The dog of a Cumbrian woman bit the hand of a delivery driver posting a package through her letterbox.
Paula Dobinson, 54, of Harrington Road, Workington, admitted an offence of being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control when she appeared recently at West Cumbria Magistrates' Court.
Being the owner or otherwise in charge of a dog dangerously out of control is an offence under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The maximum penalty is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.
I have previously written about dangerous dogs and the law.
Magistrates' heard that the driver was injured as he delivered to Dobinson's address on Wednesday, 20th September 2023.
Pamela Fee, prosecuting, told the court that the driver was struggling to push the package through the letterbox so had to use both hands.
He then heard a dog approaching behind the door and felt a bite on his right index finger. Dobison had been asleep inside the property at the time.
The court heard that the driver, who required surgery at Cumberland Royal Infirmary, had to push a piece of bone back into his finger.
In these circumstances, with a person being injured, an aggravated offence has been committed.
That being the case Ms Fee reminded Magistrates that under section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the court must order the destruction of the dog - a 7-year-old German Shepherd by the name of Zeus - unless satisfied that it does not constitute a threat to public safety.
In his victim personal statement, the driver said that the incident had shaken his confidence and left him cautious of dogs.
He had adjusted his working routine to avoid coming into contact with dogs and will no longer approach a door if a dog is present.
However, the man said that he did not blame the dog in question and nor did he wish it to be destroyed. He said that he would like to see Dobison install a letterbox guard and warning signs at her property.
John Cooper, mitigating, said: "She tells me he is usually quite a loud dog. You would normally hear him first. She is very surprised about this.
"He is normally in the kitchen and is normally quite well behaved.
"It's just the nature of someone coming into the house. Fingers were put through the door. The man has had his hand through the letterbox with the parcel which is quite unusual.
"I can't think of a less culpable person that has been put through the court."
Magistrates adjourned sentencing pending the completion of reports and an assessment on Zeus.
Dobison was granted unconditional bail until her next hearing on Monday, 11th March 2024.
Having read the circumstances of this offence, assuming this article paints a complete picture, I have to say that I am rather surprised that colleagues have requested the input of the Probation Service in this case.
On the face of things, I would tend to agree that Dobison's level of culpability is very low. Even if she remembered that a package was due for delivery - and as she was asleep at the time I don't think we can automatically assume she did - I don't think she could have foreseen that:
(a) the driver was going to attempt delivery without somehow attracting her attention and requiring a signature;
(b) the driver was going to exert that much force on the package that his hand followed it all the way through the letterbox.
I also don't think Zeus' reaction to an "alien" object encroaching on his territory as his master slept is any reflection at all on her ability as a dog owner.
Considering the relevant sentencing guideline, I don't think anyone could disagree that the circumstances fall within "Category C - lesser culpability".
It would appear that the driver has sustained a significant injury to his finger and has experienced some degree of psychological harm as a result. If the Bench is of the view that his physical injury and/or psychological harm is serious, then they could view the offence as being "Category 1" in terms harm.
If they have arrived at that view, which I would disagree with (as you might have guessed), I would ask them to consider the level of harm in a case where a dog has mauled a person and bitten them multiple times on their limbs, torso or face. Painful as the driver's injuries may have been, there is no way they are as serious as those I have just described.
I would be inclined to view this offence as "Category 2" in terms of harm, which would give a starting point of a Band C fine and a range between a Band B fine and high level community order.
In the absence of any unreported aggravating factors I would be inclined to impose a fine, even if that meant stepping outside the guidelines slightly. I would not contemplate for one moment the making of a destruction order.
I'll update this article after Dobison is sentenced.
No comments:
Post a Comment