge, £85 court costs and £400 in compensation to the girl.
Hector will have to wear some kind of jacket or collar with words to the effect of “do not touch” clearly written on it at all times when he’s in public for five years – except when he’s in a private vehicle.
Obviously the scores of reports to the police via Ivan Tickner about Hector randomly attacking other dogs. Some resulting in wounds to the dogs and traumatising their owners, have not been passed on for consideration to the courts. I understand the gentleman who was attacked outside the owners house by Hector did not withdraw his report and was advised by the police that they would take no action as they considered it a “dog on dog” attack. Mr Reahs plea that people are having a go at him is probably true because people are sick and tired of his very rude and abusive behaviour towards anyone who suggests he should control his dog. I have lost all faith in the police and courts.
Lack of logic all in one place, pub, booze, noise, dog and kids mixing freely, should be ok but sometimes ,,,,,,
I am absolutely appalled by the decision made today.
This dog and owner are a serious liability.
There have been numerous incident reports sent to the police with regards to great concerns over this dog.
Mr Rhea can hardly restrain this dog and it hasn’t even reached full maturity. I have been on the receiving end of this dogs threatening behaviour and received vile abuse from the owner.
This is a serious accident waiting to happen, I hope those who have made the decision to allow this dog out in public with no muzzle or leash can live with themselves when something tragically happens – a visible jacket is not going to keep children, people or their dogs safe!
Shame on the police, courts and behaviourist.
I for one am very angry about this decision I have too dogs Ronnie and Reggie and both my are too nice for their own good Hector has bit Reggie and drawn blood. I live two doors down from Hector and fear leaving my house just in case he’s around I have more to say on this subject if only the police would listen cheers
Reference this article being the person who was attacked by the dog , Hector and who’s dogs were also attacked, I was asked to give a telephone statement by the police an appointment was made but no call came through to me. three or so days later I received a call from the police stating no further action was to be taken due to the situation being a dog on dog attack at no point did I refuse to make a statement which the police asked me to undertake, and the article stating I refused to support the police on this matter is completely untrue it was the police who would not Continue with the statement they had initially requested. I do not want the dog destroyed but I would like the dog muzzled in public at all times I strongly disagree with the dog behaviourists statement that the dog is ok with other dogs and people I spoke with the behaviourist about my incident and she knew nothing about it and told me she was very angry no one had informed her of the incident. The attack happened two days before the first court hearing so she had ample time to take this information forward but obviously declined to raise this with the police or the court. I am very angry this statement has been made in this report, full support was offered to the police in the form of the requested statement but it was the police who decided not to Pursue the statement.
Hmm, I understand the reasoning for this decision. The moral of the story, is don’t like your child near dogs you aren’t familiar with. Or ride them. Or pull their ears specifically.